The reason he called you a troll is that the entire thread was discussing the new Ruger 77/357. Most of us were discussing this rifle, yet you seem to wish to make a point of not comparing the two platforms for general consumption, but rather letting us all know how you have made the better decision.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the disclaimer in the OP that read "This thread is for specific discussion of the new 77/357 by Ruger fanboys only; Dissenters are unwelcome and no other firearm may be mentioned"
I also had no intention of going down this road at the onset, but conjecture such as:
I don't think Ruger would be in business if they didn't study their market to determine what would sell.
Just left the door wide open to argue Ruger's judgement on what they do or don't build. From there, it has gone here.
As for the insinuation that I'm "letting you know I made the better decision"; How so? When I bought my 94, this rifle didn't even exist. And I've done plenty of comparing the two, if you'll actually read my posts instead of just jumping on this bandwagon. I know it makes a few of you feel good to collectively defend your pet, but it isn't constructive or endearing.
The biggest problem with your post is that the moderators will soon close down what was an informative and enjoyable thread.
Tick-Tock....................still waiting. They aren't going to for what I've said, but certain other comments that push the limits of THR attack policies are another matter:
Dobe, couldn't have said it better myself. 6254 posts Haha, I couldn't imagine why
But, strong opinions should be backed by strong facts.
Since when is that requisite? I don't need "facts" to strongly opine that Megan Fox is a beautiful young woman. That's the whole point of opinion:
Opinion (noun)-
1: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
You go to a doctor and an x-ray reveals something disturbing. Most doctors will then run other tests before rendering an opinion. That way he can back up what he says, espically if it is bad news.
A professional medical "opinion" is a little different than one's personal taste in goods, don't you think? What I think of a particular gun won't affect anyone else's life, but a doctor telling someone it is his opinion that they have cancer would be absolutely devastating, even if he is proven wrong shortly.
Similarly, when I offer someone my professional opinion on whether or not their car is worth fixing, there are facts involved in rendering it.
All that said, if someone asked for my opinion on this rifle, having not yet shot it, I would tell them that it is probably well made and reasonably accurate, but that I feel it has a handicap when compared to lever actions in the same chambering.
Yes, you are probably being dog-piled. But you posted a response that uses the word suck in reference to Rugers. That is a strong adjective. If I said a guns sucks, it would have to be inaccurate, have major reliability problems, or be assembled poorly. I would have to personally fired the weapon or witnessed someone else doing so.
Well, I didn't say that this particular rifle sucks, because I've not yet handled one. I also didn't say that Ruger's suck (once again, read my posts, as I've reiterated this several times). In point of fact, I said that Rugers are of "decent overall quality" (post #68, unedited), and in my breakdown I gave them all the nod for being decent guns, but that they suck compared to certain other guns of the same type and similar price. If you want, I can go into detail with the reasons I have those opinions, but that's going to be a very long post, and none of you are actually reading most of what I've written anyway.
So ya'll dogpile away, doesn't bother me. You're not changing my mind or certain facts by doing so
