Ruger Distaste

[TennJed]

I see way more positive threads than negative (this is a good example)

 

[CraigC]

Bill Ruger's words were taken out of context and twisted by the liberal media. Unfortunately, even most shooters won't be swayed by the truth. The truth is that Bill was trying to compromise to save not only his company but the industry from government sponsored lawsuits. Lawsuits funded by OUR taxes, against a lawful and heavily regulated industry. Believe it or not, gunmakers are not made of money and it was crippling them to simply defend themselves from these frivolous lawsuits. People want to piss and moan about what he said about magazine capacity but I didn't see your dollars going to their legal defense. Your anger should be directed towards YOUR government. Not a dead American gunmaker, or the extremely successful PROFITABLE company he left behind.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

delete

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Prejudice against their being made largely by casting - which is perceived to be weaker than forging - would be my guess. Not too different from those who hate plastic pistol frames. And there is lingering hate for its founder for statements made ~25 years ago, even though he has been dead for some time and no family members even sit on the board.

 

[22-rimfire]

Bill Ruger was right. That doesn't mean I like what he said, but he was right. A single amendment to existing law could change the whole "assault weapon" discussion.

For years I was not interested in the Mark I semi-auto 22 pistol which is what Ruger built his company on. I purchased a Mark II with a bull barrel around 1990 and really liked it. That was my introduction to Ruger firearms. I didn't consider a centerfire DA revolver until the GP-100 was introduced. That one convinced me that they had a good product. The 10/22 has become a mainstay to many 22 rifle owners. I think they make a fine quick small game rifle.

 

[VA27]

I have six Ruger revolvers and only two Smiths. It wasn't always that way, but that's the way it is now.

 

[weblance]

The SP-101 has to be one of the most useless revolvers made. No sense in a 5 shot snubbie that heavy

For such a useless revolver, they sure have sold a bunch of them. The S&W 60 in 3" compared to a SP101 3" is 2 oz lighter. That makes a difference in felt recoil when shooting powerful .357s. The peg style grip frame softens the recoil even more. The SP101 handles 357s with grace, and that 2 oz will never be felt when carried on a belt. Useless revolver... useless statement...

 

[Harley Rider 55]

The first handgun I ever purchased was a Ruger Security Six. I bought it while in the military, in 1976. I very much regret selling it.
I never forgot that Ruger and it started a passion for Ruger as well as S&W revolvers.

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

I like Ruger's many fine rimfire offerings: pistol, revolver, and rifle. The LCR series is certainly interesting and I consider my only Ruger, an LCR-22, to be well-built and an excellent value.

I don't have as much of an interest in their centerfire revolvers , but that is only because I prefer smaller and lighter wheel guns. I know if I was big into Magnums I would own some heavy metal from Ruger.

 

[Guillermo]

Some people do not understand Ruger for what it is.

The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.

Revolvers with cast frames, pressed sheet metal frames on the .22s. These were the successful cost cutting methods used to manufacture firearms that are great values.

These days Ruger is moving to MIM because it is cheaper and helps them offer moderately priced firearms and maintain the value for which they are known.

 

[Old Fuff]

The SP-101 has to be one of the most useless revolvers made. No sense in a 5 shot snubbie that heavy

Someone mentioned that they thought the SP101 .357 snubby was too heavy. Maybe for some, but an engineer from one of the smaller ammunition companies that turn out loads that are absolutely top-end barn burners told me that of all of this style revolvers on the market at the time, the SP101 was the only one that would stand up to an unlimited diet of they're .357 cartridges...

Frankly, the Old Fuff has no interest in carrying any snubbly chambered for the .357 (cuz' .44 is better) but if he did you should be able to pick out which one it would be.

 

[GP100man]

Well ,I just came from Myrtle Beach Gun Show & found 0 Redhawks regular or super & 2 GP100 1 blue &1 stainless ,both used , no new 1s.

I think that says a statement loud & clear , people buy Rugers !!

Not a small show either !

 

[CDawg]

I own Ruger, S&W and Colt revolvers (even a Rossi). All work well and I have no complaints with any of them. Rugers seem to be almost "overbuilt". I certainly have no complaint about that, but their 2" SP101 is kind of heavy for a snubnose. I have the .38 only version. The weight does make it more pleasant to shoot the Buffalo Bore +P .38 though. It's still a hell of a weapon, even without ammunition. I just flat out like revolvers and Ruger makes good ones. I have a 7" .44 Redhawk, a 4" .357 Security Six, a 3" .357 SP101 and a 2" .38 SP101. They're all keepers!

 

[sfed]

I Tend to Favor Rugers Myself

I had to think about it a minute to figure out just how many I have, 10/22, LC9, SR40, Mini 14 tactical edition, Mod 77 Mk2 in 223 Remington with a 26 inch bull barrel in satin stainless and a beautiful laminated stock, and a New model Blackhawk 357 magnum. There may be more in the future depending on what they put on the market. I have several other brands in the collection such as a couple Savages a Marlin, a Sig Sauer and even a Taurus, so I am not biased too much. I like good quality firearms. I am trying to decide what I would like to add next to my little collection.

 

[WvHiker]

I particularly like the SP101 in the 3" barrel. Yes, it's heavy, but that's good because I like to shoot .357 out of it. I think it's not useless at all, it's a great carry gun when I'm not in town.

 

[pittspilot]

Have a security six, a Mark III, and LCP and a 10-22 Takedown. Fine guns, but I sure like my Smith revolvers over the Ruger.

 

[Fishslayer]

Kinda like Glocks, not so much the gun itself but a good portion of the fanboiz tend to be some really annoying jackwagons.

Haven't seen anything in this thread so far to alter my opinion.

Added another Ruger to the safe today. Not a wheelgun, but the little wooden stocked 10/22 Compact to go with my All Weather. Holy cow that barrel is short! 16.12"
The wood stock is absolutely beautiful.

 

[ultramag44]

I have 6 Ruger firearms @ present. I've had 5 others in the past. ALL have worked perfectly!

In the 50's, 60's and 70's Bill Ruger was the 'Wiz-Kid' of innovative arms design.

Under current leadership the company is healthy and can't build SR1911's fast enough. I was lucky to get one last spring. in September '09 I got an SP101 8-Shot .22 Revolver the day after they were released (we won't discuss how I managed that little stunt ). The gun is perfect for a new-release arm. Ruger had so many orders for guns, they actually had to stop taking orders for awhile last spring. And don't forget, these orders are for US MADE products.

What's not to like?

 

[CraigC]

Under current leadership the company is healthy and can't build SR1911's fast enough.

Doesn't look like they can make anything fast enough! Which is a good problem to have. We must also remember that Ruger is a true American success story. Bill Ruger founded the company along with Alex Sturm in 1949. They've turned a profit every year since the first. They continue to be debt-free and run on cash only.

 

[Guillermo]

They've turned a profit every year since the first.

impressive

At the time Bill started Ruger there was a healthy competition going on for the premium revolver market. He also recognized that the Lugar was a serious war prize. This was very much on his mind when he styled the .22.

His, and Alex Sturm's decision to position their products "down market" from "the big boys" was very smart. That strategy still works today even without premium revolvers being widely marketed.

 

[huntsman]

The goal is to build good quality, inexpensive guns for the "workin' man". Ruger was never an attempt to produce great guns.

I agree with this and think Ruger makes a great using gun But I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.

 

[CraigC]

Actually, Ruger didn't really have any competition in the revolver market in the beginning. At the time, the single action revolver market was pretty much dead, or thought so. The Colt SAA was gone and there was no replica market. It has been said by wiser men than myself that Bill single handedly revived the single action market with the Single Six. Colt soon thereafter resumed production of the SAA and also Great Western came into being. We must remember that Ruger did not offer a double action until 20yrs later in 1972.

I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.

I'm no fan of collecting but there are lots of rare and unusual variations from the last 63yrs of production to keep Ruger collectors busy. Old Models and especially flat-tops have become highly sought-after by shooters as well. I just paid $750 for this minty 1958 Blackhawk a couple months ago.

 

[Guillermo]

At the time, the single action revolver market was pretty much dead

of course this is true...what I was trying to convey is that Alex and Bill saw Colt and Smith duking it out and wanted no part of it.

At the time you had cheaper guns and more expensive guns. When they started making double actions they wanted to be the "best of the cheap" or the "cheapest of the best"...staking out the middle ground.

This strategy is still working even though there are so few players in the game.

 

[CraigC]

Agreed!

 

[TennJed]

I agree with this and think Ruger makes a great using gun But I just scratch my head when I see Ruger and collectable used in the same sentence.

There are probably people that would scratch their heads at whatever you collect