Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by rugerman07, Oct 1, 2016.
I'm not familiar with the Puma line itself. For the price, the Heritage Rough Rider line is more well-known. More HRR owners seem pleased with their guns than displeased, but the number of displeased owners is high enough to remind us of the gun's low price point. I'd expect most any revolver selling for that to come from a factory that may miss a defect or flaw now and then.
Incidentally, I own two of the HRR revolvers, both with swap-in .22WMR cylinders. Admittedly, I haven't fired the 3.5-inch "birdshead" one yet, as I only got it a week or so ago, but I love handling and shooting the 4.75-inch one I got a few years back. I think it even feels slicker in the hand than my Ruger NM Single-Six, but I haven't fired that one yet, either.)
If I knew the Puma to be comparable with the HRR (and I didn't already have two HRR guns), I'd have no problem getting one to try out.
For this type gun there are really 2 good options.
In the budget range the Heritage guns are stoopid cheap for the quality gun you get. My beef with Heritage is the finish they put on their guns. It looks good for a while but wears quickly leaving a dull splotchy gun. For the 150 bucks they cost though, their function is incredible and they are very accurate too. Since Heritage became king of the budget SAA game everybody else has either produced a similar gun with better materials (Ruger, Colt) or made a very similar gun with inferior materials and tried to undercut the price of the HRR. Of the pile the HRR is the best deal out there for function.
The higher quality and price variety is the Ruger variety Single guns. I like the Single Six but over the years they have made a few flavors (7, 10, etc) and they are excellent guns. But they are not SAA clones, they just resemble them. They last forever and shoot well. The SAA clone option for quality is the Colt New Frontier, and it just didn't ever seem to be much gun for the money. Others will disagree, and do so with reason. 450ish for the Ruger and who knows on the colt...prices fluctuate like tidal flow. Seems they hang around the 550 mark.
So...HRR isn't exactly a SAA clone but it's a good gun for cheap price. Chiappa and Puma are SAA clones but seem to be poor quality. Ruger is not a SAA but it's a good gun for 3 times the cost of the HRR. Colts are expensive because they say Colt. What a man values most determines where he goes from here. I have a Ruger, plan to buy a HRR birdshead to play with, and plan to buy a Ruger Bearcat if I ever find myself needing to spend the money.
He was loath to spend that kind of money so instead picked a supposedly new Colt barrel for $65.00.
I pointed out that if it was retailing for that price it likely cost $50.00 or less. He was undeterred and ordered it. When it arrived he installed it in the pistol and headed to the range.
Everything was fine except it wouldn't feed cartridges...
Concerning the revolver in question, if it's retailing for under $200, and the distributor/importer and retailer all take a cut of the pie, how much money was spent to make the gun? And what kind of quality does it represent?
And so it goes...
And I had one of those that I was disappointed with. Locked up after a half dozen rounds...sent it back. Came back the same way. Dealer bought it back. Doesn't mean Uberti is a bad gun, just that you can get a bad one of anything.
If I wanted to try a Puma, for what they cost, I'd just buy one and try it. So what if it's not the best gun in the world? It was cheap. If you don't like it, sell it, trade it, take it to a gun buy back, use if for a paperweight....On the other hand, it might make a fun can puncher.
If you buy a quality gun for twice that money -- well, you can consider that you're out the extra $300 BUT you have a gun that you'll enjoy for years.
Separate names with a comma.