Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by ontarget, Oct 12, 2019.
Blued SS or stainless ST. Similar price similar condition. Which one should I buy?
Single 10 if you only will ever shoot 22 LR. Single six if you want to shoot both 22 LR and 22 Mag. Single 9 if you only want to shoot 22 Mag.
I like stainless but if I found what I wanted I wouldn’t care.
I have always been satisfied with Single Sixes. It's quick enough to load and shoot six,, I don't need to go through ammo any faster than that.
What earl said
I agree. If you buy a single action .22, instead of a DA revolver or a semi-auto pistol, it's probably because you enjoy loading and unloading it the Old West way. It's part of the fun of single actions.
And a 10 shot cylinder is just plain ugly on a western SA revolver.
But, everyone has different needs and wants.
Blued or stainless depends on what you find most appealing, regardless of model.
Stainless SA Rugers are all SS, but are slightly heavier. And the finish is easy to maintain.
Usually they come with nice hardwood grips.
Blued SA Ruger revolvers have an aluminum grip frame and ejector rod housing (except the New Bearcat) which you may like or dislike.
And the grips are a hard rubber or plastic composition.
Leather holsters tend to wear away the finish a bit at contact points.
To me both blued and SS are appealing for a Single Six.
I don't like the Single 10 myself.
And, there is that .22 magnum second cylinder to consider with a Single Six or Nine.
I would definitely go stainless, usually they're $50 more than blued and the extra 4 shots is a definite bonus!
If it were me I would go with a blued Single Six with a 4.62" barrel, much like the first Single Six I ever owned. For whatever reason I'm just not attracted to stainless steel single actions. I'm also not a fan of the cylinder of the Single Ten either.
I am a big fan of the 4.6 in barrel. I am good up to about the 5.5 in length but any longer is just not my cup of tea. Both of the Rugers in question have longer barrels 6 in? Or 6.5 in? So I'm not really feeling any love for either of them but the price is good. May just hold out for a shorter barrel.
I would choose the Stainless Single Ten.
I only shoot Long Rifle, I like stainless, and you know what they say about if you pass a good deal up...
That's right! "I could have had both!"
I like the ability to shoot any .22 ammo from cb shorts to .22mag.
Single six with magnum cylinder for me.
I am also a 4⅝" fan.
I have a Single-Ten, and it is as close to perfect as one could imagine. Plus, I never need to worry about "holster-wear", being 100% SS. The ten-shot capacity means I can get my limit of squirrels without reloading, also. The only thing I needed to do besides the "poor-man's trigger job" was make a taller set of grips to fit my large hands. Oh, I also installed a red-dot sight.
Flip a coin. You won't go wrong.
I don't think the 22 Mag cylinder for my Singer-Six has had a full box of 22 Mag ammunition through it in the 30 some years that I have owned the gun and it would take a while for me to lay my hands on the 22 Mag cylinder.
But that is me. 22 Mag is a good round and it does have it's purposes.
It's sort of like meticulously rebuilding a 1921 Ford Model T and then stuffing in a rebuilt automatic transmission from a 1972 Ford Pinto.
It may work well and it may be easier to drive. But, it doesn't belong there and it doesn't look right.
And it destroys the appeal and the authenticity of a classic.
A few months ago I would have said the Single Six with the extra magnum cylinder. Then I found a used stainless Single Ten with the longer barrel at a really good price. Love the thing. The grips feel a little different in a way I like and I'm more accurate with it compared to the Six. I was surprised at the degree of difference in balance. I have older Single Sixes and Rough Riders with the magnum cylinder, so that wasn't a factor. Maybe I got lucky but the Single Ten feels more solid and locks up tight. If I needed a 22lr for hunting or woods carry, the Ten would be in my holster.
If you can handle both, a comparison could be revealing. Please let us know which one you get and why.
I bought a pre-owned S10, blued with the short barrel. It has been a real Jim Dandy.
I also have a S6 stainless with a 5.5" barrel that I bought back when I was tired of looking for a reasonably priced, high quality DA revolver. It shoots very straight also. The S6 is pre-owned also; no Mag cylinder.
There are things about the S10 that might bother purists even more than the S6, and that's fine. If you have no hangups about that, the 10 shot capability is actually kind of nice. Divides well with most common ammo counts. Load up once, and you're probably good for that whole fishing trip or walk in the woods. I like the fiber optic sights as well. But as stated, I don't think you would go wrong with either choice.
I rather like the High Standard and H&R 9 shot .22 revolvers of yesteryear. They make sense as a kit gun. The Single 10 or 9 also makes good sense as a kit gun, so why not buy one if it appeals to you? It's your hard-earned money.
I guess that I'm a purist stuck in the 1970's where Ruger SAA revolvers are concerned, but that's okay too.
Single 10 for me. If I’m porting the weight, I’d rather have the extra rounds between reloads. The Single Six should be a 32, in my book, so when I go can plinking with 22LR, I’m there to do some shooting. The adjustable sighted Single’s aren’t cowboy revolvers anyway, and I always prefer a non-fluted cylinder anyway.
Nostalgia and dreams of western duels aside, one thing's for sure: if you were to ask a cowboy, a pioneer homesteader or a Dodge City lawman back in their time, when outlaws and rustlers mocked the law, when feeding ones' family wasn't sport but survival and Indians were collecting pale-face scalps, which of the two pistols do you think they'd choose?
I know which one I'd opt for.
I'm partial to the versatility of the LR/Mag cylinders myself, so I'd take a 6-shot convertible over a multi-shot single caliber Ruger.
However, toting 9 or 10 shots is nice...reloading a single action becomes a chore sometimes...OK, find what sings to you the loudest and grab it!
My 6.5" single six with the Mag cylinder in place and a Henry .22 Mag...
Well, actually a cowboy or a Dodge City lawman would have no use for either revolver, since they are chambered in .22 rimfire cartridges. Both are comparatively large and heavy, at a time when .22 rim fire pistols were very small hideout guns. Both need .44's or .45s, and the cylinders in these guns only have barely enough meat for 6 rounds. A 10 round .45 Colt would be humongous.
A pioneer homesteader would also have little use for a .22 revolver, since it would be useless in an Indian attack. A Winchester lever action .44-40 and a Remington double barrel 12 gauge would have been on his wish list, but he probably settled for an old rolling block rifle in .50-70 and a cheap Belgian single barrel in 12 gauge. For a .22 he would probably be using a single shot rifle, if he could afford a third gun. But, he would probably have spent the money on Sunday-go-to-meeting shoes for the kids or a new dress for Mary-Sue.
I favor the Single Ten personally. For plinking, it's nice to have 10 rounds and the one's I have handled were always really well made.
Sound advice for guns, hot cars, motorcycles, ....... and girlfriends.
The question was which .22 rimfire revolver should I buy, "Single Six or Single Ten", which is why I asked "Which of the two pistols do you think they (people living in the time) might choose" if that was their only option? I'm sure if the choices were broader, better options would be entertained. But, to think that a person living in the era of the "wild west" would consider choosing a firearm because they might enjoy "loading and unloading it the Old West way" misses my point.
Today's shooter might appreciate the slow and deliberate way a single-action revolver differentiates itself from other actions in the interests of "nostalgia" but folks of yesteryear, those having to actually defend themselves and survive on a daily basis, would certainly see having more bullets on board, everything else being equal, a very relevant and advantageous factor no matter the caliber or mode of ignition, especially if you're required to be armed with a relatively slow to reload and get back into action, single-action revolver.
In your original post here, you didn't say that a .22 revolver was their only option, or that they were "required" to choose one.
And, as I said, why would a Dodge City Lawman choose a .22 ? A lawman requires a .44 or a .45 to shoot bad guys, and a .22 would clearly be useless to him. So why would he choose one? I think that he would choose neither.
Similarly, why would a cash-starved homesteader buy a .22 revolver when it would be almost useless to him? When feeding one's family wasn't sport but survival the man needed a shotgun and a rifle, not a .22 revolver, or any revolver for that matter.
And shooting at Indian attackers on the warpath with an under-powered .22 revolver would get you killed fast.
A man needed a good rifle so them danged bloodthirsty red savages didn't lift his hair.
So, again, your hypothetical homesteader would choose neither.
Is all of this a silly argument? Yes. But it is fun.
Separate names with a comma.