Golden_006
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 285
. . . list ones that you love and are devoted to by buying their products almost exclusively.
Also, why does everyone hate Ruger?
Also, why does everyone hate Ruger?
Gun Manufacturers you love to hate (Ruger?) or . . .
- Thread starter Golden_006
- Start date
- Status
Robert Wilson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 402
Additionally, Ruger used to outsource rifle barrel manufacturing. Some were very good, some were truly awful. It's been decades since they switched to in-house barrel production, and their barrels are now uniformly very good, but some of us still haven't gotten the word.
Also, Ruger began using investment casting at a time when the process was associated with cheapness. Again, time and experience have demonstrated that investment casting is an excellent process for making firearms, but shooters can be a vindictive lot...
Also, Ruger began using investment casting at a time when the process was associated with cheapness. Again, time and experience have demonstrated that investment casting is an excellent process for making firearms, but shooters can be a vindictive lot...
By vindictive do you mean ignorant? Because these are the same people who say that polymer blows up in your hand. And think that computers on cars were a bad thing.
Marlin. For some reason I absolutely hate marlin. Totally unfounded as I know they make quality firearms. I just have zero desire to own one, and it annoys me to think about buying one.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
The stuff about magazine capacity has been taken so far out of context and blown so out of proportion it is laughable. As usual, Chicken Little panics because the sky is falling, taking the rumor and running with it. Bill Ruger was trying to compromise with Congress before the coming of the Brady Bill. Obviously, that backfired in his face because the quote was clipped from an interview and twisted to mean something he did not intend. For whatever reason, gun owners are FAAAAR too willing to turn on each other, painfully obvious in this case.
Then there are the folks who still hate S&W because of their agreement. Despite the fact that the company changed hands and the agreement was quashed by the Bush administration. In this case, gun owners should be pissed at their fellow voters, who created the environment in which the government could wage war on a legal industry that produces a lawful product, that THEY regulate. THAT is what we should be up in arms about.
Then there are the folks who still hate S&W because of their agreement. Despite the fact that the company changed hands and the agreement was quashed by the Bush administration. In this case, gun owners should be pissed at their fellow voters, who created the environment in which the government could wage war on a legal industry that produces a lawful product, that THEY regulate. THAT is what we should be up in arms about.
Last edited:
BamAlmighty
Member
I don't hate Ruger... but for whatever reason I don't and will not own a Glock. I own pretty much everything else.
sherman123
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 395
Jiminez and Bryco Jennings
hirundo82
Member
Shooters have a long memory for companies that have done them wrong.
The vindictiveness against Ruger is mainly due to Bill Ruger pushing for the "high-capacity" magazine ban. He's been dead since 2002, but some shooters still refuse to buy Ruger firearms.
Similarly, some still hold a grudge against Smith and Wesson for capitulating to the Clinton administration and adding the internal locks, despite the fact the company has changed hands a couple of times since then.
The vindictiveness against Ruger is mainly due to Bill Ruger pushing for the "high-capacity" magazine ban. He's been dead since 2002, but some shooters still refuse to buy Ruger firearms.
Similarly, some still hold a grudge against Smith and Wesson for capitulating to the Clinton administration and adding the internal locks, despite the fact the company has changed hands a couple of times since then.
aka108
Member
I've owned 6 Ruger products. They were all nicely built and decent to look at but so far as being anywhere near what might be loosely labeled accurate they were not. Sold evey one of them off and will never buy one of Rugers products ever again.
I don't hate Ruger. I'm a little displeased that they stopped making the GP100 with a blued finish and wood grip panels, but other than that I like them. (OK, I'd be lying if I said I would be a much happier man if the SR-556 wasn't so expensive.)
I have issues with GLOCKS. I think they are great guns, its just that the only one they make that fits my hand is a the GLOCK26, the others don't point or shoot very well for me. If they did, I'd probably own a lot of GLOCKs. I also don't understand why they can't throw in at least a grip safety, or give some of their guns a single stack magazine.
Other than a few little pet peeves, I don't really hate too many gun manufactures... at least not for anything that could be construed as a good reason. (Hi-Point, if your reading this, would it be possible to make your .45 magazine base plates flat and metal instead of bulky and plasticy? thanks)
Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
I have issues with GLOCKS. I think they are great guns, its just that the only one they make that fits my hand is a the GLOCK26, the others don't point or shoot very well for me. If they did, I'd probably own a lot of GLOCKs. I also don't understand why they can't throw in at least a grip safety, or give some of their guns a single stack magazine.
Other than a few little pet peeves, I don't really hate too many gun manufactures... at least not for anything that could be construed as a good reason. (Hi-Point, if your reading this, would it be possible to make your .45 magazine base plates flat and metal instead of bulky and plasticy? thanks)
Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
Mike Donnigan
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3
Had a Taurus 9mm once, you know the one that resembles the Beretta 92. I was out shooting one day, just plinking at different things and the damn thing started to come apart. I traded it in on my Glock 19 and haven't looked back.
COLT
After the ban expired and many bought LE marked rifles, colt had issue w/ it, so much in fact a guy I know called for service on a non running COLT and they ran him through the ringer as to why he had an LE marked rifle to begin with, and COLT only quietly rescinded their stance on not selling their LE marked toys to non LE dealers etc, or how they still produce pinned stocks for their 'civilian' line and compensators etc but no 'evil' features
After the ban expired and many bought LE marked rifles, colt had issue w/ it, so much in fact a guy I know called for service on a non running COLT and they ran him through the ringer as to why he had an LE marked rifle to begin with, and COLT only quietly rescinded their stance on not selling their LE marked toys to non LE dealers etc, or how they still produce pinned stocks for their 'civilian' line and compensators etc but no 'evil' features
m500'92
Member
Ruger of course:
his quotes
"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
"I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."
Along with that I don't see anything that he built was in any way "great" and I've had many QC issues with Ruger guns.
I see it as different for Ruger than S&W as it was Bill Ruger himself speaking in favor of the gun grabbers rather than someone at S&W simply adding a safety feature to prevent being sued (Which many Rugers and other brands have too).
his quotes
"No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun."
"I never meant for simple civilians to have my 20 or 30 round magazines or my folding stock."
"I see nothing wrong with waiting periods."
Along with that I don't see anything that he built was in any way "great" and I've had many QC issues with Ruger guns.
I see it as different for Ruger than S&W as it was Bill Ruger himself speaking in favor of the gun grabbers rather than someone at S&W simply adding a safety feature to prevent being sued (Which many Rugers and other brands have too).
The issue was that SW signed an agreement, a pact if you will, w/ the Clinton Administration to do so, it wasnt so much the feature(though still reviled by most serious gun users to this day)so much as it was signing a deal w/ the 'devil'
Cosmoline
Member
The Ruger haters are haters of WILLIAM RUGER, who passed away some years back. I disagreed with his political views, but they were not the views of the company and they died with him. What remains are his firearms and his company, which are both assets we should laud not attack.
It should also be remembered that when he took those positions they were VERY WIDELY HELD among gun owners and conservatives in general. Few owned high-caps stateside and many in the domestic industry viewed them as competition. Heck, S&W did an actual corporate deal with the Clinton administration. It wasn't just the head of S&W saying something stupid, it was the company ITSELF binding itself to Clinton's edicts. That's going much farther than Ruger the company was ever prepared to go.
Anyway, those days are gone now, as is Bill Ruger. So get over it.
Ruger No. 1
Single handedly revived the art of the single shot rifle with a very strong design based on a simplified Farquharson. The No. 1 and No. 3 were the platforms for the revival of many cartridges and allowed new life to be breathed into the old .45-70.
Ruger Single Six
Still one of the nicest handling plinkers, it combines incredible strength with good balance and accuracy. It also helped revive interest in the old SAA style and paved the way for CAS.
Ruger Mark One
Ruger actually turned one of the worst designs in gun history--the Baby Nambu--into a light, accurate and very fun plinker at far less than the Colt Woodsman.
Ruger Security Six
I've owned and used a great many revolvers, and the Security Six line keeps rising in my estimation. It has the lightness and balance of K-frame magnums with increased strength for sustained magnum use. My carry guns are all from this line. I would only be tempted to switch if someone offered me a Python.
Ruger SP-101
This is a smaller, more compact five gun that still stands as one of the nicest .357 carry pieces ever made. It's the smallest revolver that still permits sustained practice and firing with .357 loads. As was recently pointed out to me, it's actually stronger than the Six line.
Ruger M-77
This is a rifle that GETS USED. Used and used and used and abused. I've seen M77's with auto sealant and duct tape holding them together, but they still keep on trucking. It gets little glory, but a whole lot of game.
Ruger Blackhawk
This is a strengthened, improved version of the SAA that has been used as the basis for thousands of custom revolvers. In .44 Special it's one of the world's most perfect revolvers. Skeeter thought so.
Ruger Super Blackhawk
Though S&W's high-end 29 is the image of the .44 Magnum, it was really Ruger's SBH that made the cartridge popular. It was about half the price of the M29 and with a stronger frame to boot.
The new model BH and Vaquero also have their good points, including incredible strength and being the best platform of all for custom jobs. But they also have down sides. Still, this short list should be enough to explode the ridiculous idea that Ruger never made a great firearm.
I won't speak to the 10-22 because I have no direct experience with it or the Mini-14, but I know those are also guns that get used and used hard--A LOT. The Mini-14 is practically the signature rifle of the Alaska subsistence hunt, just as the M-77 .338 is the signature rifle of the Alaska big game hunt.
It should also be remembered that when he took those positions they were VERY WIDELY HELD among gun owners and conservatives in general. Few owned high-caps stateside and many in the domestic industry viewed them as competition. Heck, S&W did an actual corporate deal with the Clinton administration. It wasn't just the head of S&W saying something stupid, it was the company ITSELF binding itself to Clinton's edicts. That's going much farther than Ruger the company was ever prepared to go.
Anyway, those days are gone now, as is Bill Ruger. So get over it.
Ruger No. 1
Single handedly revived the art of the single shot rifle with a very strong design based on a simplified Farquharson. The No. 1 and No. 3 were the platforms for the revival of many cartridges and allowed new life to be breathed into the old .45-70.
Ruger Single Six
Still one of the nicest handling plinkers, it combines incredible strength with good balance and accuracy. It also helped revive interest in the old SAA style and paved the way for CAS.
Ruger Mark One
Ruger actually turned one of the worst designs in gun history--the Baby Nambu--into a light, accurate and very fun plinker at far less than the Colt Woodsman.
Ruger Security Six
I've owned and used a great many revolvers, and the Security Six line keeps rising in my estimation. It has the lightness and balance of K-frame magnums with increased strength for sustained magnum use. My carry guns are all from this line. I would only be tempted to switch if someone offered me a Python.
Ruger SP-101
This is a smaller, more compact five gun that still stands as one of the nicest .357 carry pieces ever made. It's the smallest revolver that still permits sustained practice and firing with .357 loads. As was recently pointed out to me, it's actually stronger than the Six line.
Ruger M-77
This is a rifle that GETS USED. Used and used and used and abused. I've seen M77's with auto sealant and duct tape holding them together, but they still keep on trucking. It gets little glory, but a whole lot of game.
Ruger Blackhawk
This is a strengthened, improved version of the SAA that has been used as the basis for thousands of custom revolvers. In .44 Special it's one of the world's most perfect revolvers. Skeeter thought so.
Ruger Super Blackhawk
Though S&W's high-end 29 is the image of the .44 Magnum, it was really Ruger's SBH that made the cartridge popular. It was about half the price of the M29 and with a stronger frame to boot.
The new model BH and Vaquero also have their good points, including incredible strength and being the best platform of all for custom jobs. But they also have down sides. Still, this short list should be enough to explode the ridiculous idea that Ruger never made a great firearm.
I won't speak to the 10-22 because I have no direct experience with it or the Mini-14, but I know those are also guns that get used and used hard--A LOT. The Mini-14 is practically the signature rifle of the Alaska subsistence hunt, just as the M-77 .338 is the signature rifle of the Alaska big game hunt.
Last edited:
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
A little information goes a long way. They stopped doing the wood panel inserts because Ruger's long-time grip manufacturer went out of business. They still make blued GP's. They're starting to get wood single action grips from Altamont but the only source for DA grips that folks would be willing to pay for is Hogue.
Ruger has also turned a profit every year since its inception in 1949. They must be doing something right.
Bottom line is that folks have their prejudices, some based in reality, some not, and are VERY unwilling to let them go.
therewolf
member
Hi Everybody.
I just hate Glocks. The only reason is they just look like chunky pieces of crap.
I KNOW they're dependable, popular, and fairly well made. IMO they are just deplorable in appearance. I'm especially careful around LEOs because I particularly dread being shot with one.
I personally have an ascetic sense which influences my opinion. And IMO, the 1911A1, like the Colt Model 70, or Springfield GI with the beavertail on the handle is simplistic elegance. The newer 1911s with the shorter barrels, and straight handles just aren't attractive.
The Beretta 92FS or 92A1 (Once again ONLY IMO) are sexy Italian designs. The 90-two looks too much like a submarine hull.
This probably seems stupid to many, but when I target shoot, I just prefer to hold something which has attractive lines...
I just hate Glocks. The only reason is they just look like chunky pieces of crap.
I KNOW they're dependable, popular, and fairly well made. IMO they are just deplorable in appearance. I'm especially careful around LEOs because I particularly dread being shot with one.
I personally have an ascetic sense which influences my opinion. And IMO, the 1911A1, like the Colt Model 70, or Springfield GI with the beavertail on the handle is simplistic elegance. The newer 1911s with the shorter barrels, and straight handles just aren't attractive.
The Beretta 92FS or 92A1 (Once again ONLY IMO) are sexy Italian designs. The 90-two looks too much like a submarine hull.
This probably seems stupid to many, but when I target shoot, I just prefer to hold something which has attractive lines...
Offfhand
Member.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 2,442
Quoted from above;
"Additionally, Ruger used to outsource rifle barrel manufacturing. Some were very good, some were truly awful. It's been decades since they switched to in-house barrel production, and their barrels are now uniformly very good, but some of us still haven't gotten the word."
Uniformly very good? That's a pretty sweeping statement, wouldn't you say?
"Additionally, Ruger used to outsource rifle barrel manufacturing. Some were very good, some were truly awful. It's been decades since they switched to in-house barrel production, and their barrels are now uniformly very good, but some of us still haven't gotten the word."
Uniformly very good? That's a pretty sweeping statement, wouldn't you say?
jimmyraythomason
Member
Well put. Of the two dozen or so Rugers I have owned over the last 35 years,none had any issues that amounted to anything and all had very acceptable accuracy.
oldfool
Member
list ones that you love and are devoted to by buying their products almost exclusively
hmmm... in no particular order
Colt, S&W, Ruger, Savage, Marlin, Browning, Taurus, High Standard, Sig, FN, Berretta, CZ, Remington, Mossberg, Dan Wesson, Freedom Arms, Walther, Springfield, Rock Island, NEF, Rossi, Winchester, Henry... and a few dozen others
I ain't easy, but I can be had
probably why I don't post a lot on those "if you could choose only one.. or three.. or five" threads
I really don't get the 'hate" thing
true, blocky black plastic don't really ring my wind chimes, but I don't lose any sleep over it
hmmm... in no particular order
Colt, S&W, Ruger, Savage, Marlin, Browning, Taurus, High Standard, Sig, FN, Berretta, CZ, Remington, Mossberg, Dan Wesson, Freedom Arms, Walther, Springfield, Rock Island, NEF, Rossi, Winchester, Henry... and a few dozen others
I ain't easy, but I can be had
probably why I don't post a lot on those "if you could choose only one.. or three.. or five" threads
I really don't get the 'hate" thing
true, blocky black plastic don't really ring my wind chimes, but I don't lose any sleep over it
redneck2
Member
I'm trying to force myself to like newer Savage center fire rifles. I've had two, and they were absolutely awful. Triggers were 10#+, the .223 wouldn't chamber factory rounds.
My son-in-law has a target model .22 and a Model 12 in 6BR and both are excellent.
On Rugers, I had a 10-22 and it was super. My Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt is exceptional in every way.
My son-in-law has a target model .22 and a Model 12 in 6BR and both are excellent.
On Rugers, I had a 10-22 and it was super. My Ruger Bisley in .45 Colt is exceptional in every way.
therewolf
member
Hey, I don't hate Ruger...
...yet.
...yet.
Robert Wilson
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2009
- Messages
- 402
Yes. That's why I made it.
7thCavScout
Member
The only "Hate" I have for Ruger is from the absolute meltdown I had trying to reassemble my MK I. Once I finally got it put back together I jumped in the car and traded it for a Beretta Neos, post haste.
- Status
Similar threads
