Has Ruger ever made an attractive, iconic firearm?
- Thread starter Trey Veston
- Start date
- Status
Ruger does have a lot of firearms. I've owned 2, one a Red Label All Weather and a target rifle.
I sold the target rifle only because I wanted to build a rifle. The Red Label I owned for about 6 years. The last 2 years it gave me nothing but problems with light strikes. Ruger had no parts and no gun smiths were able to correct the problem.
Also will admit I like the Redhawk and Vaquero plus some of their autos.
I sold the target rifle only because I wanted to build a rifle. The Red Label I owned for about 6 years. The last 2 years it gave me nothing but problems with light strikes. Ruger had no parts and no gun smiths were able to correct the problem.
Also will admit I like the Redhawk and Vaquero plus some of their autos.
Legionnaire
Contributing Member
How about the Old Army?
Old Dog
Member
Has Ruger ever made an attractive, iconic firearm?
No. Yes. Maybe.
I like my 10-22s. I like the old Security Sixes and Speed Sixes. Other than those, I think Ruger's modern DA revolvers and every auto-pistol (especially the P series) they've ever made are butt-ugly.
No. Yes. Maybe.
I like my 10-22s. I like the old Security Sixes and Speed Sixes. Other than those, I think Ruger's modern DA revolvers and every auto-pistol (especially the P series) they've ever made are butt-ugly.
Iconic ?
The Ruger Standard literally launched a major gun manufacturer. Devised in Bill Ruger's garage , took over a huge portion of the .22 pistol market almost overnight. 70 years later it is still enormously popular in a variety of manifestations.
That's iconic. Attractive too , if you ask me.
This old iron is my steel plate pistol , as well as an all around great shooter. Personally , I prefer the heavy tapered barrel over the bull.
Regarding the Nambu/Luger discussion , it is historical fact that Bill Ruger disassembled a couple of Nambus and used them as a basis of his design. Just look at the bolt - very Nambu-ish , not at all like a Luger toggle.
Surely that fact that the gun had a profile resemblance to a Luger didn't hurt it's early marketing success. I don't think that the majority of the shooting public was familiar with a Nambu in those post WWII years , but most knew what a Luger looked like. Factor in the Ruger/Luger rhyme and off you go. Some Nambu versions had really ugly trigger guards ; I am sure glad that old Bill didn't copy that detail.
I love this old pistol.
Ruger, for the most part, plays to its strengths--their subsidiary is one of the finest casting companies in the US--https://www.ruger.com/casting/index.html Bill Ruger realized the skilled worker force relying on hand fitting and polishing that established gunmakers had --Colt, Smith and Wesson, Winchester, etc. was becoming unaffordable. In part, the GCA of 1968 was promoted by US manufacturers to get a breathing space from competition across the world via milsurp imports and cheaper firearms.
Thus, Ruger realized that improvements in castings meant that he did not have to have the expensive forging and machining operations of the old line gunmakers along with their expensive labor force and expensive production techniques. So, Ruger's designs soon relied on castings and minimal additional machining which saved labor and material. When you pick a manufacturing technique, it will constrain design to some extent.
Frequently, I see posters wanting the hand fit and finish of the firearms of yore--from say the 1900's to 1950's but they want it at today's mass market prices with forged and finely machined and hand fitted parts. Perfect examples are Garand receivers versus the ubiquitous AR lower receiver--which is easier to produce at a lower cost in labor, machining, and materials. The spotty reputation of the reproduction M-1 Carbines is another example--one repro will work fine while the next, not so much and the fit and finish are notably inferior to the real McCoy. But, if the Garand or M1 Carbine were priced with today's costs in labor and materials, you would spend a lot more than for Bill Ruger's firearms.
Injection molded stocks versus classic wood is another example. The Ruger American in a poly stock is superior to a lot of rifles in accuracy, durability, and accessorizing than the ye olde Mauser, Springfield, Winchesters, etc. of the golden age of firearms--but these will always leave some folks cold that like traditional bluing, hand polishing, and wood stocks.
Bill Ruger was no John Browning, but then again, John Browning was no Bill Ruger. Browning did not create from scratch or run a successful firearms manufacturer from a puny upstart into a major player in the industry which bypassed the market share and profitability of far older corporations with storied names and history. Browning's genius was in designing firearms that fit the technology and production techniques of his time. Ruger's true genius was in manufacturing processes and then designing the rugged dependable firearms that took advantage of it which could be sold at a good profit at a price that average Joe could afford. If Ruger's designs appeared on the exterior like those of past firearms and thus appear derivative, the innards and productions techniques to make and sell them to the masses are much less derivative.
Thus, Ruger realized that improvements in castings meant that he did not have to have the expensive forging and machining operations of the old line gunmakers along with their expensive labor force and expensive production techniques. So, Ruger's designs soon relied on castings and minimal additional machining which saved labor and material. When you pick a manufacturing technique, it will constrain design to some extent.
Frequently, I see posters wanting the hand fit and finish of the firearms of yore--from say the 1900's to 1950's but they want it at today's mass market prices with forged and finely machined and hand fitted parts. Perfect examples are Garand receivers versus the ubiquitous AR lower receiver--which is easier to produce at a lower cost in labor, machining, and materials. The spotty reputation of the reproduction M-1 Carbines is another example--one repro will work fine while the next, not so much and the fit and finish are notably inferior to the real McCoy. But, if the Garand or M1 Carbine were priced with today's costs in labor and materials, you would spend a lot more than for Bill Ruger's firearms.
Injection molded stocks versus classic wood is another example. The Ruger American in a poly stock is superior to a lot of rifles in accuracy, durability, and accessorizing than the ye olde Mauser, Springfield, Winchesters, etc. of the golden age of firearms--but these will always leave some folks cold that like traditional bluing, hand polishing, and wood stocks.
Bill Ruger was no John Browning, but then again, John Browning was no Bill Ruger. Browning did not create from scratch or run a successful firearms manufacturer from a puny upstart into a major player in the industry which bypassed the market share and profitability of far older corporations with storied names and history. Browning's genius was in designing firearms that fit the technology and production techniques of his time. Ruger's true genius was in manufacturing processes and then designing the rugged dependable firearms that took advantage of it which could be sold at a good profit at a price that average Joe could afford. If Ruger's designs appeared on the exterior like those of past firearms and thus appear derivative, the innards and productions techniques to make and sell them to the masses are much less derivative.
Golfanaticshooter
Member
I'm convincing my wife I/we need one of these for three reasons:
1. It's attractive
2. Its iconic
3. One never knows when the need for
defense against a 4000# rampaging animal might be necessary!
1. It's attractive
2. Its iconic
3. One never knows when the need for
defense against a 4000# rampaging animal might be necessary!
caribou
Member
10/22
Except that cheap folding/breakable rear sight and that stupid bead front sight, I really like the Ruger 10/22 series.
I grind off the bead and square off the front sight, and add a fixed at 75 yards rear solid, home made, rear sight.
The kids seem to take them , so Im using an old M-69 Romanian trainer , but to great effect.
Except that cheap folding/breakable rear sight and that stupid bead front sight, I really like the Ruger 10/22 series.
I grind off the bead and square off the front sight, and add a fixed at 75 yards rear solid, home made, rear sight.
The kids seem to take them , so Im using an old M-69 Romanian trainer , but to great effect.
stillquietvoice
Contributing Member
I may have missed it but the model 99 is a fairly attractive rifle with features that other lever guns just didn't have.
I'd say that the rotary magazines used in a lot of his designs is pretty iconic sa well as the look of the 99.
I'd say that the rotary magazines used in a lot of his designs is pretty iconic sa well as the look of the 99.
Paul R Zartman
Contributing Member
Obturation
Member
I've got to get in on this.
Attractive ?
Whats that? !
Iconic?
Uhhhh... Bolt action 357? Maybe not.
Well , rugers are beautiful. Their strength and durability are legendary to all but the haters and fanboys. Their beauty is in their utility, their status as an American icon is the outdoorsman who use their revolvers and rifles across the globe in the worst conditions generation after generation. Sure there are other revolver brands who's name I won't utter in this thread. But folks who pretend the other guns are as good may be right but for every one of them that claims other guns are better, there are just as many ruger guys who will not agree.
I'm a simple guy. I like things that work , I find beauty in simplicity and durability. Like the guy who prefers his old peterbuilt to some Volvo Swedish meatball. Maybe a little bulkier but unaffected by heavy use. Maybe lacking some of the refinement of other guns but can be slicked up to be the equal of ANY.
What about this?
"Dude, *** is that?!"
-- it's my space gun, when we colonize Mars it's going in my checked bags in case I see an interstellar squirrel or something.
All joking aside, rugers are fantastic guns. Some look weird to some people, that super gp100 isn't something I'd buy but . But I feel like rugers (revolvers especially) epitomize Americans - rugged, reliable and stronger than everyone else. Even if you disagree, it's still true. That's why they're iconic. That's why they're beautiful.
----rant over.---
Attractive ?
Whats that? !
Iconic?
Uhhhh... Bolt action 357? Maybe not.
Well , rugers are beautiful. Their strength and durability are legendary to all but the haters and fanboys. Their beauty is in their utility, their status as an American icon is the outdoorsman who use their revolvers and rifles across the globe in the worst conditions generation after generation. Sure there are other revolver brands who's name I won't utter in this thread. But folks who pretend the other guns are as good may be right but for every one of them that claims other guns are better, there are just as many ruger guys who will not agree.
I'm a simple guy. I like things that work , I find beauty in simplicity and durability. Like the guy who prefers his old peterbuilt to some Volvo Swedish meatball. Maybe a little bulkier but unaffected by heavy use. Maybe lacking some of the refinement of other guns but can be slicked up to be the equal of ANY.
What about this?
"Dude, *** is that?!"
-- it's my space gun, when we colonize Mars it's going in my checked bags in case I see an interstellar squirrel or something.
All joking aside, rugers are fantastic guns. Some look weird to some people, that super gp100 isn't something I'd buy but . But I feel like rugers (revolvers especially) epitomize Americans - rugged, reliable and stronger than everyone else. Even if you disagree, it's still true. That's why they're iconic. That's why they're beautiful.
----rant over.---
Iconic? No, not really.
Quintessential? Perhaps.
Attractive? Yes, I find most of them attractive.
I even like the super gp100.
Id get it in .357, and black. Disassemble, duracoat the barrel, fluted part of the cyl, ejector rod and star, the hammer and the trigger in gloss blood red.
Stocks would be changed to black g10 and id probably try install red ruger medalions.
It would go well with my other red and black rugers.
Quintessential? Perhaps.
Attractive? Yes, I find most of them attractive.
I even like the super gp100.
Id get it in .357, and black. Disassemble, duracoat the barrel, fluted part of the cyl, ejector rod and star, the hammer and the trigger in gloss blood red.
Stocks would be changed to black g10 and id probably try install red ruger medalions.
It would go well with my other red and black rugers.
armarsh
Member
Well, at least Rugers have a nice personality.
The only Ruger I'd ever admit was good looking and possibly iconic is the 77/22. Bonus points for the 22 Hornet.
The only Ruger I'd ever admit was good looking and possibly iconic is the 77/22. Bonus points for the 22 Hornet.
mdThanatos
Member
I like some of their products when it comes to appearance, not all, but some. I think that the new Taurus G3 looks similar to the SR series in some parts.
Paul R Zartman
Contributing Member
Yea, what Obturation said x2, ok lock this thread...
earlthegoat2
Member
The No 1 is mighty similar in design to the Farquharson patented in 1872.
OP
OP
Trey Veston
Member
I don't think any of the mainstream bolt guns can really be considered unique enough looking to be considered iconic. Look at a Ruger, Remington, Winchester. Savage, Browning, etc. ten feet away in low light and they all look pretty much identical.
A Redhawk has a distinct shape with it's hump that I don't think is aesthetically pleasing. Same with the Security Six. GP100 is sorta the same, but not as bad.
A Redhawk has a distinct shape with it's hump that I don't think is aesthetically pleasing. Same with the Security Six. GP100 is sorta the same, but not as bad.
Paul R Zartman
Contributing Member
How dare you talk about my lady's hump like that, she can't help that she is slightly LARGE FRAMED
and yes while she might be SLIGHTLY self conscious about the size of her hump, I think it's one of her most enduring traits. For without that SLIGHTLY LARGE HUMP most first timers probably couldn't handle her bucking under pressure...and then get BITTEN by the rapidly moving parts right in that tender soft spot between your finger and thumb
Yes you heard me right, her SLIGHTLY LARGE HUMP is well designed for all of us to enjoy and "like I said before" I think her HUMP is beautiful and sexy... Excuse me while I go hold my Redhawk...
Last edited:
I've always found the M77 RSI stylish, I didn't see it mentioned elsewhere.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_M77RSI_firearm_fun.htm
I've never purchased one yet because I found.Zastava and Interarms Mark X full stock rifles with 20" barrels in traditional satin blu finish at lower prices chambered for cartridges that appeal to me. Every so often I see one in stainless steel in an appealing cartridge chambering but due to these typically being limited production runs for Lipsey's the price (and market value) places it in the "too pretty to take hunting" category for me.
This nice example caught my eye as much more affordable than typical in 7mm-08, but I have a full stock Zastava with 20" barrel in 7X64mm Brenneke that has some scuffs where it won't just stay at home.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/865824028
Plus I don't find the whole long action vs. short action thing.enough to justify purchasing something that's well overlapped by something I already own.
https://www.chuckhawks.com/ruger_M77RSI_firearm_fun.htm
I've never purchased one yet because I found.Zastava and Interarms Mark X full stock rifles with 20" barrels in traditional satin blu finish at lower prices chambered for cartridges that appeal to me. Every so often I see one in stainless steel in an appealing cartridge chambering but due to these typically being limited production runs for Lipsey's the price (and market value) places it in the "too pretty to take hunting" category for me.
This nice example caught my eye as much more affordable than typical in 7mm-08, but I have a full stock Zastava with 20" barrel in 7X64mm Brenneke that has some scuffs where it won't just stay at home.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/865824028
Plus I don't find the whole long action vs. short action thing.enough to justify purchasing something that's well overlapped by something I already own.
Mine's not pretty like yours anymore, and never had that fine wood, but I like it for it's utilitarian look and function.
earlthegoat2
Member
The RSI Guns are nice looking but they are not iconic to Ruger.
I do applaud Ruger however for putting the full stock on many of their different rifles to include the M77, 10/22, and No 1. Don’t know if they ever did it but it would be nice to see on the 77 Rimfire series as well as the 77/44 and 77/357.
I do applaud Ruger however for putting the full stock on many of their different rifles to include the M77, 10/22, and No 1. Don’t know if they ever did it but it would be nice to see on the 77 Rimfire series as well as the 77/44 and 77/357.
mdauben
Member
I guess I like homely things, because I think these revolvers have a certain charm. I'd love to own any of them.
armedwalleye
Member
Anybody who thinks there's no beauty in an inlaid Red Label, a Ruger #1 or a Government target stainless Mark needs more help than he's apt to find on a gun board...even THR....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
