Ruger Distaste


PDA






Blue Brick
November 2, 2012, 09:23 PM
After reading some current and archived threads why is there such a distaste for Ruger revolvers? Ruger revolvers are not substandard, entry level or budget revolvers and are built stronger and are better designed than any other production revolver. Ruger undeniably makes the strongest revolvers.


Go to the library and check out “Ruger and his guns”.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Distaste" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mhuxtable
November 2, 2012, 09:26 PM
I have an SP101 and have shot the GP100....I'd put them up next to my 686 any day. Ruger is one of the best and most affordable gun makers today. Their quality is great and their customer service is amazing.

BYJO4
November 2, 2012, 09:28 PM
While I personally prefer S&W revolvers, Ruger makes an excellent firearm. Based on their sales, it appears to me that alot of folks appreciate their guns.

jmr40
November 2, 2012, 09:28 PM
You must have read much different posts than I have. There may be an occasional disgruntled owner, but overall Rugers are very well thought of.

Fishslayer
November 2, 2012, 09:32 PM
After reading some current and archived threads why is there such a distaste for Ruger revolvers? Ruger revolvers are not substandard, entry level or budget revolvers and are built stronger and are better designed than any other production revolver. Ruger undeniably makes the strongest revolvers.


Go to the library and check out “Ruger and his guns”.

So... how long ya been working for Ruger? :evil:

Kinda like Glocks, not so much the gun itself but a good portion of the fanboiz tend to be some really annoying jackwagons.

FWIW I have a number of Rugers in the safe and am a metal frame P series fanboi myself.

No Ruger wheelguns tho. I prefer the older S&W. I would take a new Ruger over most of the new S&W offerings tho.

I AM in the market for a 3 screw .44 Magnum SBH if ya know where I can find one. ;)

Blue Brick
November 2, 2012, 09:33 PM
So... how long ya been working for Ruger?


I wish.....

motorcycle-charlie
November 2, 2012, 09:43 PM
Nothing wrong with Ruger. My sp101 is as tough as they come and also about as heavy as a 5 shot can be, but I still love it. Won't sell it, but at the same time doesn't get carried nearly as much as my Airweight or model 36. The Ruger fits my hand perfectly but My Smiths stay in place better when I run the trigger. I can hit better repeatedly with them. I think it all just comes down to what you are most comfortable with.

MedWheeler
November 2, 2012, 10:16 PM
It's not "distaste for Rugers".. it's just more adoration (some of which might be hype) of the other two brands.. I think Ruger revolvers are pretty respected here.

R.W.Dale
November 2, 2012, 10:59 PM
Ima ruger fan for sure.

But I have a serious gripe about their 6shot DA revolvers

They're just too damn heavy and if I want a lighter one I have to go to a s&w

Ruger DA wheel guns excluding the lcr snubby are throwbacks to the dark ages before ccw when nobody cared how much a handgun weighed. Where is the ruger alternative to a 386 Smith?




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

HOOfan_1
November 2, 2012, 11:10 PM
Kinda like Glocks, not so much the gun itself but a good portion of the fanboiz tend to be some really annoying jackwagons.


I stayed away from Glock for many years because of the fanboyism. I now have one and love it, but I am still not a fanboy, I don't think it is the best auto around.

I don't think I have encountered many Ruger fanboys...I encounter more anti-rugerites...and they usually act in the manner of which you are speaking.

22-rimfire
November 2, 2012, 11:17 PM
Don't know what you are reading about Ruger Revolvers relative to quality. Most comments are pretty positive. I am not a big fan of the huge Super Redhawk, but I own one. The GP-100 is a fine revolver. No complaints. So what exactly are you reading?

Or do you just want folks to sing Ruger's praise? I personally prefer S&W and Colt DA revolvers, but I respect Rugers.

BCRider
November 2, 2012, 11:37 PM
I don't know where you're seeing all this anti-Rugerism. It's not what I've seen around here where Rugers are often recomended and pretty much universally loved by their owners.

I know that I've got an every increasing number of Ruger handguns and I chose them for their well known reputation for great quality at a "working man's" price point.

Having said that I still prefer my S&W triggers among my double action revolvers. But the Rugers I have are not going anywhere in a hurry.

firesky101
November 3, 2012, 12:12 AM
The only Ruger hate I ever see is related to Bill's politics. He is not in charge anymore, but some people don't give second chances. I love me some Ruger firearms. IMO the best firearm company out there.

silvermane_1
November 3, 2012, 12:15 AM
ruger: the only wheelgun that when you run out of ammo, you can use it as a blunt object to beat the BG with and not hurt the gun. lol
BTW i love my .357 Security Six.

DaisyCutter
November 3, 2012, 12:33 AM
I prefer Ruger revolvers and rimfires, best value and excelpent performance IMO.

I dislike Ruger autopistols and centerfire rifles. I've had personal less than adequate experiences with a P89 and Mini-14. They worked okay, but not something I truly trusted. They were sold.

Have a Super Blackhawk, Redhawk, MK2, and 10/22.

skidder
November 3, 2012, 12:46 AM
But I have a serious gripe about their 6shot DA revolvers

They're just too damn heavy and if I want a lighter one I have to go to a s&w
A valid gripe.

That is why I chose the Security Six. According to Wiki the 4" model 19 weighs 36 oz. I just weighed my 4" Security Six and it weighs 34.5 oz.

Smith and Wesson did the same thing. The model 19/66 was slowly phased out. The 4" 686 predecessor ,according to Wiki, weighs 42 oz.

The revolver became a back-seat to the wonder 9. Why spend the extra money to machine a convenient carry weight when you can save production cost by just adding bulk? So goes the death of the "Six" and the "19/66".:(

The k-frame is still my favorite, but unfortunately if you want a new 6-shot 357, the L-frame and the GP are the primary options.

contender
November 3, 2012, 01:06 AM
I will give two examples.

1. At the International Revolver Championships this year held in California, as I understand it there were 241 contestants. Of those there were 240 Smith shooters and exactly 1 Ruger shooter. That to me is an example of the preference for the Smith trigger plus more models offered by Smith.

2. If I was forced to own one revolver for the rest of my life with no possibility of spare parts or a gunsmith to be available.....it would be a Ruger.

asia331
November 3, 2012, 01:21 AM
Don't work for Ruger..wouldn't mind doing so; and while they are the "home team" I own Rugers because they have proven to be reliable, durable and a superb value for money expended with Customer Service second to none.

CCantu357
November 3, 2012, 01:25 AM
I am unaware of any taste in Ruger sixguns. Long time Smith fan here but until they get rid of the lock, any new revolver I get will be most likely Ruger.

bruzer
November 3, 2012, 01:35 AM
I've read some of the gripes about Bill Ruger. Then I think to myself, "An American business man that kept his company in America."
The Wife bought me one of them Ruger's many years ago. It was used and a screw fell out of it one day. Found a number on the internet to call and a very nice lady from Ruger sent me out a brand new screw at no charge.
That's all I got to say about that.
Good luck and stay safe,
Mike

CCantu357
November 3, 2012, 01:39 AM
Forgot about the Bill Ruger gripes. He stated his point of view, it never affected his weapons. From what I know about him he was damn good gun maker and gave quality American products to good people at a fair price. In fact since he passed some of Ruger's new guns make me wonder....Sorry to rant I just get mad when people bad mouth the man!

41 Mag
November 3, 2012, 02:20 AM
I HATE my Rugers. They have cost me hundreds and hundreds of dollars. I mean really!!

I have had to add another set of dies for each one I purchased in a different caliber, plus brass, powders, and a multitude of different bullets for each caliber, simply so I could be sure I found the best loads for each. Not to mention once I got into casting, having to pick up this, that, and the other molds, plus lead to pour into them.

As for the rifles, well I cannot comment on the auto loaders, I haven't quite made that jump just yet even though I have been tempted many times. I DO however have several of their bolt actions and have not found any issues with them what so ever. One of the best rifles I have is a Ruger Compact in .308, and I would guess that it gets around 98% of my attention anymore. It might look like a sawed off kids rifle, but it has accounted for MANY pounds of feral pork int he freezer and even a couple of nice deer.

Heck if I didn't have my Rugers, there ain't no telling how much I might have spent on other things I didn't need. :what:

GP100man
November 3, 2012, 05:25 AM
I`m not biased , I like all Rugers .

plateshooter
November 3, 2012, 05:48 AM
It's all good. Enjoy all of the brands. Look for what is right with them instead of always looking for what's wrong. Get some of each and enjoy the differences.

motorcycle-charlie
November 3, 2012, 08:52 AM
Nothing wrong with Rugers autos either. I have an SR 9 that has been great. I like it much better than the Glock I had. It has been 100% reliable for me and holds a bucket of bullets. It was a great value for me.

Sam1911
November 3, 2012, 08:54 AM
Ruger revolvers are quite well respected here.

Their DAs aren't as pretty and classic looking as the Colt and Smith models.

Ruger's adoption of their cast manufacturing processes makes them heavier and a bit less artful than the Colt and Smith guns, for the same strength.

They killed off the S...-Six models in favor of the GP, which most consider a step in completely the wrong direction.

Their Redhawk SHOULD be a strong competitor for the N-frame Smiths, but most shooters don't enjoy shooting them as much as the Smith, for several reasons. (Personally, I think they're the best looking DA Ruger wheelgun.)

Then there's the Super Redhawk. Waaaayyy overboard for a .44 Mag. Good choice for the .454. Not the most svelte or handsome gun... :rolleyes:

And...
Ruger undeniably makes the strongest revolvers.
No. There's a lot of competition for that crown these days. Ruger doesn't make anything to compete with Smith's X-Frames, or the BFR single actions, or the Freedom Arms guns.


But all-in-all, they make fine quality wheelguns that will be very unlikely to ever let you down.

PabloJ
November 3, 2012, 09:08 AM
Nothing wrong with Rugers autos either. I have an SR 9 that has been great. I like it much better than the Glock I had. It has been 100% reliable for me and holds a bucket of bullets. It was a great value for me.
I had three Rugers (28ga 0/U, Security Six .357, and LCP) and zero problems with them. The complexity of O/U firing mechanism was shocking jet it worked fine. It testimonial to fine abilities of their design and engineering departments.

CraigC
November 3, 2012, 12:13 PM
Haters hate, it's what they do. Sometimes folks let something stick in their craw and they never let it go. Ruger builds a good gun at a fair price. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not perfect but they shouldn't be expected to be. I've owned 30 various Ruger guns over the years and they've all been good guns. Some have been excellent. Some have been good enough to sink another $1500 into. Had a bad one that Ruger promptly replaced.


Then there's the Super Redhawk. Waaaayyy overboard for a .44 Mag.
It only looks that way because of the frame extension. The cylinder is the same as the Redhawk. If you look at weights, they're actually quite comparable. Except that the Super is much more comfortable to shoot due to the grip design (old wood insert rubber grips, not the new Hogue's). My .480 SRH is much more comfortable than my 7˝" .44 Redhawk was.

Sam1911
November 3, 2012, 12:18 PM
Yeah, the Super is a good choice for the .480. I really enjoyed one I got to shoot. A highly underrated cartridge, that.

bsms
November 3, 2012, 02:27 PM
My favorite gun for shooting is a Ruger Vaquero Montado. My 686+ has a much nicer trigger, although the Ruger Alaskan I used to own had a better trigger than my 686+. I prefer a J-frame for carry, but may someday buy a Ruger LCP.

Like most folks here, I view each gun as an individual gun.

buck460XVR
November 3, 2012, 02:30 PM
Haters hate, it's what they do. Sometimes folks let something stick in their craw and they never let it go.


.....and many times folks take it personal and feel offended when others don't agree with their choices. If you are happy with a firearm, regardless of maker, your confidence in that choice should not suffer just because another internet poster has a different opinion. Folks sometimes feel the need to belittle other's choices to justify theirs. To me, this shows me someone who has little confidence in their own choices.


Ruger builds a good gun at a fair price. Nothing more, nothing less. They're not perfect but they shouldn't be expected to be.

Well said.

CraigC
November 3, 2012, 02:59 PM
Folks sometimes feel the need to belittle other's choices to justify theirs. To me, this shows me someone who has little confidence in their own choices.
Agreed, 100%!

Blue Brick
November 3, 2012, 03:05 PM
Well I am not going to go back and repost any previous quotes, so let’s just say the view of Ruger’s has changed and everyone loves them. :)

HKGuns
November 3, 2012, 03:51 PM
I've read mostly nothing but positive comments on Rugers here. Perhaps the tone has changed but I'd not hesitate to buy or own a Ruger revolver.

StrawHat
November 3, 2012, 04:14 PM
With handguns, I have owned both and ended up selling the Rugers. The Security Sixes I had were heavier and had trigger pulls that were diffficult to improve. The Redhawk and SBH were a lot more revovler than I wanted to carry when chambered in the 44 Magnum. For competition, I ended up rebuilding a S&W M64, rebarreling and reworking the action. I also reworked a couple of L frames. The S&W action was an easy one to improve, not sure if that is true today but when I was competing and gunsmithing, it was true. I still handle Rugers and they are still heavier than I care to see for the given cartridge.

I don't have any experieince with Ruger rifles, except a 77/22. I installed a new barrel and areworked the bolt and trigger group. It is a good hunting rifle, heavier than I would like, but very accurate.

Alaska444
November 3, 2012, 04:52 PM
Wow, people HATE Rugers? Where are they, who are they, let me find them.:banghead:

I own three, the SP101 .357, a six inch GP100 .357 and my favorite, the Super Redhawk .44 magnum 7.5 inch revolver.

I like the weight of my SRH which helps tame my top end ammo from Buffalo Bore. I am much better at shooting a rifle, but the revolvers are really great guns. No, most are not lightweight but they do have lightweight models as well. Pick and choose your best choice, Ruger pretty much has it all and they are one of the strongest and best built gun on the market. Great gun and THR has many that appreciate them a well.

oneounceload
November 3, 2012, 05:07 PM
Ruger undeniably makes the strongest revolvers.


That is your OPINION, not a fact, and not true in either case. Ruger's are bulkier due to their method of construction. Freedom Arms makes the strongest (and better quality) than any Ruger

Sergei Mosin
November 3, 2012, 05:13 PM
Rugers aren't always the sexiest things out there (with some notable exceptions, such as the No.1 and the M77 RSI) but they're affordable and they work. I own two (a 10/22 and a GP100) and I hope to eventually own more.

Old Fuff
November 3, 2012, 05:29 PM
There are of course some that elevate a certain brand of handgun to the top, and reject consideration of any others. But on this forum (and I joined it when it first got started) it has been my experience that Ruger products (revolvers in particular) have never lacked strong and vocal supporters. I consider myself to be one of them. From a cosmetic perspective it can be said that others are better finished, but they are nowhere close to Ruger's price points. No one offers more gun for the money, and it should be noted that they are made in the good ol' USA!

JR47
November 3, 2012, 06:03 PM
That is your OPINION, not a fact, and not true in either case. Ruger's are bulkier due to their method of construction. Freedom Arms makes the strongest (and better quality) than any Ruger

Well, golly, wouldn't you EXPECT a gun that costs almost THREE times as much to be better fitted and finished? The guns you are talking about are built specifically for cartridges with extremely high pressures, and are 5 shot revolvers in those calibers.

Smith & Wesson HAD to go to the L-frame, as their K-frames couldn't withstand constant use with the caliber stamped on the barrel. That's THEIR reasoning. The Model 29 also suffered when people actually used the caliber it was built for, and they had to revamp it, as well, to keep it in service.

Colt no longer makes a revolver, although they are supposedly bringing one back. So, if they were so "good" why couldn't Colt sell enough of them to keep them in the line-up?

jmr40
November 3, 2012, 06:36 PM
Concern about Rugers weight is overstated.

A 4" GP-100 weighs 40 oz
A 4" 686 weighs 39.7

I don't see .3 oz being a problem


The Super Redhawk is a tank, but you still have the option of buying a much lighter Redhawk. When compared to a S&W

A 5.5" Redhawk 44 mag weighs 47 oz.
a 6" S&W 649 44 mag weighs 45 oz.

In this type of gun 2 oz is not that much of a concern

When you get to the snubbies S&W does a little better. The SP-101 has to be one of the most useless revolvers made. No sense in a 5 shot snubbie that heavy, but the new LCR is a lot better. Still not as light as many of the S&W offerings.

For some reason Rugers have the perception of being a lot heavier. They are, but not by much.

FWIW, I prefer S&W revolvers, but have a tremendous amount of respect for Rugers.

oneounceload
November 3, 2012, 06:56 PM
Colt no longer makes a revolver, although they are supposedly bringing one back. So, if they were so "good" why couldn't Colt sell enough of them to keep them in the line-up?

Google Colt and union trouble - plenty to read

Well, golly, wouldn't you EXPECT a gun that costs almost THREE times as much to be better fitted and finished? The guns you are talking about are built specifically for cartridges with extremely high pressures, and are 5 shot revolvers in those calibers.

Now you want to back up and start adding qualifiers when you didn't in your first post........can't have it both ways....;)

You like Rugers - OK, I can live with that - I do not - I have owned handguns, rifles and shotguns - my MKII was worthy of keeping, my Security Six was another, but the others - nope. Everyone talks about how they are built like a tank - who really wants to handle a tank? If you are happy with yours, good for you - I was not. I'll take Browning, Beretta, AyA, SKB, even S&W for quality shotguns, I'll take older Remingtons like my 700 BDL and Model 7 and Swede Mausers for rifles and I'll take S&W, HK, Beretta, Colt, Kahr and even Kimber for handguns over Ruger - but I would never say ANY one brand is the ultimate because different folks have different needs for their guns.

CraigC
November 3, 2012, 07:00 PM
The Super Redhawk is a tank, but you still have the option of buying a much lighter Redhawk.
Like I said, the weights are comparable, the SRH just looks heavier. From another thread:

"For instance, my .480 SRH is 2oz lighter than a Bisley Hunter .44 (54oz vs. 52oz). I don't know how accurate Ruger's advertised weights are but they have been better about that in recent years and list the 7˝" Redhawk at 54oz, with the .44 Super Redhawk at 53oz."


Colt no longer makes a revolver
The SAA has been cataloged throughout 3rd generation production. They have recently re-introduced the New Frontier. Are double actions the only "revolvers" that exist to you guys???

Coal Dragger
November 3, 2012, 07:11 PM
While I have never personally liked Ruger DA revolvers as well as S&W, I can't say they are substandard or poorly made. Far from it. I've just never found a Ruger revolver (or any other Ruger) with a trigger that I could stand out of the box.

My brother has a Super Blackhawk in .45 Colt with a 5.5" bbl that is OK, but not great. The trigger is typical Ruger and needs to have the pull weight cut in half along with the over travel. I am also not too fond of the aluminum grip frame, and aluminum ejector shroud that don't match the rest of the blued gun. Additionally the front sight is way way too short to be sighted in with bullets much over 255gr, making heavy loads worthless.

So to make it worthwhile it needs a steel grip frame for better balance and a steel ejector shroud for cosmetics. Then it would need some decent trigger work and an over travel screw installed. Then it needs to have a front sight base installed that allows for differing front sights to be interchanged, so a wider range of different bullet weights can be used.

Of course once this work is accomplished and paid for and the original price of the gun is also factored in, a guy could buy a Freedom Arms Model 83 field grade. Which will be a better made gun anyway.

Blue Brick
November 3, 2012, 07:18 PM
That is your OPINION, not a fact, and not true in either case.

During the R&D of the Old Army, the cylinders (all of them) were filled up with Bulls eye smokeless power and fired. After many repeated attempts they were unsuccessful in blowing it up.

22-rimfire
November 3, 2012, 07:44 PM
I hate Rugers. I've spent thousands of dollars on them. :D

MarshallDodge
November 3, 2012, 07:52 PM
I have no issue with Ruger revolvers and own two Vaqueros.

Their other stuff tends to be bulkier and not as refined as say a S&W revolver which is my preference. The LCR looks like a step in the right direction.

That being said, I don't think anyone can call their reliability or quality into question.

chez323
November 3, 2012, 08:25 PM
I love my Rugers, fill a nice niche in my collection. Have an SP101 and a GP100 plus 2 Blackhawks..... they are on par with my S&W 686 & 629 in quality, fit and finish.

k_dawg
November 3, 2012, 08:40 PM
Forgot about the Bill Ruger gripes. He stated his point of view, it never affected his weapons. !


Ah. "Point of View".

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger


That "point of view" seems to have whored out the very concept of Freedom and the Second Amendment.

Sergei Mosin
November 3, 2012, 09:05 PM
Bill Ruger was a businessman trying to save his company at a time when it looked as though the entire firearms industry was at risk. He believed that some compromise was necessary; an uncompromising stand at that time might well have meant the end of his company, maybe of the industry, perhaps even of the Second Amendment itself. So he, and the rest of the industry, compromised so that they could live to fight another day. Bill didn't live to see that day, but the rest of us have, and we are fighting back now, and we are winning. But it's easy to forget how bad things looked for us in the days when Bill Ruger and others were making the compromises that allowed us to reach the present day in such good shape.

TennJed
November 3, 2012, 09:18 PM
I see way more positive threads than negative (this is a good example)

CraigC
November 3, 2012, 11:57 PM
Bill Ruger's words were taken out of context and twisted by the liberal media. Unfortunately, even most shooters won't be swayed by the truth. The truth is that Bill was trying to compromise to save not only his company but the industry from government sponsored lawsuits. Lawsuits funded by OUR taxes, against a lawful and heavily regulated industry. Believe it or not, gunmakers are not made of money and it was crippling them to simply defend themselves from these frivolous lawsuits. People want to piss and moan about what he said about magazine capacity but I didn't see your dollars going to their legal defense. Your anger should be directed towards YOUR government. Not a dead American gunmaker, or the extremely successful PROFITABLE company he left behind.

The Lone Haranguer
November 4, 2012, 12:06 AM
delete

The Lone Haranguer
November 4, 2012, 12:08 AM
Prejudice against their being made largely by casting - which is perceived to be weaker than forging - would be my guess. Not too different from those who hate plastic pistol frames. And there is lingering hate for its founder for statements made ~25 years ago, even though he has been dead for some time and no family members even sit on the board.

22-rimfire
November 4, 2012, 12:14 AM
Bill Ruger was right. That doesn't mean I like what he said, but he was right. A single amendment to existing law could change the whole "assault weapon" discussion.

For years I was not interested in the Mark I semi-auto 22 pistol which is what Ruger built his company on. I purchased a Mark II with a bull barrel around 1990 and really liked it. That was my introduction to Ruger firearms. I didn't consider a centerfire DA revolver until the GP-100 was introduced. That one convinced me that they had a good product. The 10/22 has become a mainstay to many 22 rifle owners. I think they make a fine quick small game rifle.

VA27
November 4, 2012, 01:26 AM
I have six Ruger revolvers and only two Smiths. It wasn't always that way, but that's the way it is now.

weblance
November 4, 2012, 01:56 AM
The SP-101 has to be one of the most useless revolvers made. No sense in a 5 shot snubbie that heavy

For such a useless revolver, they sure have sold a bunch of them. The S&W 60 in 3" compared to a SP101 3" is 2 oz lighter. That makes a difference in felt recoil when shooting powerful .357s. The peg style grip frame softens the recoil even more. The SP101 handles 357s with grace, and that 2 oz will never be felt when carried on a belt. Useless revolver... useless statement...

Harley Rider 55
November 4, 2012, 09:43 AM
The first handgun I ever purchased was a Ruger Security Six. I bought it while in the military, in 1976. I very much regret selling it.
I never forgot that Ruger and it started a passion for Ruger as well as S&W revolvers.

Hoppes Love Potion
November 4, 2012, 10:04 AM
I like Ruger's many fine rimfire offerings: pistol, revolver, and rifle. The LCR series is certainly interesting and I consider my only Ruger, an LCR-22, to be well-built and an excellent value.

I don't have as much of an interest in their centerfire revolvers , but that is only because I prefer smaller and lighter wheel guns. I know if I was big into Magnums I would own some heavy metal from Ruger.

Guillermo
November 4, 2012, 10:11 AM
Some people do not understand Ruger for what it is.

The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.

Revolvers with cast frames, pressed sheet metal frames on the .22s. These were the successful cost cutting methods used to manufacture firearms that are great values.

These days Ruger is moving to MIM because it is cheaper and helps them offer moderately priced firearms and maintain the value for which they are known.

Old Fuff
November 4, 2012, 10:16 AM
The SP-101 has to be one of the most useless revolvers made. No sense in a 5 shot snubbie that heavy

Someone mentioned that they thought the SP101 .357 snubby was too heavy. Maybe for some, but an engineer from one of the smaller ammunition companies that turn out loads that are absolutely top-end barn burners told me that of all of this style revolvers on the market at the time, the SP101 was the only one that would stand up to an unlimited diet of they're .357 cartridges...

Frankly, the Old Fuff has no interest in carrying any snubbly chambered for the .357 (cuz' .44 is better) but if he did you should be able to pick out which one it would be.

GP100man
November 4, 2012, 02:05 PM
Well ,I just came from Myrtle Beach Gun Show & found 0 Redhawks regular or super & 2 GP100 1 blue &1 stainless ,both used , no new 1s.

I think that says a statement loud & clear , people buy Rugers !!

Not a small show either !

CDawg
November 4, 2012, 02:32 PM
I own Ruger, S&W and Colt revolvers (even a Rossi). All work well and I have no complaints with any of them. Rugers seem to be almost "overbuilt". I certainly have no complaint about that, but their 2" SP101 is kind of heavy for a snubnose. I have the .38 only version. The weight does make it more pleasant to shoot the Buffalo Bore +P .38 though. It's still a hell of a weapon, even without ammunition. I just flat out like revolvers and Ruger makes good ones. I have a 7" .44 Redhawk, a 4" .357 Security Six, a 3" .357 SP101 and a 2" .38 SP101. They're all keepers!

sfed
November 4, 2012, 03:33 PM
I had to think about it a minute to figure out just how many I have, 10/22, LC9, SR40, Mini 14 tactical edition, Mod 77 Mk2 in 223 Remington with a 26 inch bull barrel in satin stainless and a beautiful laminated stock, and a New model Blackhawk 357 magnum. There may be more in the future depending on what they put on the market. I have several other brands in the collection such as a couple Savages a Marlin, a Sig Sauer and even a Taurus, so I am not biased too much. I like good quality firearms. I am trying to decide what I would like to add next to my little collection.

WvHiker
November 4, 2012, 04:08 PM
I particularly like the SP101 in the 3" barrel. Yes, it's heavy, but that's good because I like to shoot .357 out of it. I think it's not useless at all, it's a great carry gun when I'm not in town.

pittspilot
November 5, 2012, 10:39 PM
Have a security six, a Mark III, and LCP and a 10-22 Takedown. Fine guns, but I sure like my Smith revolvers over the Ruger.

Fishslayer
November 6, 2012, 12:01 AM
Kinda like Glocks, not so much the gun itself but a good portion of the fanboiz tend to be some really annoying jackwagons.


Haven't seen anything in this thread so far to alter my opinion. :D

Added another Ruger to the safe today. Not a wheelgun, but the little wooden stocked 10/22 Compact to go with my All Weather. Holy cow that barrel is short! 16.12" :D
The wood stock is absolutely beautiful.

ultramag44
November 6, 2012, 09:10 AM
I have 6 Ruger firearms @ present. I've had 5 others in the past. ALL have worked perfectly!

In the 50's, 60's and 70's Bill Ruger was the 'Wiz-Kid' of innovative arms design.

Under current leadership the company is healthy and can't build SR1911's fast enough. I was lucky to get one last spring. in September '09 I got an SP101 8-Shot .22 Revolver the day after they were released (we won't discuss how I managed that little stunt ;) ). The gun is perfect for a new-release arm. Ruger had so many orders for guns, they actually had to stop taking orders for awhile last spring. And don't forget, these orders are for US MADE products.

What's not to like? :)

CraigC
November 6, 2012, 09:26 AM
Under current leadership the company is healthy and can't build SR1911's fast enough.
Doesn't look like they can make anything fast enough! Which is a good problem to have. We must also remember that Ruger is a true American success story. Bill Ruger founded the company along with Alex Sturm in 1949. They've turned a profit every year since the first. They continue to be debt-free and run on cash only.

Guillermo
November 6, 2012, 09:49 AM
They've turned a profit every year since the first.

impressive

At the time Bill started Ruger there was a healthy competition going on for the premium revolver market. He also recognized that the Lugar was a serious war prize. This was very much on his mind when he styled the .22.

His, and Alex Sturm's decision to position their products "down market" from "the big boys" was very smart. That strategy still works today even without premium revolvers being widely marketed.

huntsman
November 6, 2012, 10:19 AM
The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.

I agree with this and think Ruger makes a great using gun But I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.

CraigC
November 6, 2012, 10:21 AM
Actually, Ruger didn't really have any competition in the revolver market in the beginning. At the time, the single action revolver market was pretty much dead, or thought so. The Colt SAA was gone and there was no replica market. It has been said by wiser men than myself that Bill single handedly revived the single action market with the Single Six. Colt soon thereafter resumed production of the SAA and also Great Western came into being. We must remember that Ruger did not offer a double action until 20yrs later in 1972.


I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.
I'm no fan of collecting but there are lots of rare and unusual variations from the last 63yrs of production to keep Ruger collectors busy. Old Models and especially flat-tops have become highly sought-after by shooters as well. I just paid $750 for this minty 1958 Blackhawk a couple months ago.

http://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/sixgunsiii/large/IMG_0956b.jpg

Guillermo
November 6, 2012, 10:30 AM
At the time, the single action revolver market was pretty much dead

of course this is true...what I was trying to convey is that Alex and Bill saw Colt and Smith duking it out and wanted no part of it.

At the time you had cheaper guns and more expensive guns. When they started making double actions they wanted to be the "best of the cheap" or the "cheapest of the best"...staking out the middle ground.

This strategy is still working even though there are so few players in the game.

CraigC
November 6, 2012, 10:34 AM
Agreed!

TennJed
November 6, 2012, 06:29 PM
I agree with this and think Ruger makes a great using gun But I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.

There are probably people that would scratch their heads at whatever you collect ;)

huntsman
November 6, 2012, 08:59 PM
^well I'm not a collector but I do own pre-64 Winchesters a couple of Colts a few Brownings a S&W and gosh even two Rugers.:)

oneounceload
November 6, 2012, 09:29 PM
and run on OTHER PEOPLE'S cash only.

They are owned by stockholders.......;) - aka OPM, or Other Peoples' Money

Jaymo
November 6, 2012, 10:00 PM
I won't say how many Rugers I own, but it rhymes with fine.
I just wish I'd never sold my old 4" Speed Six. It had a trigger job done on it, before I bought it. I'll never understand how a DA revolver could have a trigger that light and still NEVER misfire.

TennJed
November 6, 2012, 10:45 PM
I currently have 7 Rugers, but I think a testament to their value is I have sold or traded 6 others in the last few years. They are affordable and also hold resell value well

Rexster
November 7, 2012, 01:51 AM
Some folks who prefer traditional blue-steel-and-walnut will not find Rugers to suit their taste, from the standpoint of appearance. In the past, Ruger DA revolvers tended to have quite rough trigger pulls, which is much less true lately. As for myself, I bought a Ruger GP100 in the early 1990s, not minding its modern appearance. The original factory grip felt as if it had been custom-designed for my hands. I now have a variety of configurations, from 3" to 6", lugged and non-lugged barrels, and adjustable and fixed sights.

I do still like more traditional firearms, but Rugers are so very practical.

When the SP101 was introduced, I soon had another much-favored gun. Later, I acquired a pre-owned Speed Six. Recently, I bought a Bisley and a Super Redhawk Alaskan. I think Rugers suit my taste just fine!

Then, there are the two Mini-14 rifles, and the two No. 1 Single-Shot rifles; life is good!

murf
November 7, 2012, 02:11 AM
a quality product at a reasonable price. and a service department second to none.

what's to hate?

murf

jp9mm
November 7, 2012, 08:38 AM
.... I think you mean Taurus...

j1
November 7, 2012, 09:12 AM
Got several and like them all. Good guns.:)

newrugersafan
November 11, 2012, 10:26 PM
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d162/stobbem053/DSC01640.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d162/stobbem053/89c6c1aa.jpg
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d162/stobbem053/DSC01719.jpg

I like the old flat tops. They are getting harder to find but still affordable.

texgunner
November 12, 2012, 01:23 AM
I have five Ruger Single Actions, a Bisley Blackhawk .45 Colt, a Super Blackhawk .44 mag, a Blackhawk, a Single-Six and a Bearcat. Three pistol caliber carbines also reside in my safe, 77/357, 77/44 and 77/22.

I used to own three of their DA revolvers but I could never shoot them as well as I could with S&W revolvers.

Homerboy
November 12, 2012, 07:12 AM
The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.

Ruger makes good guns and their customer service is better than S&W, and S&W has great CS. If you somehow manage to destroy a Ruger revolver, they'll sell you a new one well below retail (new GP100 for $325). However, they are no longer inexpensive guns for the working man. Mini 14's are just as expensive as AR's, the GP100 isn't that much cheaper than a 686, and their LC9 and LCP are in the same price points as other plastic guns of the sae size.

I have a Police Six and it is a keeper. S&W K frame size, but unlike the K frame .357 (I have a Model 13, too), it an fire any .357 you want out of it. It is a TRUE .357 and not a ".38 for practice with the occasional .357 of 140 grains or more" like the 13 is. Ruger should never have stopped making the Six series.

WaywardSon
November 12, 2012, 07:22 AM
I have owned a number of Ruger firearms over the years, and still have several. Without exception, they have been reliable and accurate, and are a good value IMO. No Ruger hate here. Due to work and other commitments, I have been unable to get in the woods since deer season opened here Saturday, but intend to take a few deer with my SBH .44 Magnum starting tomorrow.

CraigC
November 12, 2012, 11:22 AM
However, they are no longer inexpensive guns for the working man.
If you track MSRP's over the last ten years, Ruger's increases have not even kept up with inflation.

JR47
November 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
We currently own well over a dozen Ruger firearms. I bought my first one in early 1960, a Ruger Mark I. I have NEVER had to send one back for Warranty work.

They aren't Korth handguns, nor do they cost as much. For that matter the fabled Colt Python looks like it was fitted with a ball-pein hammer, and finished with a rasp, alongside the Korth.

They work, for a LONG time, and offer competitive pricing. Guns are, first and foremost, tools. Very few working tools have a category listed as "beauty". The most important things are reliability, durability, and accuracy. Ruger guns have all three. :)

Homerboy
November 12, 2012, 01:12 PM
Keeping up with inflation is irrelevant. Used to be a Mini 14 was what you would buy if you couldn't afford an AR, and a Ruger revolver was what a guy bought if he couldn't afford a S&W. The prices between the two companies are not as far apart as they used to be. I think Ruger makes a great gun, but they're not as affordable as they used to be.

CraigC
November 12, 2012, 01:26 PM
Keeping up with inflation is irrelevant.
It's not only highly relevant, it tells the whole story! That Rugers are actually a BETTER value now than they were ten years ago because their prices have risen less than the rate of inflation. The problem is not Ruger, it's your declining dollar.

It used to be that you paid more for a S&W and got more. That is no longer the case.

tarosean
November 12, 2012, 01:42 PM
I own two and enjoy them... However, I could do without the encyclopedia imprinted along the barrel.

So that my friends, is my Ruger complaint...

Course now-a-days it seems to be the norm across all manufactures.

Kyle M.
November 12, 2012, 01:51 PM
I've owned 20+ rugers over the years and currently own a No.1 Tropical in .375 H&H, I've never had the least amount of trouble out of any of them. Though reassembly of a Mark III can be quite the stress causer until you get the procedure down.

huntsman
November 12, 2012, 02:03 PM
It's not only highly relevant, it tells the whole story! That Rugers are actually a BETTER value now than they were ten years ago because their prices have risen less than the rate of inflation. The problem is not Ruger, it's your declining dollar.

That may be true but it pisses me off that I paid $180. for a new Blackhawk in 1982 and last year I paid over $500. for a new Blackhawk. My wages hasn't doubled in that time.

USSR
November 12, 2012, 02:40 PM
Hmm, just curious why the guys in this "love fest" feel the need to imply that guys whose taste runs to other manufacturers are "haters"? Personally, I look at Rugers a lot like I do Savage rifles: utilitarian and butt ugly.;)

Don

fastbolt
November 12, 2012, 03:01 PM
I grew up shooting Ruger Blackhawks and a Standard .22 (also called a Mark I).

I bought a Ruger .44 for myself when I turned 21 ... and ahd to send it back for the revision on the cylinder pin some time later (so it wouldn't jump forward and let the hammer block hang up under the firing pin).

I've owned many Blackhawks (both Old & new Models), a Super Blackhawk, Mk I/II's .22's, Security/Service/Speed-Sixes, KP90DC, Redhawk & a SP101 DAO. I suppose you could say I'm a long time Ruger owner and enthusiast.

However, some of them required repair/correction, involving some trips back to the factory for a number of them (including a new slide for the P90, which was diagnosed by Ruger as having an improperly heat-treated slide). I was treated well by their customer service folks.

Their investment casting manufacturing method has been demonstrated to provide a good quality firearms, even if it produces some bulkier frames & components.

The revolvers in my safe are comprised of Ruger and S&W. ;) (I haven't owned a Colt for over 30 years, or a Charter Arms in over 20 years. :eek: :neener: )

Racebannon
November 12, 2012, 03:16 PM
I have several Ruger single actions. In the single action world they are not up there in the high esteem category with Freedom Arms or the customs, but I've always enjoyed Rugers and find them a great value. While Colts are sleeker, and the customs are excellent quality, I feel that Ruger single actions deliver in performance.

CraigC
November 12, 2012, 03:28 PM
That may be true but it pisses me off that I paid $180. for a new Blackhawk in 1982 and last year I paid over $500. for a new Blackhawk. My wages hasn't doubled in that time.
This ain't 1982. Raw materials are also a lot more expensive. The industry's legal defense against all those Clinton-era lawsuits has also had an impact. Fuel and electricity is a lot more expensive. Shipping is terribly expensive. The diesel fuel that powers our shipping and transport industry is grossly overpriced. The fact that your $180 in 1982 would be $432 in 2012 dollars, just for inflation, speaks pretty well for Ruger's efficiency.


My wages hasn't doubled in that time.
And that's Ruger's fault???

smallbore
November 12, 2012, 04:23 PM
It all comes down to personal preferences.

Baba Louie
November 12, 2012, 04:41 PM
More than likely, any angst filled posts or earlier threads disparaging Ruger products came as a result of words spoken/written by Old Bill Ruger vis a vis limiting magazine capacity (IMO). The firearms themselves, superb.

While their investment casting does make for a thicker piece of metal, and there were comments made at the time by S&W and Colt afficianados, make no mistake, Ruger makes fine firearms; from their Standard .22 (aka MkI), revolvers, rifles and shotguns. Their customer service is also right up there with the best.

Well, now that I do think about it a bit, I may have voiced some concern in the past about their Mini 14/30 series, but then again, we're in the Handguns: Revolvers forum, so we'll let that earlier rifle concern pass.

No Security/Service/Speed Sixes in anyone's photos? Sad that.

huntsman
November 12, 2012, 07:49 PM
And that's Ruger's fault???

nope just the sorry state of manufacturing and I learned my lesson and don’t sell anymore.

Pointshoot
November 12, 2012, 08:19 PM
"Ruger Distaste" - - -not from these quarters.

I have Redhawks in 45 Colt and 44 Mag. Various Blackhawks including a Bisley and a Flat top 44 Special. And, one of my first revolvers was (like a lot of guys) a Single Six. Theyre all excellent revolvers.

Nowadays new Smith wheelgun prices are pretty high. (I prefer the older guns). The only gun that I would consider half reasonably priced are the J frames. I have several S&W wheel guns - - - -I'm glad I bought them years ago. New versions are too much money IMO.

Jaymo
November 12, 2012, 10:44 PM
Mine taste like steel.
Except for the SR9. It tastes like steel and tupperware.

76shuvlinoff
November 13, 2012, 05:50 AM
The wife's bedside comforter is a 4(.2) stainless sp101. It fits her and with a bit of trigger work she runs it well. Can't argue with that. IMHO out of the box Rugers have crappy triggers that were built to go bang EVERY time.

As mentioned above if you wanna see "hate" talk Taurus. Yeah, I have one of those too. I have not found anything to hate yet.

harmon rabb
November 13, 2012, 11:07 PM
Distaste? There's pretty much no quality difference between ruger and Smith these days, there is less than zero durability and longevity difference, yet there is still a price difference.

So, no. Only distaste in my mouth is what Smith has left. My gp100, sp101, and lcr are not only better guns than their Smith counterparts, but also cheaper.

harmon rabb
November 13, 2012, 11:11 PM
The wife's bedside comforter is a 4(.2) stainless sp101. It fits her and with a bit of trigger work she runs it well. Can't argue with that. IMHO out of the box Rugers have crappy triggers that were built to go bang EVERY time.

As mentioned above if you wanna see "hate" talk Taurus. Yeah, I have one of those too. I have not found anything to hate yet.

My wife likes the sp101 and has claimed it too. Can't complain. Not the 1911 or xd I leave out for me, but also not worried about her when I'm gone. A man may have to answer for the intruder he shoots. A woman alone with her 2 kids, in Texas? Find me a jury who will convict that. She knows to shoot first, ask questions later. Wouldn't want to be hit with what she has in that sp101

JohnKSa
November 13, 2012, 11:35 PM
The folks still complaining about Bill Ruger Sr.'s comments on magazine capacity need to give it up already.

Bill Ruger Sr. is no longer running Ruger.
Bill Ruger Sr. is no longer alive.

Bill Ruger Jr. is no longer running Ruger.
There is no Ruger family member running Ruger.

What Bill Ruger Sr. said about the AWB is about as relevant to the current Ruger company and products as Henry Ford's anti-semitism is to the current Ford company and their automobiles.

CraigC
November 13, 2012, 11:59 PM
John, nicely put. :)

fastest45ever
November 14, 2012, 12:23 AM
Some of the guns have weird specs. .45 Colt, Single Six, and, they don't go out of their way to let you know what they are. 226" throats on a .22lr cylinder?

How are the .45 Colt specs, CraigC?

Weird part is even calling Ruger can get you contrary information, depending on who you talk to.

It also appears they are finally targeting some pretty big markets. The Single Ten appears to have tighter 22lr specs, and a tighter barrel, but that depends on who you talk to.

In essence Rugers SA's in oarticular, are expensive for what they are. I don't want to dump another 500 dollars into a gun to get a barrel that is tight enough for .22lr, with a decent cylinder.

hq
November 14, 2012, 05:38 AM
After reading some current and archived threads why is there such a distaste for Ruger revolvers?

From a personal point of view, I can and do appreciate Ruger products. A long time ago my first gun was a 5˝" Mk.II .22. My favorite plinker is a custom 10/22. Even one of my favorite deer rifles is a .44 Deerfield Carbine.

But... when I buy a revolver, it's even more of an emotional thing than with other firearms. My excuse is purely cosmetic, I don't like the looks of Ruger revolvers, with the possible exception of early Redhawk. I've much rather bought Colts and Smiths, even though some of them aren't nowhere near as durable or strong as Rugers, just strong enough and IMO much better looking guns.

In a purely utilitarian world the only revolver you could ever need is a Ruger and the only semiauto is a Glock. Fortunately much of this gun enthusiasm we all share isn't about need but want. And at the moment I want another Colt, preferably a 6" nickel Diamondback. ;)

Kynoch
November 14, 2012, 05:47 AM
I've read some of the gripes about Bill Ruger. Then I think to myself, "An American business man that kept his company in America."
The Wife bought me one of them Ruger's many years ago. It was used and a screw fell out of it one day. Found a number on the internet to call and a very nice lady from Ruger sent me out a brand new screw at no charge.
That's all I got to say about that.
Good luck and stay safe,
Mike

Due largely to the Gun Control Act of 1968...

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 08:06 AM
My gp100, sp101, and lcr are not only better guns than their Smith counterparts, but also cheaper.

There was 1 Ruger and about 250 S&W's in the International Revolver Championships this year.

These are the best and most competitive revolver owners in the world. You really believe that over 99% of them would choose equipment that was not the best available?

The reason you don't see many is the same reason that you don't see many Highpoints at the IDPA or IPSC championships. They're OK for the money, but not competitive performance-wise at the top levels. I own about a dozen Rugers, and they're fine for what they are and I have no intention to get rid of them. But I own about 3 or 4 times as many S&W's. Personally, I prefer to pay a little more for a better product.

j1
November 14, 2012, 08:11 AM
Own and shoot both Ruger rifles and Ruger handgins and have liked each and every one of them. Good guns with absolutely no problems. Do I also like
S & W? Yes I do. Am I selling any Rugers? No I am not.

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:16 AM
There was 1 Ruger and about 250 S&W's in the International Revolver Championships this year.
Which probably has more to do with S&W's faster action than anything else.


You really believe that over 99% of them would choose equipment that was not the best available?
What are their other choices???


The reason you don't see many is the same reason that you don't see many Highpoints at the IDPA or IPSC championships. They're OK for the money, but not competitive performance-wise at the top levels.
Given the cost-cutting going on at S&W, I find it laughable to compare Rugers to HiPoints and such high praise for S&W. :rolleyes:

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:20 AM
How are the .45 Colt specs, CraigC?
Same as everybody else's, sometimes not very good.


In essence Rugers SA's in oarticular, are expensive for what they are.
How do you figure? In particular, I've got two $400 Rugers that shoot into 2"@50yds. You're picking two extreme examples. IMHO, way too much has been made about Ruger's bore size on the Single Six. Do we really think that 0.001" makes that much difference? Their reputation for less than stellar accuracy probably has more to do with the way they cut their chambers than anything else. These were never meant to be target guns and should not be expected to shoot alongside K-22's and Colt Officer's Models. That said, mine shoot under 1˝"@25yds with preferred loads.

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 08:23 AM
I find it laughable to compare Rugers to HiPoints and such high praise for S&W.

I prefer to base my opinions on documented performance rather than feelings. But maybe we'll see you there next year with your Highpoints and Rugers! :neener:

(But I doubt it, talk and internet bandwidth is cheap!)

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:30 AM
I prefer to base my opinions on documented performance rather than feelings.
Feelings? No. At least I do not throw out such "evidence" without looking at "why". The why is S&W's action and faster trigger return. Period. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with quality or performance and you should know this.


...talk and internet bandwidth is cheap!
Indeed.

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 08:31 AM
Do we really think that 0.001" makes that much difference?

Yeah, there's no real reason for slugging your bore and sizing your lead bullets to fit .001 oversize. Maybe you can get in touch with Dardas, Missouri Bullet co, etc, and let them know that your vast knowledge has determined that they don't really need to offer all those sizing options.

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:32 AM
Yeah, there's no real reason for slugging your bore and sizing your lead bullets to fit .001 oversize. Maybe you can get in touch with Dardas, Missouri Bullet co, etc, and let them know that your vast knowledge has determined that they don't really need to offer all those sizing options.
We're not talking about centerfires and cast bullets, smart guy. Again, what is your problem??? Are we talking about guns or are we getting personal???

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 08:33 AM
No problem here. Just wondering how a bullet knows whether it's a centerfire or rimfire? Or maybe you don't use lead bullets in your rimfires, only jacketed?

I find it laughable to believe that the type of ignition has any influence on whether a bore tolerance is important or not. ;)

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:38 AM
No problem here. Just wondering how a bullet knows whether it's a centerfire or rimfire?
Apples and oranges. I'm sure you've rebarreled Single Sixes to find they shoot vastly better than before?

My point, if I may reiterate and be more specific for the argumentative among us, is that people make a big deal about the Single Six's "compromise" bore diameter. It is my opinion, that this is blown greatly out of proportion and that the way Ruger cuts their chambers (all six at once) probably has more to do with the inaccuracy reputation than the bore. In my opinion, if the bore were oversized enough to cause problems with accuracy, it would also cause leading. It does not. Hence my point. :rolleyes:

In my opinion, the Single Ten will probably prove to be a better shooter because they are no longer gang-cutting chambers. As far as I know, bore dimensions remain unchanged.

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 08:49 AM
I'm sure you've rebarreled Single Sixes to find they shoot vastly better than before?

Why would I? I'm sure that if there was any reason to or market for it, there would be literally hundreds of different aftermarket suppliers of them, kind of like 10/22 barrels. For what they are (a .22 plinker) they work fine.

I'm sure the Single Tens will also.

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 08:55 AM
I'm sure that if there was any reason to or market for it, there would be literally hundreds of different aftermarket suppliers of them, kind of like 10/22 barrels.
The most obvious answer would be because the end user can't change a Single Six barrel with screwdriver and an allen wrench. Changing the barrel on any revolver that is not a Dan Wesson requires gunsmith intervention. The market is there and would be an easy chore for any of our competent gunsmiths. In your vast intellectual superiority over we pitiful Ruger shooters, you should know this. Most folks are just happy to blast tin cans with them. As evidenced by Ruger selling all they can make for the last SIXTY YEARS.


The one Jeff Quinn tested shot very well.

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SingleTen.htm

Old Fuff
November 14, 2012, 09:01 AM
There was 1 Ruger and about 250 S&W's in the International Revolver Championships this year.

There is a feature in Smith & Wesson's lockwork design that gives it an advantage in the double-action trigger pull department over Ruger's hand ejector revolvers.

However their new LCR which is noted for it's exceptional D.A. pull, they "borrowed" and incorporated this feature.

If one goes back to 1946 and backwards to 1905 Smith & Wesson's double-action trigger pulls really excel.

Also if a competitor wants to use a cartridge with a bore diameter over .38, Ruger's Red Hawk and Super Red Hawk are seldom available in 4" barrel lengths, and are excessively heavy for these combat games. This is not to suggest that they aren't satisfactory for many other purposes.

CraigC
November 14, 2012, 09:09 AM
And Ruger has never really tried to compete with sixguns like the 625. Their large frame DA's have always been more sportsman-oriented. Personally, I'd like to see them expand the Super Redhawk platform to include other configurations and chamberings. Remove the frame extension such as this Bowen custom with standard Redhawk barrel.

http://photos.imageevent.com/newfrontier45/miscellaneous/large/Super%20Redhawk%2001.jpg

But it'll never compete directly with the 625 or 627 as used in competition.

fastest45ever
November 14, 2012, 04:04 PM
My comments about the new Single Six sitting under the bed is not about the barrel, which is actually very good, and tight for .22, even a lr.

It is about the cylinder throats. Ruger thinks .226" is OK. My gunsmith isn't in love with that, and suggests a custom cylinder, at about .224"

Apparently bullets rattling out of the cylinder are hard on the forcing cone, and difficult to create accuracy with.

As for Ruger current chambers on the .45 Colt: Friend posted this to me:

Ruger Bisley .45 Colt specs vs. FA 83 .454
Well, I just discovered something interesting. I measured the chamber and throat diameters on my Ruger Bisley and Freedom Arms Model 83 Premier Grade and here is what I found:

Ruger Bisley:

Chamber: .4835/.4840
Throat: .4510

Freedom Arms Model 83 (.45 Colt cylinder):

Chamber: .4835/.4840
Throat: .4535

I did not expect the FA chambers to be that large.

SAAMI specs call for .4862 chamber diameter so both of my cylinders are much less than that.

So, it appears Ruger is capable of cutting some excellent chambers in their
Ruger .45's.

The bearcat is supposed to, along with the Single 10, have the tightest, .22lr only barrels.

My general observations on the new .22lr Single Six is it's FAR superior to the old Single Six, in fit and finish.
It's also a couple hundred dollars more out here.

45_auto
November 14, 2012, 09:15 PM
Most folks are just happy to blast tin cans with them. As evidenced by Ruger selling all they can make for the last SIXTY YEARS.

Good observation. I believe a quote by P. T Barnum a little over 100 years ago is appropriate ;) :

Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute."

oldbear
November 14, 2012, 10:48 PM
Ruger makes an excellent revolver. I've owned several of them, and still kick myself for selling my Speed Six for a giveaway price. For me the problem Ruger has is they don't have the finally finished look that Smith and Wesson's have. They look like a very serous tool not a finally crafted firearm.

CraigC
November 15, 2012, 11:11 AM
It is about the cylinder throats. Ruger thinks .226" is OK. My gunsmith isn't in love with that, and suggests a custom cylinder, at about .224"
I have asked you this before, how does it shoot?


The bearcat is supposed to, along with the Single 10, have the tightest, .22lr only barrels.
Far as I know, the Single Ten does uses the same barrel blanks as the Single Six.


"There's a sucker born every minute."
Thankfully we have folks who already know everything like yourself to tell us all what suckers we are. Please. Come back with a real argument or go away. So, tell me again what's wrong with my Single Sixes that shoot 1.5" or better at 25yds? Or would that not suit your agenda?

Sam1911
November 15, 2012, 11:22 AM
[Mod Talk: Hey, guys? Seriously, get gentlemanly or get lost. Thanks. :)]

cpt-t
November 15, 2012, 12:00 PM
I bought my first Ruger in 1971 7 1/2in Blackhawk 45LC Convertible, still has it still use it. And if I were going Pig hunting or just out walking around looking. That would probabley be the gunthat will go with me. I truely love SA Pistols, raised in OKLA & WEST TX and have shot them all my life. My Son and I have quite a few pistols of different makes and models, and calibers. But we have more Rugers than any other brand. And more SA RUGERS than any anything else. I have never had any problems with any of the Rugers Rirearms we own. IMHO if BILL RUGER doesn`t make it and SAM WALTON doesn`t sell it (( Maybe I don`t need it )).
ken

huntsman
November 15, 2012, 02:28 PM
I bought my first Ruger in 1971 7 1/2in Blackhawk 45LC Convertible

you remember what you paid?

gamestalker
November 15, 2012, 02:46 PM
I have no gripes with Rugers or S&W's. But S&W's as a general rule look so much nicer. But as nice looking Rugers are concerned, the SRH is one of the best looking big boy's around, especially when they have a nice Leupold mounted on them! The only way I've found to satisfy my own debate is to own the best of both worlds.

GS

cpt-t
November 16, 2012, 04:51 PM
huntsman: If I remember right, the figure $ 86.00 comes to mind. But that has been 41 years ago and my memory is getting worse all the time. The store had two of them the 7 1/2 & a 4 1/2 bought them both, I was on leave from Vet Nam and I took the 4 1/2 inch and the ACP cylinder back with me & a shoulder holster that a man that owned the shoe shop made for me. I carried that old 3 Screw every day while I was in Country and it worked just fine. When I went home, I loaned it to a very good friend to use & he was to return the gun an holster and my Randal knife when he came home. But He never made it home He was KIA just a few weeks befor he was to go home. I never got my rig back. And I have always wondered what happended to the gun. But the extra 45 LC Cylinder I have kept in the gun safe all these years in its red flannel draw string bag. I never replaced that Gun.
ken

Smokin Gator
November 16, 2012, 09:21 PM
"Feelings? No. At least I do not throw out such "evidence" without looking at "why". The why is S&W's action and faster trigger return. Period. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with quality or performance and you should know this."

You mean to say that Smith and Wesson's "action and faster trigger return" aren't performance factors? A faster trigger return is not going to allow you to perform faster? Yeah. Nearly every shooter at the IRC uses a S&W, because they perform better. Rugers are solid guns. I don't like the look of their double action revolvers, but if they performed better than a Smith, I'd use one. There actually might have been a couple of Ruger's at the IRC and 1 Chiappa, along with all the S&W's. Mark

Sam1911
November 17, 2012, 08:05 AM
All right, this is getting very circular -- we're all pretty much on the same page. There's little "distaste" for Rugers (here anyway) and like most other kinds of tools, there are some guns more suited to one task than another. Doesn't make one bad, just different -- and that's great.

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