Has Ruger ever made an attractive, iconic firearm?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trey Veston

Trey Veston

Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
2,702
Location
Idaho/Washington border
Was just on another site and someone was discussing the new Ruger GP100 9mm competition pistol and many were floored by how ugly it is.

Ruger-Debuts-New-9mm-Super-GP100-Competition-Revolver-b.jpg


I tried to defend Ruger's honor by pointing out all of the other attractive and iconic firearms they've produced and every one I could think of was just a copy of another attractive and iconic firearm.

Such as the Vaquero, or the Mini-14, or the Mark Series .22s.

In fact, pretty much every firearm Ruger makes that isn't a copy of someone else's design is ungainly with awkward design lines.

I guess the SR series isn't bad looking...

ruger-sr9-043.jpg

But then they replaced it with the truly awkward looking and feeling American...

wm_9695504.jpg

Surely Ruger has made a firearm that they designed all by themselves that is elegant and attractive and doesn't look like it was designed by Russian pimps in track suits and gold chains.
 
The p-97 wasnt atrocious. And as far as the competition pistol goes, most specialty guns are a bit ugly. I know my Smith and Wesson PC hunter is just as ugly. My 329 pd is pretty ugly too. I'd guess most would say the 10-22 isn't ugly.
 
So you have to dig into my childhood hurts?

When I was very young my father had two decently sized six-guns I had access to: a 50's rebuild of the Colt single action Army in .38 Special and a first year production Blackhawk in .357. The Colt was everything I thought a handgun should be in terms of handling, aesthetics, and everything else except power, and that was partially made up by the common state police range brass I could get free.

It bothered me that in some ways the Ruger was superior: more powerful, more durable--I broke a few flat springs on the Colt. The Ruger still has its original springs, and the sights on the Ruger were better. In my dotage with declining vision, I mostly use simple sights, but there was a day when sharp, adjustable sights made a difference, at least in my mind, which affected my confidence.

Ruger, post-World War II, didn't have the same work force, and the same hand-fitting Colt had, but the man was an engineering genius, and it showed in his guns.

There's something iconic in those early guns that won't come 'round again, but a man in a bad spot can do worse than a Ruger. I confess that often when conditions turn ugly: the rain and the snow and the mud, I choose a Ruger, especially those early single actions who click the way they're supposed to when cocked.

After enough years of carrying them, they have their own kind of appeal.
 
Let the record show -

1) The design basis for the Ruger Standard - arguably the most popular .22 pistol of all time and my "go to" [MK I] for steel plate competition - was the Nambu , not the Luger.

2) Mr Troy Veston does not look favorably upon Ruger handguns.

And now a point of order: The OP asked
"Has Ruger ever made an attractive, iconic firearm?" --- "... isn't bad looking" and "...wasn't atrocious" fall well short of the "attractive / iconic" criteria.

Kind of like "For such a big girl she doesn't sweat much" - doesn't equal pretty.
 
Trey Veston said:
You mean the Luger?
Click to expand...

Nambu/Luger

Trey Veston said:
Designed by Russian pimps...
Click to expand...

No Russian Collusion.
No way is the p-97 on the same level of ugliness as the other P series guns. It was one of the first to at least attempt to be attractive. No exposed screws. No mismatched side panels. At least a step In the right direction. Of course any steps in the right direction of attractive design they ever made were nullified by the Wrangler...they even made a copy of a classic ugly

20190517_201311.jpg
 
I agree most of their guns are not much to look at. I have two of their early 44 mags in single action. Not as tight like my casull but good pistols.
 
I have several Glocks and several Rugers and pretty much nothing else. Some are cheap, some are neat but nothing iconic.

Due to their price to quality ratio, the only new revolver I will buy is a Ruger.
 
Last edited:
Attractive is in the eye of the beholder, and what's the definition of iconic? For what it's worth, I agree with Ironicaintit that the Standard 22 pistol is both, but I don't know of any way to persuade someone who disagrees. I'm not good at arguing, though. :)
 
Last edited:
The Single shots #1, and even the #3 which a lot of people forget about were attractive rifles. I think the 77 series is too. SOME of their single actions are, most are not attractive to me. I like the new model Vaquero, but that is about it with single actions.

I liked the GP 100 with the original rubber grip with wood insert. I don't think anyone has ever made a better grip for a revolver. It was the perfect balance of practicality, size, and aesthetics. I don't much care for the ones with the new style grips. I thought a lot of the old Speed and Security Six revolvers too.

While I respect their semi-autos for their functionality and value I don't like any of them, rifle or handgun. SOME 10-22's can be right nice, but I don't care at all for the standard 10-22.
 
One mans ugly is another man's cool. I love that pistol. I consider many things by Ruger iconic. The M77 and the 10/22 to start. Never saw a semi pistol from them I thought was good iconic except for their .22.
 
I never really liked the lines on Ruger SA's, but I understand some of it's for strength. Colt's frame flows, Ruger's looks like a lump over the barrel.

My real beef is some of Ruger's parts seem to be just cheap stamped sheet metal or plastic. For instance, I bought a Mini-14 last year, paid quite a bit for it. Upon disassembly I found many stamped parts I never would have expected at that price point. The trigger guard, safety, stock reinforcement, all cheaply made sheet metal, some with unfinished sharp edges. I have a WWII Carbine, it's everything the Ruger should have been in a similar action.
 
Speedo66 said:
I never really liked the lines on Ruger SA's, but I understand some of it's for strength. Colt's frame flows, Ruger's looks like a lump over the barrel.

My real beef is some of Ruger's parts seem to be just cheap stamped sheet metal or plastic. For instance, I bought a Mini-14 last year, paid quite a bit for it. Upon disassembly I found many stamped parts I never would have expected at that price point. The trigger guard, safety, stock reinforcement, all cheaply made sheet metal, some with unfinished sharp edges. I have a WWII Carbine, it's everything the Ruger should have been in a similar action.
Click to expand...

The Ruger Standard Model 22 pistol is pretty old now. Like about 70 years? Yet when it was new, it used state-of-the-art manufacturing to produce a gun fundamentally as good as the Colt Woodsman, The frame was folded steel plate. The receiver was a steel tube. The bolt was round bar stock. The trigger was a chrome plated casting (I think).

Yes, the Colt had beautiful machining, beautiful bluing, and could be had with beautiful wood (although in 1950, the standard grips were plastic, IIRC). But neither it nor High Standard's similarly well-made guns survived. If you want to survive that way, you have to go the Colt Python route, and produce guns only the wealthy can routinely afford. Sort of like Rolls Royce.

So if you want a rifle made the way they made them in 1945, how much extra are you willing to pay for it, and are there enough people who will pay that to make such a gun profitable? Maybe, but recent history does not suggest that is the to keep a gun company in business.

Sure, a company can fail by cutting too many corners - see the Remington R51, a pistol of "peculiar renown", as Mark Twain might say. And the lowest possible price isn't always the way to go, or else Hi-Point would be the only pistol maker there is.

But does the Mini-14 work, and is it durable and accurate? Then it doesn't have to be pretty, at least on the inside. I regret this too, because I also like well-made guns. But if you want one, you have to pay more for it. And if the manufacturing techniques are out of date, a lot more.

I am probably not telling you anything you do not already know. And really, I agree with you, as I said. I guess reality just is not the way we wish it were, but I don't know what to do about that. :)
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye single shot, single action revolver framed handgun. All of the ruger single shots for that matter, and single action revolvers too. The red label was nice too. Basically everything except for the semiauto handguns and special edition GP guns. Some of those are nice but it’s a lot easier to lump them into the gill-slit and arbitrarily milled away chunk pile. The 22-45 line is excessively plagued by randomly milled away hunks if barrel.
 
The first Ruger rifle- the .44 carbine would qualify I think. The 10/22, number 1, and Red Label shotgun also. The Blackhawk and Redhawk might look like other revolvers, but are built completely different, and I suppose you could call them iconic. I mean, there are complete chapters in reloading manuals with "Ruger only" loads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Trey Veston
  • Locked
Who has ever actually worked in the firearms industry?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
jleonard
jleonard
Japle
Sports that attract new shooters.
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Double_J
D
weblance
  • Locked
Is the Ruger GP100 the Greatest Double Action Revolver Ever Made?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
8K
Sam1911
S
A
  • Locked
Ruger, you sold me a lemon
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
22HM77
2
N
  • Locked
Does My Firearm Collection Strategy Make Sense?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Reloadron
Reloadron
Back
Top