Come on, Clint Smith...do you hate Ruger?

[Richard.Howe]

In the "Reality Check" section of the May/June 2006 American Handgunner, Mr. Clint Smith makes the following observation:

"When it comes to modern day revolvers, S&W and Taurus are the only two significant makers actively making revolvers in any number for self-defense needs."

What? Do the SP101 and GP100 variants not count?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

Rich

 

[Spot77]

Does Ruger make substantially less revolvers than S&W and Taurus???

 

[mrmeval]

*shrug*
I understand why. There's page after page of why on several other threads here at least 3 webpages and numerous other forums.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Yep. Just do a search. You'll find all sorts of things to read about Ruger.

 

[Checkman]

wheelgunslinger

Yep. Just do a search. You'll find all sorts of things to read about Ruger.

I believe the original poster was asking why Clint Smith would write such a thing about revolvers and leave out Ruger. Looking at his post I didn't read anything about him asking why there were no posts about Ruger revolvers. Richard.Howe has a point. Why would Smith leave out Ruger?

I know that Ruger isn't as large as S&W and perhaps even Taurus, but I don't have any trouble finding either a GP100 or an SP 101 when I go into a gunstore. I own one of each. Didn't have any trouble finding them either. Well made revolers.

 

[Majic]

He seems to have a knack for upsetting gun fans. I guess now the Ruger fans will jump all over him like the Smith fans did.

 

[Dollar An Hour]

So anything larger than a J-frame can't be used for self-defense? The SP101 is just too huge?

Or maybe he really prefers lawyer locks on all his wheelguns.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think what he was saying was that only Smith & Wesson and Taurus offer an extensive selection of different models, barrels lengths, materials (Ruger offers nothing in aluminum/steel or Titanium), configurations (nothing with a concealed or shrouded hammer) and so on. When they fit the need, Ruger's GP-100 and SP-101 guns are great, but no one would feel bad if they increase the options.

Rather then jump on Mr. Smith, give him credit for dropping Ruger a constructive hint.


edited to correct typo.

 

[1911JMB]

I've got a constructive hint for Ruger. Stop being a damn puppet for the anti's. Bill is dead, and his Clintonish idiocy should have gone with him.

 

[pangris]

I would guess the fact they offer no lightweight models, and that they have a sketchy history, are a couple of the issues.

 

[Boats]

Yeah Taurus and S&W don't have sketchy histories.:banghead:

That lack of sketchy histories makes their sketchy quality control easier to tolerate.

The answer to Clint Smith's origin of belief is easy enough to discern. He is a fluffer for S&W, but to not appear to be a total homer, he throws Taurus in as a smokescreen.

Many serious shooters prefer the added heft of the SP-101 because with it, they can actually train with, carry, and hit with, full house .357 loads and not worry about shooting the piece apart. My Colt DS is also a better gun than those five shot Smiths or Tauri if we're talking .38 Spec. only carry pieces.

I could afford a the 642, 640, the scandium wonder snubs and whatnot, or whatever the Tauri clones are, but I have actually fired some of them and don't consider high tech pocket carry to be worth the initial cost, pain in firing, or wear caution, compared to the 25 oz lump of steel I bought from Ruger that bangs away as long as I care to practice and doesn't wear me out to do so. Same goes for the Colt.

Carry often and shoot often trumps carry often and shoot a little in my book.

 

[TheEgg]

He is a fluffer for S&W, but to not appear to be a total homer, he throws Taurus in as a smokescreen.

Yep, that would be my read as well -- he has collaborated extensively with S&W for his "Thunder Ranch" branded revolvers. Nothing wrong with that, but as a reader we must be aware of possible sources of bias in his (or any writer's) writing.

 

[lawboy]

For those who believe S&W and Taurus are larger than Ruger, think again. I believe Ruger has been the largest privately-owned firearms manufacturer in the world. S&W does not make as many guns as Ruger. They make more handguns than Ruger, but Ruger makes more total firearms hands down.

 

[P. Plainsman]

Glad to see others were equally underwhelmed by Clint's utterance.

Look, whether Clint's acquaintances at S&W like it or not, the Ruger SP101 is the standard setter for small .357 Magnum revolvers. If you want a shootable .357 carry piece (not a bullet-pulling 14 oz scandium stunt of a gun), the Ruger is the one to beat. And Clint must know that there are a blue zillion of them riding in carry holsters.

The answer to Clint Smith's origin of belief is easy enough to discern. He is a fluffer for S&W, but to not appear to be a total homer, he throws Taurus in as a smokescreen.

Harsh assessment.

It's a pity; I think Clint has a very interesting perspective on lots of training issues. He's also by far the most prominent shooting-school instructor to give respectful equal time to revolvers -- which I appreciate.

Nevertheless, in light of his very public connection with S&W, questionable comments like the one discussed here do leave him open to being dismissed as a "homer" in the future.

 

[Checkman]

I own thirteen revolvers. Nine of them are Smith and Wessons. Obviously I like Smiths. However I like to think I know a well-made wheelie when I see one. Consequnetly I own two Colts and two Rugers. I try not to be blind. Among my inventory I own three snubbies;a Colt Detecive Special, a S&W Model 49 and a Ruger SP101 .357 magnum with the 2.25" barrel.

I don't believe the SP101 is any larger or heavier then my Detective Special. Of course the Colt carries six rounds, but the SP carries five magnums. Usually the Ruger or the Smith are my off-duty guns and my on-duty back-ups. I've carried the Ruger in an ankle holster and it's not bad. In my opinion it's a whole lot more comfortable then the Glock 26/27 in an ankle rig. Ouch.Let me add that I think GLock is a fine handgun. I own a Model 19 and I like it. No flames please.

I usually agree with Clint Smith. I do find it odd that he left out Ruger. Perhaps it was just an honest oversight?

 

[Cosmoline]

RUGER ENGINEERING IN THE HOUSE, DOGS!

 

[pete f]

My guess is Ruger cut back on the ad budget for the year.

his only response it to slam them by omission.

 

[454c]

I was going to ask if anyone remembered who built the "TR" models but TheEgg beat me to the punch.


It dosn't surprise me that Taurus is being thrown in.As the days go by it gets harder to tell the two apart.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Speaking of the need to UNpimp a revolver

 

[Cosmoline]

Tin horn gamblers and New Orleans pimps.

 

[ABTOMAT]

Anyone have a GP100 barrel fall off recently?

 

[pangris]

I'm going to be at Thunder Ranch in May, shooting a Ruger GP100 in a revolver class.

I'd be very curious to know if any of the people denigrating Mr. Smith have ever met the man. If you had, I suspect you might have a substantially more respect for his integrity.

Whatever the reason - be it oversight, intention, etc - I would wager it is an honest reason, and I'm one of those that doesn't bet unless it is a sure thing.

 

[HankB]

Or maybe he really prefers lawyer locks on all his wheelguns.

Just to be technical . . . Clint Smith's own, personal prototype of his TR Special revolver was built on a pinned, pre-MIM, pre-lock S&W revolver which still had the firing pin on the hammer. The ones being sold as TR specials have lawyer locks and MIM parts. There's no evidence Clint prefers lawyer locks on his own guns.

Of course, given his work with S&W, if you're so impolitic as to point this out, you risk having Clint proclaim you have scatological dining habits . . .

 

[Marshall]

When you live and breath guns, you don't leave out Ruger when speaking of revolvers without doing so on purpose. Why he did, I don't know? But, I see it as a slam, he knows his statement is going to be in print. The only possible saving grace is that he said "in any numbers" but, it should be followed up with something to the effect of, "although, Ruger makes the very formidable SP-101, with and without exposed hammers, in various calibers and barrel lengths as well as offering the GP-100". To leave them out completely was rude an unprofessional.

Maybe he honestly just forgot about Ruger?

 

[Rob1035]

Cosmoline- ROFL@!!!!!!


As to C. Smith, sure he has his biases and opinions (dont we all?), but i'll definitely give him credit for bring 'fighting revolvers' back to the mainstream, sort of kind of maybe.