Hickok 45 are you listening ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

joneb

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
5,718
Location
Oregon
I enjoy Hickok 45's reviews more so than Jeff Quinn's.
I am interested in Ruger's new GP-100 chambered in 44 spl. and would like to see Hickok 45 review it.
I am concerned about this gun and it's ability to shoot lead bullets and not lead up, I am concerned about the cylinder mouth,bore an groove diameter of this gun. I am not so concerned with outside appearance but more with the inside finish of the bore and chambers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BLU
I enjoy Hickok 45's reviews more so than Jeff Quinn's.

Not me. I like 'em both! equally well, although perhaps for different reasons. Where hickok has his self-deprecating, easy-going monologue style and a great silhouette range, Jeff Quinn also has the excellent written and photographic content on GunBlast.
 
Given his love of revolvers and his appreciation for the 44 Special cartridge, I imagine it's high on his list.
 
I am concerned about this gun and it's ability to shoot lead bullets and not lead up, I am concerned about the cylinder mouth,bore an groove diameter of this gun. I am not so concerned with outside appearance but more with the inside finish of the bore and chambers.
And you expect the guy, that constantly says: "Great gun, just great, brought to you by Bud's gun shop. Did I tell you how great this gun is?" to tell you this?!? Before, or after he misses half of his targets? And why do you expect that this revolver will be build different (read "not suitable for") than other Ruger revolvers?
 
I am concerned about this gun and it's ability to shoot lead bullets and not lead up, I am concerned about the cylinder mouth,bore an groove diameter of this gun. I am not so concerned with outside appearance but more with the inside finish of the bore and chambers.

I'm not a "Ruger guy" but does Ruger have a reputation for turning out guns that won't shoot lead bullets and not lead up? Are these really major problems from Ruger? I always thought they turned out pretty good stuff. Somewhat clunky and homely to my eye, but I was always under the impression they were well made.
 
I have had one of these GPs since summer of last year and it not only shoots well, it hasn't exhibited any of the negative concerns the OP has voiced. So far I think it's a great package that makes a lot of sense. I would like to see more barrel length options in the future and I think that is a reasonable expectation.
 
I am having a senior moment but either H-45 or GB has done a review and of course liked the gun. I sometimes do learn from each of them and if they serve a purpose. We always have the option not to watch. I look forward to seeing the new Ruger in a store and like everyone else I wish it were a little different. I know Ruger is conservative on their designs but this is a special and not a magnum so I with it held 6 rounds.
 
I think its fair to say that Ruger has been known to produce a few revolvers with thread constrictions in the barrel and cylinder throats that are not ideal for shooting lead bullets.
 
Wouldn't it be easier for you to recommend that he perform that review directly?
That sure seems like a more constructive way of getting what the OP wants, doesn't it?

Hickok45 does answer messages as time allows, and he says in nearly every video that people have been requesting a particular firearm. He answered me in the past when I asked his opinion.
 
Not me. I like 'em both! equally well, although perhaps for different reasons. Where hickok has his self-deprecating, easy-going monologue style and a great silhouette range, Jeff Quinn also has the excellent written and photographic content on GunBlast.
I read/watch both every once in a while, but I can't put a whole lot of value in folks who rely on money from some of the same gun companies or companies selling the guns. It's hard to keep the support dollars rolling in if you bash a product too many times.
 
And you expect the guy, that constantly says: "Great gun, just great, brought to you by Bud's gun shop. Did I tell you how great this gun is?" to tell you this?!? Before, or after he misses half of his targets? And why do you expect that this revolver will be build different (read "not suitable for") than other Ruger revolvers?
Hafta disagree on this. I've seen plenty of videos where he flatly stated his dislike for a gun.
 
I would say that Hickok45 seems to be more critical of the guns he shoots, but it may be due to the fact that he makes 15-30 videos while Mr. Quinn does a great write up paired with a 2 minute overview.

I enjoy both quite a bit, and base some of my buying habits on their reviews. That said, when I feel like getting totally intoxicated, I play a drinking game where I watch their videos at take a shot whenever Hickok gives a "Ha ha" when he tries to ring the gong or whenever Mr. Quinn deems a firearm to be a "dandy";)

I really do enjoy their work though.

I would like to see a lengthy review on the .44 special GP though.
 
Hickok shoots a pot, it blows apart, and then he makes a joke about ''pot smoking.'' Funny about the first 100 times he said it. He inevitably will say ''pretty cool, pretty cool'' and ''not bad, not bad'' in nearly every video. I call these ''verbal crutches,'' and while predictable & obnoxious, they don't detract much from the fact that the guy clearly LOVES guns and enjoys what he does. He's a damn fine shot. I give him credit for being able to make a living doing what he loves, BUT the flip side of that is -- he never gives a bad review...he's clearly in the back pocket of Bud's and the manufacturers. Just once, I'd like to see Hickok say, ''Listen, this firearm is crap. Turn off the camera. I got nothing good to say about this gun. I'm going to go do some REAL pot smoking. Sinsemilla! Pretty cool, pretty cool.''
 
I can't remember Hickok ever going into great detail on whether a gun is prone to leading or not. There might be some videos out there but of the dozens i've seen I can't recall ever seeing anything.

You'd be better off inspecting the gun you're looking at purchasing rather than someone else's review which might be biased.

If the throats are too small, have them reamed. If the barrel has a constriction, get it fire-lapped. If those sound like too much work sell the gun for a $75 loss and move on.
 
I enjoy Hickok 45's reviews more so than Jeff Quinn's.
I am interested in Ruger's new GP-100 chambered in 44 spl. and would like to see Hickok 45 review it.
I am concerned about this gun and it's ability to shoot lead bullets and not lead up, I am concerned about the cylinder mouth,bore an groove diameter of this gun. I am not so concerned with outside appearance but more with the inside finish of the bore and chambers.

Regardless of anyone's views on Hickok or Mr. Quinn, I doubt you will find what you are looking for from either of them. Your looking for a very detailed shooting review and you will likely have to loook through a few forums like this one for a detailed review from an owner to find those answers.
 
Why do you think it will lead up (if shooting appropriate loads and correct velocities)?
1) Over sized cylinder mouth. Ruger has had a bad habit of sizing at .432"
2) To steep of angle cut on the forcing cone, not a big deal as it can be easily remedied.
3) Roughly machined cylinder throats and rough bore, where lead can get a foothold it will increase.
4) And this "I think its fair to say that Ruger has been known to produce a few revolvers with thread constrictions in the barrel and cylinder throats that are not ideal for shooting lead bullets."
It is something you can notice when running a patch down the barrel. I wonder if this is more common with revolvers that have thin forcing cones?
I don't think that Hickock 45 will address these issues, but I wish he could.
 
1) Over sized cylinder mouth. Ruger has had a bad habit of sizing at .432"
2) To steep of angle cut on the forcing cone, not a big deal as it can be easily remedied.
3) Roughly machined cylinder throats and rough bore, where lead can get a foothold it will increase.
4) And this "I think its fair to say that Ruger has been known to produce a few revolvers with thread constrictions in the barrel and cylinder throats that are not ideal for shooting lead bullets."
It is something you can notice when running a patch down the barrel. I wonder if this is more common with revolvers that have thin forcing cones?
I don't think that Hickock 45 will address these issues, but I wish he could.

I see your points now. However, I think many of those will be a case by case specific issue. May be best to inspect carefully the revolver before you buy with some gauges. I could get a fine one and you could get a tight/rough one. Wish there was a better answer.
 
Hickok shoots a pot, it blows apart, and then he makes a joke about ''pot smoking.'' Funny about the first 100 times he said it. He inevitably will say ''pretty cool, pretty cool'' and ''not bad, not bad'' in nearly every video. I call these ''verbal crutches,'' and while predictable & obnoxious, they don't detract much from the fact that the guy clearly LOVES guns and enjoys what he does. He's a damn fine shot. I give him credit for being able to make a living doing what he loves, BUT the flip side of that is -- he never gives a bad review...he's clearly in the back pocket of Bud's and the manufacturers. Just once, I'd like to see Hickok say, ''Listen, this firearm is crap. Turn off the camera. I got nothing good to say about this gun. I'm going to go do some REAL pot smoking. Sinsemilla! Pretty cool, pretty cool.''

Well, he doesn't give bad reviews because he usually doesn't review junk (except for that Hi-Point pistol review). He does mention whether or not the gun has malfunctioned.
 
I have three Ruger revolvers that I handload for and shoot lead bullets in all of them without any leading problems. What's the deal with Ruger and leading of barrels? It may have more to do with the types of bullets used and the velocities that they are being driven rather than with Ruger barrels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top