Ruger Info


PDA






xjchief
September 3, 2007, 10:30 AM
I've never owned a Ruger other than a 10/22 which is a great little gun. I've been thinking about buying a .357 and wondered if anybody had any insight into their revolvers. I've read good things, just wonder why the prices are so much lower.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Info" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ohen Cepel
September 3, 2007, 10:33 AM
They make great stuff! Not as "refined" as Smith. However, function is as good or better. Plus, they are built like tanks and are very durable.

I would lean towards a Ruger now just to avoid the Smith lock. I have many Ruger SA's and really enjoy them. I haven't bought a new DA since Smith did the lock fiasco or it would have been a Ruger.

sig226
September 3, 2007, 10:39 AM
Ruger uses investment casting to make the major parts for the guns. This is easier and cheaper than machining a part from a billet of steel. Although there are problems with cast frames cracking in the AR rifles, I've never heard of a Ruger frame failing due to a design defect (should say casting defect) in 11 years of selling firearms.

The extra work in the Smith and Wesson will make a difference in accuracy, but the difference is small. If you're not planning to shoot a pistol match, you'll never notice it.

Buy the Ruger if it fills your needs. It's a great product.

mike101
September 3, 2007, 10:44 AM
I've had 3 stainless Rugers, so far. Two DA .357's, and an Old Army. I also have a Mark II .22 semi-auto. I love 'em. They ARE built like tanks, and are very easy to break down for a thorough cleaning (the revolvers, that is. The Mark II is a pain in the butt to break down). They may not be quite as refined as a S&W, but for not much money, you could send it out to a smith and have it all slicked up. Most people don't find it necessary, though.

Go for it! You will never be sorry that you bought a Ruger. :)

Ala Dan
September 3, 2007, 10:51 AM
What type of Ruger .357 are you look'in to buy; a double-action [like the
GP100/SP101], or one of their fine single-actions [like the Vaquero or the
50th Anniversary Blackhawk] models? A long time ago, (sometime in the
mid 70's) a Ruger factory rep told me that all Ruger's were proof tested
with loads that run 30% above normal factory ammo. This was during a
demonstration of "how tuff" the Blackhawk .357 and Super Blackhawk
.44 magnums were made. I don't know if this still holds true, since an
above poster stated that Ruger has turned to investment castings? :eek:

The Lone Haranguer
September 3, 2007, 10:53 AM
They make great stuff! Not as "refined" as Smith. However, function is as good or better. Plus, they are built like tanks and are very durable.

I think you will find this to be the general consensus everywhere.

I've had some myself. The little SP101 is the only small-frame revolver that is truly shootable with magnums, IMO. I had a GP100 that was very accurate and reliable. It actually has a stronger cylinder lockup and frame construction (as there is no cutout for a sideplate) than the S&Ws. The trigger action is not as smooth as Smiths, but is adequate. Be sure to let the trigger return fully forward when shooting double-action.

If you want a Ruger double-action that is in between the little SP and the rather large/bulky (for concealed carry) GP, used "-Sixes" -- i.e., the Security-Six, Police Service-Six and Speed-Six -- are relatively abundant. And if you want a gun for handgun hunting or cowboy shooting -- or just plain like them -- and don't need double-action, there are the single-action Blackhawks and Vaqueros.

W.E.G.
September 3, 2007, 10:57 AM
Great guns functionally.

Horrible grafitti job by the lawyers on the side of all the guns.

Z71
September 3, 2007, 11:04 AM
I have a 1976 Service-Six .357 mag and my wife has a SP101 .357 thats quite a bit newer. I own several .22 single-six revolvers. Rugers are great! About as tough a pistol as ever made. Always accurate, and never broken.

22-rimfire
September 3, 2007, 11:54 AM
You won't go wrong with a Ruger in general. For starter 357, I would go with the GP100 unless you are set on trying to conceal it; then go with the SP101.

DMZ
September 3, 2007, 12:02 PM
I use my 4" stainless GP100 as a primary afield carry gun. It is a rock solid .357 that doesn't mind getting wet or going uncleaned for a time.

It is on DMZ's short Best Value for a Revolver list.

Maddock
September 3, 2007, 01:24 PM
Aladan: I don't know if this still holds true, since an above poster stated that Ruger has turned to investment castings?
Ruger has been using investment castings for around 50 years. They have held many patents in high precision casting. Ruger Investment Castings (RIC) and Pinetree Casting (a wholly owned subsidiary) are industry leaders producing products from aerospace jet engine parts to titanium golf clubs. Since Ruger guns were designed from the ground up using this technology, rather than trying to adopt it to other designs, they are able to take advantage of itís strengths while avoiding (mostly) itís shortcomings.

glockman19
September 3, 2007, 02:37 PM
Get the GP100/SP101. They are great guns.

campbell
September 3, 2007, 04:35 PM
All my Rugers have been excellent. In my experience the limited runs are especially good. Two of the best production revolvers I've owned or handled are my wife's 4'' GP100 in target gray and my stainless Acusport Bisley.

If you're thinking of getting a .357, a 4'' GP is a sweet platform.

Walkalong
September 3, 2007, 04:38 PM
I sure like all of mine. :D

smee781
September 3, 2007, 08:16 PM
I would go with the 4" Ruger security six if you can find one, great balance and handles well. Pretty low price compared to a new gun and it is built like a tank.

Jim March
September 3, 2007, 09:12 PM
A long time ago, (sometime in the mid 70's) a Ruger factory rep told me that all Ruger's were proof tested with loads that run 30% above normal factory ammo. This was during a demonstration of "how tuff" the Blackhawk .357 and Super Blackhawk .44 magnums were made.

That makes sense if we're talking about their SA centerfire line in that period.

Starting in '73 Ruger took the unusual step of simplifying their product line such that ALL single action centerfires were built on a "44magnum class" frame - same as the SuperBlackHawk. And they built "lesser caliber guns" to the same strength grade, same heat-treat, etc.

So in 45LC you had an enormously strong gun that could take "44Magnum-class power". That led to the "Ruger ONLY!!!" 45LC+P loads.

In 357 you had "the gun that could not be killed", or close to it :). Only abnormally stupid handloading could blow one up.

And you could take that 357, ream the cylinder, swap barrels and convert it to 44Mag or beyond any time you wanted to.

Ruger now ships a couple of SAs built on a "mid-frame" or "357-class frame": the New Vaquero and 50th Anniversary 357 Blackhawk. These are REALLY nice guns and can take any factory 357 ammo, but the New Vaq in 45LC should be fed the same loads a Colt SAA 2nd/3rd gen can take, avoiding the "45+P" fodder.

What else...the GP100 DA is hell-for-stout. The SP101 holds the title of "world's strongest 5-shot snubby"...also the heaviest :) but that's the tradeoff, ain't it?

Warning labels are migrating to the BOTTOMS of the barrels instead of the sides. Thank God.

There are no "bad" Ruger revolvers. The Alaskan in 454 and 480 are kinda silly :) and the "Ruger480" caliber doesn't seem to have worked out - all new specimens are discontinued.

The lifetime repair policy ain't bad - and they don't even ask if you're the original owner. If it's an older gun and you obviously bunged it up, they'll fix it for cheap. If there's even a hint it was their fault, no matter how long ago, change that to "free".

---

Only caveat: while QC of late has been quite good, these are still mass-produced guns. I will not buy one "sight unseen" and I will always run "the checkout" (see stickied thread).

I'm a very satisfied owner of a New Vaquero in 357, now somewhat modified to my taste: SuperBlackHawk hammer dropped straight in and reduced hammer reach, spring kit, improved sights and a bit of psych warfare on the ejector rod head :). BUT the gun shot perfectly out of the box after being one of THREE at the dealer that all passed checkout perfectly. This one got picked for it's unusual all-smoky-gray "fake case color job".

http://www.equalccw.com/vaqhawk.jpg

fallingblock
September 4, 2007, 12:05 AM
There are no "bad" Ruger revolvers.
The Alaskan in 454 and 480 are kinda silly

I agree completely with the first statement -
with the caveat you mentioned that some
individual Rugers can be a bit 'badder' than others.

I'd have thought the "Alaskan" in .454 would make a
great .45 snubby.:D

It's only 1 1/2 oz. heavier than the 4" GP-100 and
from what some folks tell me is pretty sleek with
the small "fixed sight" grips.:)

DWARREN123
September 4, 2007, 04:23 AM
The working persons revolver, might not look as fine but shoots as good.

Jim March
September 4, 2007, 06:37 AM
If you want a snub-nose handcannon, go for it :). Not my idea of fun :D.

P. Plainsman
September 4, 2007, 08:07 PM
I like the Alaskans. Every time I handle the .44 Mag version I think, hmm, it'd be nice to have one of these ... but I couldn't tell you why.

I don't hunt; occasionally hike. Never near anything that couldn't be smartly handled with a .357.

Maybe it's just that I like the Super Redhawk action, and the Alaskan's comfy grip, and it's a pleasure to handle them on a gun that weighs under 3 lbs. empty.

Average Joe
September 4, 2007, 08:10 PM
I have 3 Rugers, they are real workhorses, and made to last.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Info" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!