Back to considering a cheap Heritage revolver.

[Orion8472]

I'm back to considering a Heritage revolver, but if I DO get one, I plan on sticking with the steel frame model. I'm sure the "aluminum alloy" frame would be okay and even have a bit of longevity, but I'd rather error [buying a Heritage] on the side of caution.

For those who have the steel frame Heritage, how does your do?

 

[ljnowell]

I dont think the frame matters if you get one with bad timing or poor fit. I have seen several that spit large chunks of lead, or, with one of the cylinders has so much endshake that you cant fire it. I knew TWO people that bought the convertible that you couldnt fire 22 mags in it. The cylinder had so much slop that it would shift forward and not get a good strike. One of the guys sold his, the other was a machinist and made a thin spacer washer to use with the 22 mag cylinder.

If it were me I would just buy a Ruger Single Six and be done with it (thats what I did too actually).

 

[tlatoani]

My pair work great. I think one of them may be more accurate, but I've never really tested it. Both do ok. Never had a single issue (unless you count forgetting to flip the safety off)

For 250 for the pair I am really happy.

 

[Old judge creek]

... If it were me I would just buy a Ruger Single Six and be done with it (thats what I did too actually).

... and that sums it up. The simple fact is you almost always get what you pay for and vice versa.

Cheap guns are not a bargain. Best case they simply fail sooner or later and then you spend even more money to replace them. Worst case is that they fail when you need them the most (and when you 'need' a gun, you NEED a gun!!).

Even in California I can find a used Ruger Single Six Convertible (22/22Mag) in the $250 range, and a Single Six will last a long long while. Mine probably have two to three hundred thousand rounds through them over the last 50 years and they still shoot better than I can hold them.

My old Grandpap allus tolt me, "Son, a poor man can't afford to buy the cheap stuff."

YMMV

 

[BCRider]

With all this care and consideration you're doing it seems pretty apparent that unless you buy a real lemon that you plan on keeping whatever you get for many years to come.

So how much more per year will it cost to buy the well known and trusted Ruger option vs a cheaper and lesser gun such as the Heritage?

What if you find that the Heritage or other brand has some of the problems noticed or simply that the trigger feel sucks? So you sell it and end up buying the Ruger Single Six anyway. How much will you lose in such a transaction getting the gun you wanted originally?

What if you find that due to the trigger and handling issues that you soon end up with the "second class gun" sitting in the safe all the time instead of frequently going to the range with the rest of the toys? How much will it cost PER SHOT TAKEN in such a case?

I think I mentioned in one of your other threads that I've been down this "second string" road already. I must admit that I have not personally checked out or shot a Heritage. But I have or had 3 different "second string" .22 revolvers. One is sold to a buddy on a budget but he already said that it sure isn't as good as my Single Six after shooting mine. Of the other two one will definetly stay because it's a top break and I like it for that reason. The other I want to tinker with a little and then I'll likely sell it to a buddy that likes the look and feel of it and again is on a budget.

Like you I balk at the price they are asking for the new(er) Single Six guns. But in the end they really are worth it if you will shoot it a lot. And it has been my experience that a gun which is reliable and a joy to shoot gets rewarded by being taken out to shoot a lot more often than the others. This alone makes the investment a good one.

Case in point. The old Black and Decker $19.99 jig saw I bought was only used on special occasions where I could not do the job any other way. It vibrated like a paint mixer, was noisy as all hell and the blade wandered around like a drunk on Saturday night. Years later I got to use a $140 Dewalt saw. It was such a revalation that I bought one for myself. It sits in a special hanger permanently plugged in on the end of my bench. It's the saw I reach for when I need to cut just about anything. Which of these two is the better value?

And for later when you decide you want to get a .22LR double action revolver let's avoid all this discussion over again, OK? Simply find a nice older blued S&W Model 17 or K22 or a Colt Officers Match .22 and pay the going price. It'll seem totally out of this world for sticker shock. But again these are the choices which end up being the best option and in real terms end up cheaper because you enjoy using them frequently.

 

[Orion8472]

I was just liking the following:



However, I am well aware that the Ruger would be better quality.

 

[BCRider]

Ah yes, I forgot about the bird's head grip.

It IS a pity that Ruger doesn't offer one of their models with the bird's head.

 

[CraigC]

It's not aluminum alloy, it's ZAMAK, which is 96% zinc.

A short barreled, fixed sight revolver like that is not going to be useful for much.

 

[Orion8472]

The one pictured is the steel version.

Anyway, I HAVE sent two links home of a couple of Single Ten revolvers. Not birdshead grips, but I like the 10 shots [may not after first cleaning] and the fiber optic sights.

Still up in the air about it, though. That birdshead on that Heritage looks pretty good.

 

[Old judge creek]

A lot of young folks today seem to fall into the "Oooooooo - that looks BAD!" trap. The way an arm "looks' won't get you "spit" when push comes to shove. I've yet to see any target; animal, vegetable, or mineral expire from the horrendous image of any firearm.

Along those lines, my personal opinion is that the Ruger "Bisley" Frame is about the butt-ugliest handle ever put on any gun, and yet, I own two 44s and a 45 Bisley Vaquero and a 357 Bisley... because the butt-ugly handle works as advertised and then some. As Forrest Gump's Momma said, "Ugly is as ugly does."

Anyway, IIRC, Brownells offers an after market Birds head grip that'll screw right on to your Single Six frame with a little fitting work.

And I was thinking, I have a NAA 22/22mag that just a few years ago, I paid less than $300 for (out the door) brand new and in the box. It has a birds head grip and a spur trigger.

All joshing aside, don't let "looks" fool you into buying poor quality. You owe it to yourself to go for the good stuff. In the long run you'll not only be glad you did... you'll have saved money too.

 

[BCRider]

Just to stir up the pot a little I found this video when I when searching for "rough rider accuracy";

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl5DO7m-X4g

Yes, it was only 7 or so yards. But the fella appeared to be a regular sort of plinking shooter and got a 12 shot group that suggests that a Rough Rider isn't a bad shooting gun. Hardly "match" results but not too shabby.

 

[Jim NE]

Analyzing requested info/opinions about gun isn't always as easy as it seems. "Buy quality" or "spend more" are good rules of thumb, but don't always produce the desired results.

My alloy frame Rough Rider is a much better performing gun than my old Single Six Ruger was. Doesn't mean the same will be true for you. The Ruger is built of better materials and more finely crafted. I just got a bad one.

Wouldn't expect you to view all Single Sixes poorly based on my experience, but I'm not sure you should view Rough Riders poorly based on someone else's bad experience, either.

I'm not really a SA revo guy, so I won't be shooting the RR as much as other guns. Ruger will probably last longer if you do tons of shooting, but I have NO desire to own a Single Six now that I have a good performing .22 plinking revolver in my Rough Rider.

 

[Orion8472]

Old Judge, I had considered changing the frame, but they seem to be out of stock, . . . plus I am not sure if I would be able to do it, having to pay a gunsmith money to fix it up right.

Again, not sure what I will or will not do. On the fence about the pictured Birds Head Heritage, . . . but also like the Single Ten [one blue, one SS] for about ~ $100 - $125 more. Gains extra rounds, ruger quality, and fiber optic sights.

 

[Mikey Idaho]

I'm perfectly happy with my Heritage and recommend them to anyone that asks, got about 10,000 rounds through it with no problems. I don't have a Single Six to compare but I do have 2 Blackhawks so I'm not ignorant of the difference in quality and fit. Peope say if you gonna spend the money then just get the higher quality...but most people out there have a budget and many don't buy used or have something specific in mind. To each their own, I'll buy a Single 6 or 10 eventually but will never sell my Heritage either.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Hammerdown77]

I've said it before, but my Heritage is a really great gun for its price point. I got the 22LR/Mag convertible model with the fiber optic front sight and adjustable rear, 6.5" barrel. I guess it has the zinc frame. Mine shoots the same size groups with the 22 LR as my 3-screw Single Six (bench rested, 25 yards), and does even better with the magnum cylinder. Ergonomically, it is pretty nice, at least to my medium large size hands. The grip shape fills my hand nicely, and it points and balances very well. Clays on the dirt berm at the range are easy, shooting one handed. Squirrels better watch out, come Fall...

It's certainly not anywhere near as "refined" in the feel of the action as my Single Six is though, but for a gun costing half as much, I think it's a good "knock around" gun. The fact that it shoots so well (at least mine does) is just icing on the cake.

 

[Orion8472]

Here's the thing. I can either go with that Birds Head, which is asking ~$290, plus the cost of shipping at ~$17, then $25 at my FFL, . . . or the same $25 at FFL, plus $25 shipping of a Ruger Single Ten at ~$435. The blue version is right at $400.

So that's my situation. There are pros and cons to either direction.

Pros for Heritage: Cheaper, birds head grip, nice looking laminate wood, doesn't matter if it gets a little scratched.

Cons for Heritage: Cheaper materials, fixed sights with short radius, 3 1/2" barrel.

Pros for Single Ten: Ruger quality, longer barrel, fiber optic sights for better targeting, holds 10 rounds.

Cons for Single Ten: Potentially more troublesome to clean, higher priced [considering that it shoots only .22lr], not a birds head grip.

 

[CraigC]

I shoot tens of thousands or rounds per year out of rimfire revolvers, most of that is out of single actions. Ranging from the little Bearcat, the high-mileage Old Model Single Six and a 12-shot USFA 12/22. I swab my chambers with an oiled patch every several hundred to couple thousand rounds and that is about it. Whenever cartridges stop chambering freely. I don't scrub them with brushes or break the tiniest sweat. So I do not consider the extra four chambers of the Single Ten to be an issue whatsoever in that regard. In fact, it is the only rimfire New Model Single Six I would even consider.

 

[dagger dog]

Just opened a Bass Pro flyer that was in the mail box today , they have the Heritage 22lr-22mag birdshead grip on sale for Fathers Day @ $299.00. BassPro will pricematch!

 

[Jim NE]

Sounds like the OP wants both. I have this suspicion he's eventually going to end up with both, his current finances aside. Statistics of gun ownership are on my side.

Thing is, neither choice should be characterized as a mistake. So don't agonize too much. Both are good quality and a good value, IMO, but the Ruger is better quality and the HRR is a better value.

My preference is the Heritage, but if it's a keepsake you want, then I admit the Ruger is probably the better choice.

 

[contender]

There is one more option that often gets over-looked and might be a consideration.

There is the EAA bounty hunter. They are all steel and offer options in blue, nickel, and color case hardened and a couple of barrel lengths. While i have never owned one, i do know of a couple of folks who have them that are very pleased with them. They seem to run anywhere from $260 to $290 at the moment from Bud's Guns.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...ry/EAA BOUNTY HUNTER 22LR 22MAG 4.75 6RD NKL/

 

[jcwit]

Something to think boys and girls. Heritage Mfg. has been in the firearm making business since 1992, 20 years. If as some claim here they are nothing but junk they would have disappeared long ago with the Yugo. So they must have something going for them other than a fantastic price point.

As far as the ZAMAC frame, there is many many useful items made of ZAMAC, many part of ecpensive cameras are made of the same.

Folks go ballistic over a firearm having ZAMAC parts but are entirely at home with a plastic firearm. Somehow I'm missing something here.

Now, do I have any experience with the RR line of pistols, Nope, have only owned mine for 3/4 days. Will it outlast me? More than likely, I'm 68. Do I wish to leave it to any of my heirs? Nope, have no one interested in any of my collection.

 

[BCRider]

For a cost level at $290 for the Heritage it seems costly for the level of fit and finish.

Plus the dull "painted" or whatever they use on it leaves me cold. If it was at least a nicely done faux colour case finish I would not be so put off by it. But a dull "tacticool" dark finish on an old style SA revolver simply seems wildly out of place to my eyes. But to each their own.

As for the .22LR and .22WMR option I would not let that sway me one way or the other. I strongly suspect that the vast majority of convertables are used rarely at most with the Magnum cylinder.

Are you one of those folks that actually feels that the .22WMR is good value for the money? I know I'm not. I'd far rather spend the same or a pittance more and buy .38Spl.

Orion, I don't bring all these points up because I think that MY way is best. Rather I raise them hoping that it will encourage you to be honest and realistic with your thoughts and final decisions.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Buying a revolver of markedly inferior build quality and workmanship just to obtain a certain cosmetic value of rather dubious functional benefit is just plain foolish. Hate to be blunt but there it is.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Jcwit,

Twenty years in business doesn't mean they make a good product, just that they make money selling their products. Bryco, Jennings, Lorcin etc were in business for quite some time as well even though their products were cheap and poorly made. Cheap poorly made guns sell well, and traditionally have because the price point is attractive.

 

[jcwit]

Twenty years in business doesn't mean they make a good product, just that they make money selling their products. Bryco, Jennings, Lorcin etc were in business for quite some time as well even though their products were cheap and poorly made. Cheap poorly made guns sell well, and traditionally have because the price point is attractive.

Partially true, but look at what the Bryco, Jennings, Lorcin customer base was, cheap/economical Saturday night specials. I seriously doubt anyone is buying a single action to use on the streets as a Saturday night special or for home defense either for that matter.

Two entirely different markets.

Buying a revolver of markedly inferior build quality and workmanship just to obtain a certain cosmetic value of rather dubious functional benefit is just plain foolish. Hate to be blunt but there it is.

Just what are you implying? Or is that just your opinion?

Do you own one? Have you had any experience with one?

This thread seem to run true to course the same as the Hi-Point threads.

Some folks just cannot seem to by the Price is the total indicator of quality.
I taking a wild guess but I'd say the percentage of R/R drivers/owners here at THR is very small.