How people justify paying too much (Heritage Rough Rider versus Ruger Single Six)

Well, is the RR zamak or 12L14 steel? They’re totally different.

John_R said:

Well, is the RR zamak or 12L14 steel? They’re totally different.

Click to expand...

Depends on the model. The two SRR prefix models shown at the bottom of the small bore web page have steel frames.
http://heritagemfg.com/product_listing.cfm?cat_id=2

All the RR prefix models have aluminum alloy frames listed in their specifications.

The cheapest model is ZAMAK. The steel model, intended primarily for states with prohibitions based on melting point, is 12L14.

I only see “aluminum” or “steel” listed as frame materials.

The Rough Rider has a glued in barrel , and a really crappy safety. And major parts made of ZAMAK. Your conclusion that the RR is 85% as good as the Single Six is absurd.
And - comparing the quality of the ZAMK RR to the Ruger LCR is absurd.

I am a fool for owning and revering my stainless Single Six. There , I admitted it , and I feel much better.

(WVGunman - no one would be beating up on the Rough Rider had you not come on so biased and strong.)

Conclusion : Those who choose to buy , shoot and enjoy the Rough Rider should just do so , without looking for validation. And , if the barrel falls off , try to discreetly pick it up and slip it into your range bag before anyone notices.

So according to the OP I'm either stupid, a fool or both for buying something other than the gun he likes. If you like your Rough Rider good for you but do not denigrate others for not doing the same. If you have to knock another product or opinion to justify your choices you just might be doing something wrong. Do you realize how poorly you are acting?

I’m frugal so most guns seem to cost more than I value them and that includes the S/A Rugers, but I won’t touch a RR.

I bought my son a Single six for his 14th birthday, it is my hope that he will enjoy it and pass it down. One of the reasons I bought a Ruger is because I want him or his grandchildren to be able not only to shoot it, but to be able to have it repaired if need be.

I’m fairly confident Ruger will still be servicing single sixes in 50 years. I’m not at all certain rough rider will be around in 50 years much less repairing guns.

Similarly, and keeping in the revolver theme, I have a Rossi 357 that was purchased new in 1997, about five years ago the plastic front sight broke off. It took me forever to find a replacement, partly because they’ve been bought out or something since then...... Now had I bought a new S&W in 98 it would have taken literally one phone call to get a replacement..... and that cylinder slop probably wouldn’t be there either but that’s another story.

Do you remember when Kimber's ( 1911's specifically ), first came out? They were really well made and very reasonably priced. Have you seen today's prices? Are they better made today than when they first came out? Their price increase compared to inflation does not seem even. Nothing against Kimber, they're a great gun. Just seems sometimes name/brand goes up Rediculusly. INHO.

I don't believe the OP was attempting to call anybody a fool, or stupid. Don't take offense.
Mainly I think he was questioning the BIG difference in price, in which case he is correct.
Is it worth the difference ? Some say "yes". Some say "no". But, we are all entitled to "our own opinion".
It is the ONLY opinion we each have. Correct ? It's not who's right or wrong. It's what makes a good discussion.

I've seen a lot of good info on this thread.
I have owned both. More about that later.

Do they accomplish basically the same thing? Yes. Launch bullets accurately enough to kill cans.

However the Ruger is much higher quality than a rough rider. Heritage guns look like cap guns.

HB

OP definitely came out with an agenda. Reread the thread title.....

DeepSouth said:

I have a Rossi 357 that was purchased new in 1997, about five years ago the plastic front sight broke off. It took me forever to find a replacement, partly because they’ve been bought out or something since then...... Now had I bought a new S&W in 98 it would have taken literally one phone call to get a replacement..... and that cylinder slop probably wouldn’t be there either but that’s another story.

Click to expand...

I wish that were the case, but it isn't. As someone who has both a collection of S&W's and a collection of Rossi's, I can assure you that problems - especially cylinder play - exist in S&W revolvers. I've had to send a couple of S&W's in for repair. I've also had to do some work on a few of my Rossi's. Yes, S&W is generally better quality than Rossi, but several of my Rossi's are about as good quality as most of my Smiths. The notion that S&W's are better than Rossi's may be valid as a rule of thumb, but not as a formula. And even the Rossi's that aren't as good as the Smiths can still be decent guns given the price.

Your summary points 1 through 4 are based on poorly founded opinion and condescension.

You are quite free to load up on all the Heritage , Raven , Jimenez etc. products you want. That is your right.
My summary:
1) I do not like to be lectured to.
2) There is no pot metal in my safe , nor will there be in the future.

drunkenpoacher said:

The value of a product is determined by what someone will pay.

Click to expand...

Yep. What does it cost to manufacture a glock 17? At least 5 or 6 times less than what they charge including everything that goes with it.

Howdy

Shoot what you want. Personally, I handled one of those Heritage revolvers once and thought it looked cheaply constructed. Could not get past how poorly the frame was fitted to the grip frame. That and the safety was enough to completely halt any interest I had in the gun.

I have three Three Screw Single Sixes that are each over 50 years old. They shoot just as well as they did when they were new. Will the Heritage revolvers stand up for 50 years?

I have owned three Ruger wheelguns : Single Six, BearCat (the original lightweight alloy version), and BlackHawk .357 Magnum with extra 9mm cylinder. All were good quality guns. I no longer own them due to three separate economic deficits (needed the cash). I still have my Mark I ( but it's a semi).

I still own my Rough Rider and had no problems.
I don't shoot it often due to arthritis in my hands. Always shot it SA with one hand.
Later learned to cock the hammer with my left hand while holding it right handed.
That was after I bought three Western style guns that were both SA/DA. They are no longer in production.
H&R Model 676, Iver Johnson Model 50 "Sidewinder", and my favorite, High Standard Double Nine.
All these were bought on GunBroker.
You might want to try some of these, as a comparison.

drunkenpoacher said:

The value of a product is determined by what someone will pay.
Any gun that sells is fairly priced to the person who buys it.

Click to expand...

I could not disagree with you more wholeheartedly. Just because someone is willing to be overcharged for a gun, doesn't mean the gun is at a fair price-even to the purchase who is willfully paying more than what the gun is worth.

My recent gun purchase is a perfect example. I just bought a Ruger Redhwak for $900. There is NO WAY that gun is worth $900. Not on this planet. So why did I buy it? Because I've wanted one for YEARS. When they were $750, 4-5 years ago, I felt they were overpriced. I kept watching for a used gun. Used guns sold for less than $50 off of the new price. People keep paying those high prices for Redhawks and dealers and owners keep charging those high prices.

Finally, after watching the price of that gun continually climb, year after year after year, I finally succumbed...bit the bullet, and bought the gun. I just came to the realization that, yes the gun is overpriced, but that is never going to change, and I either can do what I know is economically unwise, or just forget the whole thing.

(FWIW, I had the same issue with the Colt revolvers...I eventually just gave up, and I no longer even look for them at gunshows.)

Mn Fats said:

Yep. What does it cost to manufacture a glock 17? At least 5 or 6 times less than what they charge including everything that goes with it.

Click to expand...

I'd bet you are correct and they sell them every day for $450+ so that is what they are worth.

huntsman said:

I’m frugal so most guns seem to cost more than I value them and that includes the S/A Rugers, but I won’t touch a RR.

Click to expand...

That's how I feel about Taurus! LOL Sure, I could have bought a Tracker 44 magnum for $200 less than my Redhawk, but I want the gun to go bang when I pull the trigger. I also want it to go bang when my grandson, who is decades away from being born, pull the trigger.

My theory is that when actual use is taken into account, we're paying a lot more than we need to for a level of construction we mostly don't need, or isn't even really there anyway.

Click to expand...

That theory would be a lot more compelling if we were really discussing that Harbor Freight sledgehammer I mentioned in my post before. Where what we were buying was literally the physical capability of that tool to drive a nail or in this case launch a bullet.

In the case of something like a Ruger single six versus a Heritage Rough Rider, what I would be buying would be not simply a single action .22 revolver, because I really need the ability to launch 22 bullets in a single action fashion.

I'd be buying a Ruger single six revolver because I want a Ruger single six revolver. I would not be buying a Heritage Rough Rider because I do not want a Heritage Rough Rider.

(These are just the examples you've given. I don't particularly care one way or the other about a Heritage Rough Rider, and don't have anything in specific against it, never having owned one.)

D.B. Cooper said:

People keep paying those high prices for Redhawks and dealers and owners keep charging those high prices.

Click to expand...

That's why they are worth the asking price.
Consumers, myself included, think everything we buy is overpriced.
Producers, myself included, think we aren't getting enough for the products and services we provide.
The price point at which goods and service sell is in fact what they are worth at any given time.

I could not disagree with you more wholeheartedly. Just because someone is willing to be overcharged for a gun, doesn't mean the gun is at a fair price-even to the purchase who is willfully paying more than what the gun is worth.

Click to expand...

Well actually yeah it is.

The free market model of economics says that an item is worth whatever somebody will pay to get it. And you kind of proved that point yourself.

It may have been painful to you to purchase a Ruger Redhawk at the price of $900. But if that gun wasn't worth more than $900 to you you would not have exchanged $900 to get it. You did, so it was.

You may now feel that you would rather have $900 instead of that gun and you may decide to sell it. If you can't find a buyer at $900, then the value of that gun may have declined. That happens too.