Are All Current Rugers Garbage?

I bought 4 Rugers during the pandemic. 1 is gone because it had an issue only a machine shop could have fixed, one is at Ruger now to be made right and is gone as soon as it gets back, one I am replacing the stock that cracked on it's first range trip on my dime and I shouldn't have to, and one works as you would expect although I had to snug the base pin latch screw down so the base pin wouldn't back out under recoil.

I am not a fan. Shame, their single action revolvers are nice but boy do they have QC issues compared to any other brand I've owned.

 

I'm new to Ruger firearms. I recently purchased an mkIV and upgraded the trigger etc... I've never tried to disassemble an earlier version so I'm probably a member of the 'Ignoratti.' If the earlier ones are better, they must be something else.

 

I have various Rugers that I love. But if YOU hate them so much I think I would have stopped buying them after the second or third one. Not every gun or every gun manufacturer is everyone's piece of cake. Find what you like and stick with it rather than keep buying guns you don't like.

 

I have a bit of a Ruger collection going.

2 Ruger Security Six 357mag revolvers.
1 Ruger Redhawk 45 Colt 45 acp revolver
1 Ruger LC9s Pro 9mm pistol
1 Ruger LCP 380 acp pistol
1 Ruger Mini-14 Tactical - 223

I had a Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle and sold it. I didn't like the fact that I was unable work the sloppy bolt from the shoulder.

 

I've had prolly 15 to 20 Rugers over the past 50 years and ZERO have had any issues.
Perhaps these Ruger haters just arn't good at maintenance.
Or they post stuff like this because they own stock in S&W. hehe

 

It seems like ruger on the semi auto side is competing mostly with taurus. When I look at the ruger semi auto 9's they look kind of cheap to me and seem like ruger is pushing hard at cost cutting while producing a pistol. On the other side it seems like Taurus is progressively producing better and better pistols at their low price point. I did buy a gx4 and am frankly impressed by the quality of the build and thoughtfulness of the design.

I have a mkII 22/45 which isn't a bad pistol but personally I would prefer having a more modern platform that mimics a typical semi auto pistol. I clean the mkII rarely enough that I have to pull up a manual every time to deal with the jigsaw puzzle.

 

I've never found a Ruger I liked better than some other alternative (although that alternative might be more expensive - like a S&W or SIG). The one exception is the Ruger New Vaquero that I own. I'm sure they're fine, but hardly the best at anything. Perhaps a tweaked 10/22 is an exception too.

 

I think a lot of respondents aren’t getting the point of my posting. In the past few years I’ve added to the Rugers I already owned to include: Predator, RAR, Wrangler, 3 10/22s, a 22/45 plus a second upper. All of them have been very good to outstanding (within the context of off-the-shelf value priced firearms). I like them a lot.

Now the point I was making or hoping to shed light on is that THR seems inundated with threads bemoaning new production Ruger everything if it has a legacy counterpart. The Mark I & II are superior to the IV, Number 1s built 30 years ago are more accurate. 10/22s from the 1960s never need cleaning/have perfect OEM triggers/can circumcise a gnat at 1000 paces.

These claims written that I have yet to experience firsthand in having been a Ruger owner and son of a Ruger owner for now 39 years. I was 10 when I took up my first Single-Six and it was no more accurate than my 10 year old example. I was 12 when I got my first Ruger rifle, a 77/22. It was less accurate than the 10/22 Sporter I now shoot. The .308 Mountain rifle was never as accurate (and still isn’t) than the current Predator or RAR I own.

My point is that Ruger IMO is at an apex in their manufacturing process; turning out better accuracy and tighter tolerances than at any time in their previous history yet the claims of yesteryear glory persist. I was simply pondering whether I live in some magic bubble of good fortune or if perhaps many people (meaning those straw men alluded to by others) have noted the same trend.

A scant few I know have answered honestly and I can certainly understand that some will have owned one or another unusually great example, but my money is on today’s Ruger anything being better than it ever was. That does not mean sell what you have and replace, just stop knocking WITHOUT EVIDENCE the current generation.

No, I don’t think Rugers are garbage. Yes, the title was a good bit facetious.

 

Given even money I’d take a Korth over the Vaquero, the S&Ws as well, but they aren’t priced similarly. Admittedly I’ve never fired a Vaquero but if the GP100s, SP101, Single-Sixs, Wrangler, Blackhawk, and RedHawks that I have owned/fired are an indication of the breed then my statement stands. I fully comprehend that $200-900 revolvers won’t compete well against a $4k example nor should they.

 

Two recent wranglers have been good.

Recent ec9 good

 

I pretty much agree. I rarely even look at Rugers anymore because they aren't a leader in anything, when I can get something better by saving a few more pennies. When I bought the New Vaquero, there was only the Beretta Stampede as an alternate for a SAA clone with a transfer bar.

 

I own three Rugers.
-I have a 40+ year old 10/22 it was my first gun a gift from dad (not much original is left on it).
-I have a ~35 year old Mark II, my first handgun another gift from dad.
-I have a 20 year old Ruger Blackhawk convertible 357/38/9mm and it was the first center fire handgun I bought myself.

The 10/22 still gets used, a lot. The Mark II gets used occasionally. I can't remember the last time I got the Blackhawk out and probably should sell it... Nothing Ruger currently makes has any appeal to me except the GP100 in 10mm Auto but I already have a S&W 610 so Ruger's current product line does not have much draw to me. I would rather have a S&W than a Ruger revolver in most cases and there is zero appeal to Ruger's semi-autos.. If I am going bolt gun I would be going to be a 700 clone, probably custom built. Even with lever guns I would rather have a Winchester clone than a Ruglin... My old Rugers have decent quality but I have vanishing little exposure to current Ruger products to say either way on current quality since I can't get past the lack of product appeal...

 

Just got an '83 Ruger MKII BBL 5" USED three owners now prolly never field stripped ran 100 CCI mini mags flawlessly.
Month or so ago got a new Ruger MAX-9. Ran 200 rnds hard and fast flawlessly outa the box.
And my wife is trying to steal it from me. Says take that LCP 380 back.
Shhhhhht
Bought a used like new 4 year old SP101 .357 mag Pffffft perfect bad ass gun
All I see on shelves is tons of smiffys and Glocks, no Rugers .

 

Oops double post

 

I think I understand what you are saying. I am not a Ruger specialist, but there are things I like and dislike about most mechanical items. I personally prefer the MKII. I don't think you are an idiot if you have trouble disassembling/reassembling it, but I do not have any trouble as I have done it many times and know how to shake everything into place. I have honestly thought about getting a MKIV, but just have not had enough of a need to do it yet. I really like the Six Series revolvers. I feel like they got the size/strength ratio in a great balance. Not a fan of the GP series. But that is just my opinion. I do think people get wrapped around the axles about some odd things quite often, and this may be one of those things. If you like the MK IV, more power to you. I have shot both and I like my MKII, but the MKIV was good as well. I think most often it is a case of "you need to agree with me, even if I have no context for what you are talking about." Keep in mind, however, that I am a FUDD. I tend to like older things, but that does not mean the newer things are terrible. Just different, and in my case, often not preferred.

 

I own a Ruger Mark II, III, and IV.

I would say the quality and construction of all three is essentially equal.

It really comes down to features that will define which generation you enjoy most.

The Mark II was a great pistol that was made for many years.

The Mark III, as much as it is derided by many, actually introduced some improvements, such as an enlarged feed ramp that better feeds a wider range of ammo. Of course, it added the much-hated magazine disconnect, and a pretty badly-designed loaded chamber indicator (both of which can be removed with the right replacement aftermarket parts).

The Mark IV introduced yet more improvements, but also kept the mag disconnect (again this can be removed with the right parts). It has a milled aluminum lower frame versus the stamped steel frame of the previous generations. IMHO this frame feels better and has slightly better fit and finish than the older frames, made possible by modern CNC milling.

The bottom line is that I’ve personally seen no drop in quality. They all shoot equally well, and all benefit from Volquartsen fire control components. None of them are at the level or fit/finish/beauty of something like a S&W Model 41, but they are well-built and reliable.

 

Only Ruger pistol in the quiver is a Buckeye Blackhawk 10mm/38-40. All other Rugers are either a 10/22 variant (1 compact, 1 Mossy Oak sporter, 1 LVT blued and a Charger) or a Precision Rimfire. QC is everyone's problem, not endemic to Ruger. Mark II-IV units shoot well but I went S&W Model 46 and Beretta NEOS for target pistol purposes.

 

I like Rugers for what they are but I don’t find their newer offerings compelling because to me they feel like budget firearms sold at a premium price. And I don’t care for the myriad reports of issues. I’ll overlook the potential for issues graciously if I’m saving money and I’ll pay good money for a great gun with really nice fit and finish, but the position of Ruger in the market leaves me cold unless I can buy one for a good price used.

 

As much as their revolver line in particular (GP 100, SP101, LCR) has increased, I would likely seek a Smith and Wesson for within about fifth dollars (less or more from what I'm seeing).

Recent seven shooter gp, if held slightly elevated, would work itself lose. The grip is supposed to prevent this, there is a small part that pops out- blanking on the name..it also looked like those rounds were pretty crammed in there, with rims crowded and touching..made me a.bit wary.

 

Revolvers are not junk. The low priced polymer 9s and 380s are designed to be budget guns, which some might evaluate as getting close to junk compared to Glock, HK, M&P, etc.

 

I have a couple P95s--MkIIIs and revolvers---which I prefer over S&W

But damn--their current centerfire autos are both cheap and ugly.

 

I somewhat agree with you, but I wouldn't call $400 premium pricing for a Max 9 and before the Covid the American pistol wqs about that same amount.

I guess it depends on how much you view the cost for "premium" is fir a polymer pistol.

 

I mean, to be fair I feel the same way about a lot of others guns and manufacturers in this post-Covid market. But you’re right, 400 is not too bad by todays standards for a polymer gun. I mostly think of their revolvers and 22 pistols, which used to be well built at a pretty good price. They’re probably still well built but man… new prices are hard to swallow, if you can find them at all.