The Ruger American desparately needs improvements

[sappyg]

I'm not much for budget production rifles myself, but that's because I put thousands down range, not just a few rounds each hunting season.
I really like the 3 lug 60 degree throw on the bolt, that's a nice touch I think.

I have suggested to all these American owners, to say something about these flaws to Ruger. Who knows, maybe Ruger will make some modifications to their future production of Americans, even if the cost goes up a tad.
GS

We are of the same mind. I shoot quite a bit too and when you're talking budget rifle (or any rifle) you're really talking lock, stock, and barrel in its basic form.

Love the action (lock) as long as the round can be chambered properly and safely. Stock I'm OK with. Barrel? Need so be chambered properly. Ruger has had issues with chambers in the past and looks to continue the trend for no good reason. I get the feeling that the company has a lot of lawyers giving too much advise on products and production.... Still.

More likely, they (Ruger) seem to build guns based off of some survey someone thought up. They know what you want. They are just not sure about how to do it or why you want it if that makes sense.

They do listen. On their website I left a letter to the CEO. Got a response within 24 hours. Customer service is awesome. Probably the best in the business. But, if their products were as good as there customer support you wouldn't need the customer support. I bet Savage has 1/4 or less After sale workload of the Axis that Ruger has for the American. Lock, stock and barrel.

 

[Manny]

The only American I own is the rimfire version that I love. For the $259 I paid for it I think its a tremendous value. The only thing I really wish is that the forend were sturdier. I would pay extra for a better stock on an American with maybe a full length bedding block to it firm up. I also think it would be awesome as well if Ruger would incorporate the interchangeable butt stock of the rimfire version in the centerfire version

 

[HOOfan_1]

I've seen 2 people complain about the Ruger American.....I've seen at least 30 or so rave about it.

I've seen people who have had problem with the Axis too.

I guess when you get a bad gun, you feel burned...but my impression is that the Ruger American is a great gun...unlike the Remington 770. No one seems to like those.

 

[sappyg]

I've seen 2 people complain about the Ruger American.....I've seen at least 30 or so rave about it.

I've seen people who have had problem with the Axis too.

I guess when you get a bad gun, you feel burned...but my impression is that the Ruger American is a great gun...unlike the Remington 770. No one seems to like those.

Oh please.... You've seen 2 people complain about the American in this thread. There are more. The 30 that rave about it might be the ones that shoot it twice a year.

The Axis has a stiff trigger. Most shooters can deal with that. At least you can feed a round from the mag.

Yes, I feel burned. Nobody likes to a beta tester on their dime and without their prior knowledge. I own quite a few Rugers and I've owned and shot most everything currently made by most all manufacturers. I have enough experience to objectively praise or criticize any firearm I own. And I do have skin in the game. The American is not a great gun. It could be. It simply isn't. It's not even a great budget gun. The Axis is. I own one of those too.

I never mentioned the 770. Never shot one nor do I own one. The thread is about the Ruger American and some issue that it tends to exhibit. I want to like this rifle but frankly, I'm not impressed except for the customer service.

 

[TexasPatriot.308]

sounds like the Remington 710 and 770....low end cheap rifles....what you pay for....when will yall learn?

 

[Kosh75287]

You mean we should EXPECT fragile and crummy magazines at the Ruger American's pricepoint?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Oh please.... You've seen 2 people complain about the American in this thread. There are more. The 30 that rave about it might be the ones that shoot it twice a year.

The Axis has a stiff trigger. Most shooters can deal with that. At least you can feed a round from the mag.

Yes, I feel burned. Nobody likes to a beta tester on their dime and without their prior knowledge. I own quite a few Rugers and I've owned and shot most everything currently made by most all manufacturers. I have enough experience to objectively praise or criticize any firearm I own. And I do have skin in the game. The American is not a great gun. It could be. It simply isn't. It's not even a great budget gun. The Axis is. I own one of those too.

I never mentioned the 770. Never shot one nor do I own one. The thread is about the Ruger American and some issue that it tends to exhibit. I want to like this rifle but frankly, I'm not impressed except for the customer service.

No I've seen two people complain period, and I've seen people complain about the Axis more than just the trigger. Since the people who rave about the Axis and Ruger far outweigh the haters...I take what the haters have to say with a grain of salt.

 

[RainDodger]

Generally, one gets what one pays for. If all the things that the owners think are "sub-standard" were the quality you want, the rifle would cost more.

I suspect the rifle would function out of the box. If you drop a mag, yeah, it might break. If the stock is warped, I doubt a buyer is prevented from looking a rifle over before buying it no matter what the price. If the stock is warped, why was it purchased in the first place? If it is warped, take it back.

I guess I'm in a touchy mood tonight, but if you pay bottom dollar for something, you're going to get bottom dollar merchandise.

I spent very little money on a Savage .17 rimfire. I put $$ into the things I wanted to improve and it's more what I want now. I bought it expecting what I got however. I looked it over carefully and got precisely what I expected.

 

[dak0ta]

It's wise to not buy the first generation of any product.

 

[sappyg]

sounds like the Remington 710 and 770....low end cheap rifles....what you pay for....when will yall learn?

Yep. Sounds like that to a tee.

iIRC a Mosin Nagant is cheaper still. So many 'rave' about those here.

 

[sappyg]

No I've seen two people complain period, and I've seen people complain about the Axis more than just the trigger. Since the people who rave about the Axis and Ruger far outweigh the haters...I take what the haters have to say with a grain of salt.

Care to back that up?

I think you mistake honest criticism with 'hate' as you say. I don't recall anyone 'hating' the American. Hate? Really?

Could it have been better? Yep! Is it average for a substandard rifle? My experience tells me no.

 

[Ks5shooter]

For low end shooters,I went with the T/C Venture.7mm-o8(weathershield),25-06 and .223.All shoot well,no issues and if you buy when rebates are going on you are in it for 300 bucks(75 dollar rebate goin on now until end of April.).Great accuracy,great adj. smooth trigger(down to 3.5 lb),target crown and 1 in. MOA AT 100 yds. Also pillar bedded ,free floated,very accurate. I own three and no problems am I just lucky?

 

[3212]

I agree with the poster who said don't buy the first generation of anything.Guns,cars,appliances,whatever.The buying public is the final tester.

 

[dvdcrr]

I grabbed a Ruger American off the rack the other day. It was so light and handy I thought it a shame that there were no open sights!

 

[Cee Zee]

Generally, one gets what one pays for.

Wow the marketing guys love to hear people say that. I can name dozens of examples of that not being true. I'll just name a couple and limit them to firearms.

First there's the NEF Pardner shotguns. They are nearly an identical clone of the 870 except the barrel has the ring in a different spot. They had to do something to make sure they didn't get sued for patent infringement. It costs less than half of the cheapest 870. I've seen them for $160. They are great shotguns. I have two and other than a faulty lifter that was fixed a couple of days after I bought the shotgun I've never had a problem with either.

Second would be a Taurus PT-145 Millennium Pro. I paid $225 for mine brand new with an extra mag. I've put at least 1000 rounds through it and it has never malfunctioned once. The accuracy is stunning for the barrel length. It holds more .45 rounds than anything near it's size and it has a lifetime warranty. It's hard to argue with perfect though and so far it has been.

There's two examples. I can name many more. The Marlin 60, the Ruger 10/22, Savage MkI, Marlin 795 (you wouldn't believe what I paid for mine - $40 brand new), etc. etc..

Often it is true that you get what you pay for but that certainly isn't always the case. The whole reason the American was built was because of the success of the Axis IMO. They work well enough for people to keep buying them. And this pattern goes back a long way. I remember when Remington knocked Winchester out of the top spot of American gun makers especially in shotguns. The 870 was cheaper and just as good as anything Winchester was making. Now people think the 870 is an expensive gun. It is compared to those NEF guns. And there are other clones of shotguns around including copies of Winchester designs. Yes they are made in China. That doesn't automatically make them bad. I remember when "Made In Japan" might as well have said "Junk". That was before Toyota and Honda and Nikon and all the rest of the Japanese products. Don't get me started on Japanese cars in the 1970s compared to US built cars. We had emissions controls and fuel mileage requirements plus insurance rates that stifled the US car market and that led to labor problems because they weren't being paid as much as before. At the same time you could be a Corolla that would last 200,000 miles before you had to replace anything except tires and brake pads. Compare that to the Vega and the Pinto and the Maverick not to mention the Pacer.

It is not always true that more expensive means better.

 

[Eb1]

Yes, I have to say that "get what you pay for" is sometimes thrown around to easily. I have a Marlin Model 60 that cost $120 that shoots MOA at 100 yards, a Marlin XL7 .25-06 cost me $250 that shoots below MOA before and after I replaced the stock with a Boyd, and a newly bought Tisas Zig M 1911 A2 that so far has been a very good shooter.

I haven't had to send any of these rifles back to the Manufacturer, and the XL7 has taken deer out to 300 yards.

I think the better way to put it is you have Monday all day and Friday afternoon products. Get one made on Monday or Friday afternoon and it is a crap shoot. If a rifle can shoot 1.5" at 100 yards it is fine for a deer/elk/pig/speed goat, etc hunting rifle.
Heck most people couldn't take a match rifle and shoot under MOA. Especially offhand at a living animal.
I have a cousin who has killed more deer than there are THR members. <--- JK, but he has shot a lot of deer. He never used anything other than a 12 gauge shotgun.

 

[RainDodger]

"Often it is true that you get what you pay for but that certainly isn't always the case."

That is why I used the word "Generally":

Originally Posted by RainDodger
Generally, one gets what one pays for.

We're off topic now, so let's not continue this.

 

[dak0ta]

You do get what you pay for. More R&D into a good design (also easy to manufacture) while also keeping in mind cost constraints means that you get a good product at a certain pricepoint.

The person who listed the NEF Pardner pump, well it's based off the venerable 870, so of course it's reliable, just make it in China with cheaper labour and you got a cheap, reliable, shotgun modeled after the most successful shotgun in history.

The Marlin 60, Savage Mark II, Ruger 10/22 are all proven designs with excellent thought put into them, that have survived the test of time. It just happens that they are affordable, because the engineers had a good design that allowed for ease of manufacturing a simple product that is reliable. The savings are just passed onto the consumer. If you think about them, they aren't overly complex to make, but critical components are made of quality materials.

Compare the Ruger American magazine to the Ruger 10/22 magazine. Both have plastic and metal bits, but the Ruger 10/22 is reliable. It's a well thought out rotary magazine. Probably doesn't cost that much to make either.

The new Axis, American, 783 are designed to be cheap from the get go. There's a price point to meet for the consumer, so the engineers have that mandate to meet. Hence more plastic parts and perhaps the metal isn't as good as higher quality products because the targeted consumers (people that don't shoot often enough to warrant buying a Rem 700, Savage 110, Ruger M77) won't shoot it enough to wear out. Different steel, pot metal, etc. Your complaints as the final tester of the first generation of these rifles will ensure that future consumers will have a better, reliable product in the 2nd and 3rd iterations, probably at a slight increase in price.

 

[itsa pain]

No I've seen two people complain period, and I've seen people complain about the Axis more than just the trigger. Since the people who rave about the Axis and Ruger far outweigh the haters...I take what the haters have to say with a grain of salt.

You are right when the Ruger American came out there was a ton of guys here praising it like they were getting paid to do it. Can you imagine being a gun maker and trying to please an impossible crowd like gun owners? Might be easier to please a bunch of old ladies

 

[Field Tester]

Again I ask, are the only complaints with the magazine with calibers sub to .308?

 

[Bearhands]

I have a 243 with -0- issues...magazine included.

 

[sappyg]

Got the replacement rifle from Ruger today. I get the feeling they didn't listen to a single thing I mentioned about the rifle I sent back... Twice.
This one looks like they just pulled another box off the rack and sent it to my LGS. Had the same problems as the other. They must be so cheap to make that they are not worth fixing. This one is on it's way back to Ruger now.
Here is what a FTFeed looks like.

 

[Doug S]

I almost bought a RAR this past deer season, but at the last minute chose a Walmart Remington 700ADL instead. Still, I was still toying with the idea that I'd like to pick up a RAR sometime, but this thread has me second guessing.

Reality seems to be that people pick a gun, and then get on the forums touting how great it is. In reality, some are, and some aren't, but people tend to justify their purchases. This thread is a good example. The guy who loves the Axis, sings its praises while trashing the Ruger. RAR fans tend to put down the Axis.

 

[jaysouth]

I have no experience with any Ruger except the RAR in .243 that my brother bought last year. I reload for him and helped him zero the scope.

Walmart Remington ammo is shooting at 2-3 MOA and handloads are sub MOA. He killed more deer with it last year than you could load in the back of a pickup. His best shot was a coyote at an honest 300 yards with a fixed power 4X scope.

I would not buy a RAR for any bragging rights, but it would be hard to find a better or more accurate gun than the one that my brother owns at double the price point.

 

[OrangePwrx9]

...