Will do.
I didn’t want to keep this thread going forever, but did want to make a final point. The price difference and what I perceive as value was what ultimately swayed my decision. I’m a frugal guy…and I shoot mostly Glocks, so my level of refinement is probably lower than some others.
That is NOT meant in any derogatory manner. I am a basic kinda guy, frugal and I pay up for reliability and quality. But I’m not into elegance and refinement beyond what I perceive as necessary or practical.
That doesn’t mean I don’t admire and appreciate a beautiful, refined firearm. But just not something I’m willing to spend up for.
Just my thoughts. Again, not judging anyone’s responses and appreciate all the comments. I’ll post pics in a few weeks after I get the gun and shoot it a bit.
Take care, Buzz
I figured that played a role in your decision. They both are great guns. You could not go wrong either way for a reliable shooter.
S&W 686s are going for around $900 before taxes. I would have probably gone with the Ruger too in your situation if I could get it for over $170 less than the comparable Smith.
No, if some are "taking it personally" it might be because some of your criticisms were based on entirely subjective opinions completely divorced from facts and yet, as reflected in post # 45, were offered as though the information was factual. It's entirely correct to opine "I
think they are" as opposed to claiming Rugers
are ugly;
are poorly finished and have "crap" triggers and
are "budget revolvers" when compared to Smith & Wesson products. What you allege or believe to be true might have a factual basis but when you don't distinguish between empirical evidence and opinion, your credibility can be compromised. In my
opinion.
Obviously it's an opinion and what I think when I say they are ugly. It goes without saying that what one person thinks is ugly someone elses taste might be different. It should be obvious that whether a trigger is bad, a gun is not ergonomic, etc are all subjective. It's obviously what I think. I carry a Beretta APX which I think is nice looking handgun, but I couldn't tell you how many people comment that they
are ugly. When discussing looks, feel, ergo, triggers pull, etc, that's all opinion based subjects. When discussing dimensions, trigger weights and pull length, aftermarket support, price, etc, those are all obviously based on concrete factual information.
From my experience and from a recurring theme I heard from others who have experience with both, the Ruger trigger out the box is terrible compared to others on the market. They are like Glocks of the revolver world. They are rough, tough, poorly finished and unrefined utilitarian revolvers compared to the competition. More machining goes into finishing than some of the other options. They are also not as attractive and a Colt Python, S&W 686, or even the long barrel Kimber K6S.
I own all of these guns I just mentioned and have been giving my opinion on. What I stated still stands and that is what I believe. My opinion and personal first hand experience is not up for debate. If my experience was that the Ruger was beautiful, had an excellent trigger, and great machining and fit and finish, those who are upset with my opinion wouldn't be, but when my experience is the opposite, it's an issue.
