Huh. Ruger cerakoted my Wrangler bore. No wonder its inaccurate.

[Odd Job]

Enough, gents.
The OP has the right to be unhappy with cerakote in the bore, and the onus isn't on him to fix it. So he'll send it back to Ruger.
I am going to close this and the OP can let me know when he gets the gun back, so I can reopen it for an update.
I personally doubt the gun will be much improved, but I'll be happy to be proved wrong!

 

[silicosys4]

compared to my black wrangler. Hard to tell but it looks like they cerakoted the bore with the black one as well. Again, 12 shots @ 10 yards, rested and seated.



Hmm. Whats that? Oh. Keyholing. I'll bet thats where those two missing shots went.



Yea. Like I said, if a RR doesn't keyhole and didn't get paint blasted down into the bore, its a better gun than my Wranglers. That's been my experience anyways.

 

[Rubone]

You could have bought a good gun for what you paid for those. Just sayin'.....

 

[silicosys4]

You could have bought a good gun for what you paid for those. Just sayin'.....
View attachment 1130505

Lol, yea I didn't pay much more for this one originally than I did for the two wranglers



these wranglers were going to be for a specific purpose but alas don't pass muster as is. Hopefully Ruger will get them cleaned up and working right.

 

[Obturation]

I'd have faith in ruger, please keep us updated.

 

[TTv2]

I thought about going with a Wrangler birdshead over a Heritage Barkeep recently and ended up going with the Barkeep because of the rebates and it's more interesting.

With the kehole issues I've been hearing about, I think I made the right decision.

Also, it seems Heritage is really getting their salesmen out because I was seeing cases with their guns at a few places, yet no Wranglers.

Maybe Heritage just does that before the holidays tho.

 

[doubleh]

Both have become fairly plentiful around here. It took some time for the Wrangler supply to catch up to that of the RR but they are about the same now.

 

[.38 Special]

I feel bad for the OP, as that's just not acceptable from a modern firearm.

My personal belief, though, is that there is no reason a .22 should cost any less than a centerfire, and that just like with a centerfire, we tend to get what we pay for. If I spent $200 on a centerfire revolver, I wouldn't expect much out of it.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I feel bad for the OP, as that's just not acceptable from a modern firearm.

My personal belief, though, is that there is no reason a .22 should cost any less than a centerfire, and that just like with a centerfire, we tend to get what we pay for. If I spent $200 on a centerfire revolver, I wouldn't expect much out of it.

Many cost less because they can use less and more inferior metals for the 22s which is where the Wrangler fits in. High quality 22 rifles do cost what a centerfire cost.

 

[silicosys4]

I feel bad for the OP, as that's just not acceptable from a modern firearm.

My personal belief, though, is that there is no reason a .22 should cost any less than a centerfire, and that just like with a centerfire, we tend to get what we pay for. If I spent $200 on a centerfire revolver, I wouldn't expect much out of it.

Yea its a cheap gun but the "you get what you pay for" excuse only goes so far.

There are too many sub $200 .22lr pistols that function better than the Wrangler for that to work with me. Its not rocket science building a cheap functional .22lr.
Especially a single action revolver.

This isn't a case of a marginal design failing. Its a case of a good design that was poorly executed. Ruger is perfectly capable of building Wranglers that consistently have decent accuracy, they just aren't doing it. Mistakes like, oh, spraying cerakote down the bore, for example, are easily avoidable, and its a failure of practices and personnel not material and design.

 

[Pistolay]

My wife has the FDE birdshead Wrangler. It has 486 rounds through it with zero problems. I don't watch her targets constantly, but when I've looked at them, I haven't noticed any keyholing. She loves that gun.

 

[TTv2]

Yea its a cheap gun but the "you get what you pay for" excuse only goes so far.

There are too many sub $200 .22lr pistols that function better than the Wrangler for that to work with me. Its not rocket science building a cheap functional .22lr.
Especially a single action revolver.

This isn't a case of a marginal design failing. Its a case of a good design that was poorly executed. Ruger is perfectly capable of building Wranglers that consistently have decent accuracy, they just aren't doing it. Mistakes like, oh, spraying cerakote down the bore, for example, are easily avoidable, and its a failure of practices and personnel not material and design.

First off, @.38 Special saying he expects nothing out of a $200 revolver hasn't handled a Rock Island .38. Yeah, it's heavy and clunky, but value to performance is high. Then there's pre war top break H&R revolvers.

The topic at hand involves a revolver using materials that possibly can't be used with a caliber larger than .22, and that material is cheaper to manufacture, so that is as good a reason for it to cost less than a centerfire.

Silico, I do agree with you that at a minimum a $200 revolver shouldn't be keyholing and shouldn't have cerakote in the bore, nor should it have excessive barrel cylinder gaps nor poor timing, nor any barrel or chamber irregularities.

I understand that the Wrangler is not made of steel or an exotic metal like Titanium, I am learning to accept that small and/or light revolver frames made of softer metals do not have the strength to have accuracy on par with larger/heavier frames, however we're talking about .22 LR here, this is not a powerhouse that requires the girth of a Ruger Redhawk to achieve good accuracy.

The best comparison that can be made to determine if the Wrangler is any good is its competition which is the Rough Rider.

I would challenege you to get a Heritage Rough Rider, preferably with the adjustable sights (they are a major differencemaker) and in the 6 shot model as I have found my Barkeep to have a superior feel to the 9 shot Rough Rider I have.

If the Rough Rider you buy is better than the Wrangler, then it's proof a good $200 revolver can be made.

Things do change tho when you go from a revolver to a semi auto and you are discovering that quality with revolver manufacturing is arguably as bad as it has ever been among US manufacturers than ever before in history.

Even tho an SP101 or GP100 costs more than a Wrangler, that doesn't automatically make them a better product or that you automatically get what you pay for.

Now, there are those who really like those specific revolvers and defend their shortcomings thru the lens of relativity, but new production models of the SP and GP are certainly not revolvers worth the asking price, IMO and others with less skin in the game.

 

[.38 Special]

First off, @.38 Special saying he expects nothing out of a $200 revolver hasn't handled a Rock Island .38. Yeah, it's heavy and clunky, but value to performance is high. Then there's pre war top break H&R revolvers.

I didn't say that. I said "don't expect much". Which is to say, a Zamak-framed gun made as cheaply as possible can be expected to be relatively reliable and hit some kind of target not too small and not too far away, but on the whole can also be expected to display so-so quality control and foolishness like Cerakoted bores. That doesn't make them junk, of course, and the majority will be at least acceptable out of the box, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if my box contained one that needed work.

And no, I haven't handled the RIA revolver. I have handled any number of Bulldogs, Wranglers, and Rough Riders, upon which I base my opinion: these are very basic guns.

 

[.38 Special]

And on re-reading, I see that my comments are neither particularly on-topic nor helpful to the OP, so I apologize for interrupting and will knock it off.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I gave 159 dollars for my Wrangler at Ruger days promotion at my LGS. I guess it's different expectations but I personally don't buy a fixed sight sub 159 dollar gun and expect to pick squirrels off with it or even expect to put any kind of impressive group on paper. I take it to be a pure plinking gun that I hope to hit steel targets and a pop bottle or three at close range. But maybe that's just me.

 

[silicosys4]

I gave 159 dollars for my Wrangler at Ruger days promotion at my LGS. I guess it's different expectations but I personally don't buy a fixed sight sub 159 dollar gun and expect to pick squirrels off with it or even expect to put any kind of impressive group on paper. I take it to be a pure plinking gun that I hope to hit steel targets and a pop bottle or three at close range. But maybe that's just me.

The problem with making that price point excuse is that there are plenty of people posting results that are quiet good. Like riomouse here

I bought a standard Wrangler a couple of years ago. I added a set of Altamont grips that I got on Black Friday, as the factory grips are wafer thin.

My only issue involved the cylinder locking up a gew months ago, it went back and was fixed by Ruger.

This guns trigger is OK, and it shoots a variety of ammo well. (Rested 15 yd groups, bottom two are standing two-handed.) I can’t complain about how it operates or shoots, and since these were shot I have added lighter Wolff springs and smoothed the trigger pull out a bit more.

View attachment 1122990

I bought a Birdshead this summer. The trigger on this gun was much stiffer than the other Wrangler and the light-colored sights are much tougher to see clearly when shooting indoors. These things, plus the shorter sight radius, are reflected on the groups shot in the same manner as the other Wrangler. (Somehow it shot better offhand than rested. Go figure?)

View attachment 1123042

Like the other one, I replaced springs and also blackened the sights. Now this gun feels a lot better and shoots better, too.

No signs of keyhole impacts or other signs of a bad bore. Maybe I got lucky with these two?

Stay safe.

See, we know the Ruger price point and design is not the obstacle to achieving consistent and accurate wranglers.
It's rugers quality control that is leading to the lack of consistent accuracy.

Ruger is dropping the ball on these Wranglers.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

The problem with making that price point excuse is that there are plenty of people posting results that are quiet good. Like riomouse here



See, we know the Ruger price point and design is not the obstacle to achieving consistent and accurate wranglers.
It's rugers quality control that is leading to the lack of consistent accuracy.

Ruger is dropping the ball on these Wranglers.

IMO you pay for quality control just like anything else as quality control is related to quality. If you get an exceptional one for such a cheap price tag I consider that a bonus but not expected. If I EXPECT high quality then I expect to pay for it.

 

[TTv2]

IMO you pay for quality control just like anything else as quality control is related to quality. If you get an exceptional one for such a cheap price tag I consider that a bonus but not expected. If I EXPECT high quality then I expect to pay for it.

Do you think the higher priced Ruger revolvers get better QC than the Wrangler?

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Do you think the higher priced Ruger revolvers get better QC than the Wrangler?

Yes. Do you think they are going to put their most experienced people working on a cheap Wrangler or a gun that costs three times as much? I have a Wrangler and plenty of other Ruger revolvers and pistols and the Wrangler is obviously a cheap made gun compared to the Vaqueros, Blackhawks, Redhawks, etc. You can just tell by the feel of it which was obvious what I was getting when I purchased it. Therefore I don't expect it to be a tack driver either. Mine actually shoot pretty good but can't say I put it on a rest to see how it groups. It's fun plinking and plenty accurate for that and that's all I expect from it.

 

[beag_nut]

Yes. Do you think they are going to put their most experienced people working on a cheap Wrangler or a gun that costs three times as much? I have a Wrangler and plenty of other Ruger revolvers and pistols and the Wrangler is obviously a cheap made gun compared to the Vaqueros, Blackhawks, Redhawks, etc. You can just tell by the feel of it which was obvious what I was getting when I purchased it. Therefore I don't expect it to be a tack driver either. Mine actually shoot pretty good but can't say I put it on a rest to see how it groups. It's fun plinking and plenty accurate for that and that's all I expect from it.

I echo what Cowhide Cliff said. I bought a Single-Ten (SS) and it is simply perfect in every way. Worth the extra money! Can hit a squirrel head at 75 feet every time (using the red-dot I installed). I simply wish that I had purchased it ten years earlier. I need never buy another SA .22 for the rest of my life.

 

[TTv2]

Yes. Do you think they are going to put their most experienced people working on a cheap Wrangler or a gun that costs three times as much? I have a Wrangler and plenty of other Ruger revolvers and pistols and the Wrangler is obviously a cheap made gun compared to the Vaqueros, Blackhawks, Redhawks, etc. You can just tell by the feel of it which was obvious what I was getting when I purchased it. Therefore I don't expect it to be a tack driver either. Mine actually shoot pretty good but can't say I put it on a rest to see how it groups. It's fun plinking and plenty accurate for that and that's all I expect from it.

I can only speak to what I see for QC in places I work and there is no separating of who inspects what, the same people who QC the Wrangler QC the Redhawk as the inspection process is no different based on barrels, frames, cylinders, etc.

Now, if we're talking build quality, the Wranglers are assembled by people who probably also have assembled Single's and Blackhawks, the process is the same.

What changes between the Wrangler and other Ruger single actions is the frames are not investment cast using Ruger's well known methods and the machining is bare bones necessary stuff like drilling/tapping, no time consuming milling. This reduction in time, tooling costs, and cheap zamak is what contributes to the lower cost, not some low skill, low pay monkey throwing parts together.

A sub $200 .22 single action can be a decent gun, Heritage has proved that for many years. Ruger made the Wrangler to get market share and are so big and disinterested in changing production processes for the Wrangler because they know so long as it's a Ruger gun stores will push them on prospective buyers, people will buy them, and when issues are found people will instead blame it on the gun being cheap than on Ruger just not giving a damn.

 

[film495]

If I can hit a tin can or a 6" gong kind of consistently with my sub $200 RR, and I can, expectations met.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

I can only speak to what I see for QC in places I work and there is no separating of who inspects what, the same people who QC the Wrangler QC the Redhawk as the inspection process is no different based on barrels, frames, cylinders, etc.

Now, if we're talking build quality, the Wranglers are assembled by people who probably also have assembled Single's and Blackhawks, the process is the same.

What changes between the Wrangler and other Ruger single actions is the frames are not investment cast using Ruger's well known methods and the machining is bare bones necessary stuff like drilling/tapping, no time consuming milling. This reduction in time, tooling costs, and cheap zamak is what contributes to the lower cost, not some low skill, low pay monkey throwing parts together.

A sub $200 .22 single action can be a decent gun, Heritage has proved that for many years. Ruger made the Wrangler to get market share and are so big and disinterested in changing production processes for the Wrangler because they know so long as it's a Ruger gun stores will push them on prospective buyers, people will buy them, and when issues are found people will instead blame it on the gun being cheap than on Ruger just not giving a damn.

I'm not talking about the quality control people or even the assembly people, I'm talking about the people making the gun parts that matter to accuracy. Quality control people are told what to look for and the overall quality of a Wrangler is nothing like a Redhawk so what makes you think that same quality control person is going to expect them to be the same? Besides they are inspecting for the guns function, safety, fit and finish, etc. not how well it shoots or groups. The quality control of the making barrels, chambering, timing etc makes a difference how well one shoots but still passes a final quality control inspection just the same as long as it's safe and doesn't have something obviously botched up.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

If I can hit a tin can or a 6" gong kind of consistently with my sub $200 RR, and I can, expectations met.

Exactly how I feel. And I can as well so my expectations met as well.

 

[TTv2]

I'm not talking about the quality control people or even the assembly people, I'm talking about the people making the gun parts that matter to accuracy. Quality control people are told what to look for and the overall quality of a Wrangler is nothing like a Redhawk so what makes you think that same quality control person is going to expect them to be the same? Besides they are inspecting for the guns function, safety, fit and finish, etc. not how well it shoots or groups. The quality control of the making barrels, chambering, timing etc makes a difference how well one shoots but still passes a final quality control inspection just the same as long as it's safe and doesn't have something obviously botched up.

I am not aware what Ruger's quality criteria is for ammo groups across different models, but what might be considered "in spec" will probably be some generous limits of like 4 inches at 10 yards. I say that as I had issues with a Marlin bolt action .22 and after sending it back was told 2 inch groups at 50 yards was in spec. I did not like that considering I was getting half inch groups at 50y with a Ruger Charger and I have no idea what Ruger's in spec limit is for that, but my theory is that generous groups is common among manufacturers.

The speculation that those who make the barrels and chambers (same people) and the parts for the timing (cylinders, hands) are different between the Wrangler and higher priced firearms like the Blackhawk or Redhawk is silly because the reality is even if the parts are suspect, production management still sends them along and makes it someone else's problem. Sometimes production issues have nothing to do with the skill of the machine operators, but with machines themselves or tooling.

That's where the cost reduction comes into play; it's very possible that Ruger is using older, more worn machines to make the parts for the Wrangler, but those are machines that have been paid off and still decently functional, but have less repeatability and accuracy than newer machines.

In fact, looking at some videos of Ruger factory production, I see the fixtures being used in the mostly Haas CNC machines that aren't the most rigid and Haas machines I have a love/hate relationship with. They can be decent machines and in my career I've found the smaller the Haas machine, the better they are, but they are low cost machines and the longevity isn't there. I also get the sense watching these videos that when it comes to production, speed is more a factor, not precision.

This past week at work I was running a 22 year Robodrill and found that if it wasn't making chips that the Z axis would elevate by .0005" even when it was running a warm up cycle, however a few years ago I remember running a nearly 20 year old Haas mill that was so worn out it couldn't hold tools in the machine and

When it comes to modern manufacturing the operators have a role in quality checking as they are the first line in that process and what I see in videos and what I know from people who've worked at Ruger and my own experiences in machining, I do not think there is an issue at the operator level between product lines. Where I see issues is what machines are being used to make the parts that go on the Wrangler? What is the steel used to make the cylinders and barrels?

I'm not trying to toot the horn for Heritage because they're a lower priced revolver that actually works, but what I've seen from videos of their production versus Ruger is that Heritage is a smaller company that is better focused given they have been making their Rough Riders for decades compared to Ruger for the Wrangler and where the Rough Rider is the company's flagship product while the Wrangler is some marketing executive's attempt to grab market share to make some other higher up happy.

Bottom line: The Wrangler has always been a half hearted attempt by Ruger so they can add something to their catalogue and grab more potential customers, not really make something that people were asking for as nobody was asking for another sub $200 .22 single action.

I think that's where a lot of the problems with the Wrangler stem from.