Why only steel RUgers?

[Cato the Younger]

I love ruger pistols

I agree with the posters who stated that they love their overbuilt Rugers- I like the solid feeling of heavy American steel in my hands- especially on the Redhawk and Superredhawk revolvers. One of my friends is going to buy a GP-100 soon as his HD gun. I will confess, however, that the only revolver I own now is a Smith and Wesson- the price was right on an old Highway Patrolman- however, as it is a 357 built on the N frame, I feel it keeps to my general philospohy of overbuilt guns are good- especially as with the 6 in barrel, it weighs around 44 ozs. I like the older Smiths, but the new ones, to me, are far too overpriced- I would rather buy a Ruger, which is stronger, and costs far less. Maybe I will get an Airweight for CCW, but that is it.
just my $.02.

 

[Bobhwry]

Ruger does not market to the concealed carry crowd. They build firearms for the shooter, hunter and sportsman that want a strong reliable gun that will last a lifetime.If you shoot today's plastic pocket rockets like a Ruger was built for, they will wear out or fail, long before the Ruger is just nicely broken in.

 

[Confederate]

Well, the Ruger SP-101 is about as much concealed carry as one can get unless they dig up an old Speed- or Security-Six. I'm not a huge advocate of expensive titanium guns; I like small automatics that sell for substantially less $$$. It was a better day when we had more manufacturers and cheaper weapons. Ravens, fifty bucks. Berettas, a hundred bucks. You could even get a Beretta 70S .22LR for almost nothing. Rossis and Taurus snubbies were about $150. Good Smith & Wessons were $300-$400.

Now Rossi and Taurus snubbies are going for $300-$400 and Smith titanium revolvers are going for $500 or so.

A good concealable gun is one that's not going to be shot a lot. It's made for carrying under the belt or armpit. Its weight keeps it from being robust, or a shooter. Thus, they should NOT be expensive. Ruger, in short, doesn't want to make a Saturday Night Special. They want their guns to be passed from one generation to the next. In my opinion the guns Smith are making are way overpriced. Compared to their fine target 686s and others, the tiny revolvers ought to be going for about $225, which would be a fair price. They've got MIM parts, other cheaply made parts and processes that probably make these guns easy and cheap to produce.

There are no more forged frames, solid steel hammers and triggers; just milled aluminum and titanium or steel cylinders. Certainly not worth the huge prices they want.

No wonder Ruger doesn't want any part of it.

 

[Bezoar]

Ruger has no real choice. Its product liability here. They make some pretty strong guns out of necessity. Ive gone through a lot of reloading manuals and information online and it seems that reloaders like to push the ruger revolvers. Found where you can actually handload ammo for a ruger in 45 colt to 454 CASULL pressure and not have it blow up on you, that takes a large, very strong piece of steel.

 

[Jim March]

The New Vaquero showed some pretty creative thinking, not just in the design but in the production process and average QC levels being displayed.

For what they are, they are VERY good guns. (Ditto the other mid-frame, the 50th Anniversary 357.)