Glockstar .40
New member
love my ruger p90...when i got married my wife adopted it. it sleeps next to her on her nightstand
Is RUGER the Rodney Dangerfield of firearm companies...they get no respect...
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
Nakanokalronin
New member
Ruger guns are built well at prices more manufactures should try and mimic. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I think even the older P series looked better then some "modern" semi-autos of today.
As far as posts and pictures of Ruger firearms on forums, I seem to see quite a few on multiple forums all the time.
I own a Ruger 10/22 and used to own a few pistols not pictured but here are a few of my current Rugers.
As far as posts and pictures of Ruger firearms on forums, I seem to see quite a few on multiple forums all the time.
I own a Ruger 10/22 and used to own a few pistols not pictured but here are a few of my current Rugers.
Last edited:
I have loved every Ruger i have every owned, with the exception of 1 lemon 10/22 which jammed consistently... it was just a lemon becuase the one i had before (which was stolen) was a champ and the one i have now runs flawlessly. i still have my 22/45, great gun, and i owned a GP100 in 4" and sold it because the barrel (in my opinion) was too short for hunting, which is the main reason i got it, and too heavy fr CCW, which is why i got the 4". never been able to replace it but i will some day. in any case Rugers don't get enough credit, they are not a high end gun, but they are very well built, accurate, and reliable and will last generations.
Roland Thunder
New member
I have a stainless steel Ruger Security Six with a 6" barrell and I love it. I regularly have people stop me at the range and ask me about it:
SilentHitz
New member
This doesn't look like "no respect" to me.
I tend to agree on their CF auto pistols (other than LC9, LCP and SR 11); they are good, but bulky.
On their revolvers, I think they get a lot of respect, maybe too much. What I mean by that is the common belief that Rugers are super strong, and can't possibly be damaged no matter what crazy handload is fed them.
The post usually starts with, "A Ruger is built like a tank and nobody has ever blown one up..." followed by "my loads would blow up an S&W/Colt/Freedom etc., but the Ruger takes them." Of course, the poster has never fired his loads in any other gun (they are too expensive to risk), but he just knows that an S&W would blow up because he has been told that all other makes are weak, tinny pieces of trash, not like the Ruger.
Jim
On their revolvers, I think they get a lot of respect, maybe too much. What I mean by that is the common belief that Rugers are super strong, and can't possibly be damaged no matter what crazy handload is fed them.
The post usually starts with, "A Ruger is built like a tank and nobody has ever blown one up..." followed by "my loads would blow up an S&W/Colt/Freedom etc., but the Ruger takes them." Of course, the poster has never fired his loads in any other gun (they are too expensive to risk), but he just knows that an S&W would blow up because he has been told that all other makes are weak, tinny pieces of trash, not like the Ruger.
Jim
I own an Alaskan, a GP100 with a 4 inch barrel, a SR9 and a MKiii 22/45. The MKiii has been a complete headache. My son and I have doctored that pistol up so much it's not funny. We replaced the factory sights with fiber optic ones with the little V notch rear sight. No luck. We put a red dot sight on it which worked great. Then the grip needed something other than factory. The factory grip is uncomfortable in my hand. So I settled for a Hogue slip on grip which improved the grip a lot. Now I'm dealing with a factory trigger that sucks, big time. We bought a Volquartson trigger which we will install on it tonight. When the trigger arrived today my son looked at me and said, "It's a shame we've had to do all this to this pistol to make it into what we want!" He's right too. All we did to the Buckmark was to tweak the trigger spring some.
I like Ruger revolvers a lot. Sadly with the price of ammo I shoot the buckmark and the MKiiii more than anything else I own.
I like Ruger revolvers a lot. Sadly with the price of ammo I shoot the buckmark and the MKiiii more than anything else I own.
Nakanokalronin
New member
Nice looking Rugers in this thread. 
I appreciate and own many other brands, but my Rugers can hang with the rest quite easily.
On top of the Rugers I have pictured, I've owned or still own 2 SP101s, 2 10/22s, 22/45, another P89, another GP100 and a P95. Never had a problem with any of them. I think some of the disrespect for Ruger comes from the original owners ideals in politics and what the average citizen should own. Now that he's gone, the company has risen up to meet the demand on products that people want.
As far as the revolvers being "built like tanks", the term may be over used but even some ammo manufactures who produce high pressure ammo, will list the Rugers as firearms that can handle such loads, however I'm not saying others can't do the same.
I appreciate and own many other brands, but my Rugers can hang with the rest quite easily.
On top of the Rugers I have pictured, I've owned or still own 2 SP101s, 2 10/22s, 22/45, another P89, another GP100 and a P95. Never had a problem with any of them. I think some of the disrespect for Ruger comes from the original owners ideals in politics and what the average citizen should own. Now that he's gone, the company has risen up to meet the demand on products that people want.
As far as the revolvers being "built like tanks", the term may be over used but even some ammo manufactures who produce high pressure ammo, will list the Rugers as firearms that can handle such loads, however I'm not saying others can't do the same.
the governor
New member
Not sure if this has been posted in the thread or not. But I'd say Ruger is doing just fine.
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1332407149qn3zm2bebpn
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1332407149qn3zm2bebpn
boostedtt91
New member
Ruger has the BEST and ill say again the BEST .22LR platform ever made with the 10/22 and there pistol's are selling as fast as they are made, so to say they get no respect, is just way off. I give Ruger alot of respect for still building a ALL American made gun that performs as good as any other gun out there. I have a Ruger 10/22 which i absolutley love and a SR1911 which is just a amazing gun which they could not of built any better in my eyes. I will be surely buying more guns from Ruger in the near future!
They can't keep up with orders.
Ruger suspended the acceptance of new orders
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...-on-1q-orders/
They can't keep up with orders.
Despite the company's continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders,” Fifer said in the statement.
Sturm Ruger hopes to be accepting orders again by the end of May, the company said.
Ruger suspended the acceptance of new orders
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industrie...-on-1q-orders/
They can't keep up with orders.
Despite the company's continuing successful efforts to increase production rates, the incoming order rate exceeds our capacity to rapidly fulfill these orders. Consequently, the company has temporarily suspended the acceptance of new orders,” Fifer said in the statement.
Sturm Ruger hopes to be accepting orders again by the end of May, the company said.
I think that no one needs any handgun other than a Ruger for defensive duties. There are other good to great handguns. There are some that are more accurate. There are many that are more expensive. But I contend that Ruger handguns are a great blend of moderate price, great long-term durability, high reliability and life-saving accuracy. The looks are one thing that don't generally 'float my boat', but I don't care what the handgun at the end of my arm looks like, as long as it works consistantly and stops the bad guy.
For ultimate accuracy there are more accurate center-fired semi-auto handguns, but they also cost more.
I own: SP101 .22lr [new 8 shot one], GP100, SRH, Mark II .22/.45 and P97DC.
If I ever had to get rid of the majority of my handguns, these would be the last 5 I kept.
I was twice as accurate with my P97 as a SIG p220 combat I had, so the SIG was sold. I was only 1.5 times as accurate with the P97 as the HK USP .45compact, but I also disliked the trigger on the HK, so it was sold too. Yep: I prefer the Ruger to the SIG or HK pistols.
That said, the Rugers don't spark a passion in me like I feel for the 1911s I own or the Browning Hi Power pistols. Those just really excite me. But they will also be sold before I sell the Rugers as I have never had a failure in my P97 [over 2000 rounds fired: not a lot, I know, but no failures of ANY kind], my GP100, or my SRH. The .22lr Ruger failures were all a matter of cheap ammo, and there were very few of them also.
Ruger's don't feature in movies or TV often, so maybe they get no media respect. I don't know of anyone who has ever used a Ruger who has made a bad comment about anything other than the looks. Again, there are more refined firearms out there: and they cost more too. But Ruger is the blue-collar working-man of firearms that everyone can rely upon, and most can afford. We can't all afford Les Baers or Novak Custom work on a BHP. We can usually afford a Ruger.
For ultimate accuracy there are more accurate center-fired semi-auto handguns, but they also cost more.
I own: SP101 .22lr [new 8 shot one], GP100, SRH, Mark II .22/.45 and P97DC.
If I ever had to get rid of the majority of my handguns, these would be the last 5 I kept.
I was twice as accurate with my P97 as a SIG p220 combat I had, so the SIG was sold. I was only 1.5 times as accurate with the P97 as the HK USP .45compact, but I also disliked the trigger on the HK, so it was sold too. Yep: I prefer the Ruger to the SIG or HK pistols.
That said, the Rugers don't spark a passion in me like I feel for the 1911s I own or the Browning Hi Power pistols. Those just really excite me. But they will also be sold before I sell the Rugers as I have never had a failure in my P97 [over 2000 rounds fired: not a lot, I know, but no failures of ANY kind], my GP100, or my SRH. The .22lr Ruger failures were all a matter of cheap ammo, and there were very few of them also.
Ruger's don't feature in movies or TV often, so maybe they get no media respect. I don't know of anyone who has ever used a Ruger who has made a bad comment about anything other than the looks. Again, there are more refined firearms out there: and they cost more too. But Ruger is the blue-collar working-man of firearms that everyone can rely upon, and most can afford. We can't all afford Les Baers or Novak Custom work on a BHP. We can usually afford a Ruger.
boostedtt91
New member
for Ruger to get over 1 million orders in the first 3 months of 2012 and have to stop taking orders that they have so many orders is sure saying that Ruger is doing EVERYTHING right!! I wish i bought some stock before this happened!
Cold Steel
New member
Ruger's decision to go to bigger, bulkier revolvers was ill advised in my opinion because if someone wants a target get, they should get a S&W 686. It's a more accurate gun. There's also no reason to make it bigger? Why would Ruger possibly want to depart from Bill Jordan's tried and true motif of a .357 that's easy to shoot and easy to carry into the wilderness? By adding a full underlug barrel, they made the 6-inch models so heavy that few would want to carry it on trails, or while camping or hunting.
Yep, I'm also aware that Bill Ruger complained because of his reduced profit margins while the "Six" series was in production. But that was no one's fault but his own. Once you devalue one of your products, it's difficult to raise prices, and he was trying to keep the prices low to appeal to the police market.
When S&W decided to go to a larger frame, heavier .357, they did so because they wanted to copy the Python. But it wasn't enough just to put some extra metal in critical parts and beef it up; S&W also decided to watch the tolerances so that when shot side-by-side, the 686 and the Python would render similar results in accuracy. So S&W addressed two issues: strength and accuracy. And I really think it reasoned that if they were going to make the gun bigger and heavier, that the gun should be every bit as accurate as the Python.
In my opinion, the 686 achieved those two goals.
Ruger, on the other hand, addressed two issues as well. First, since strength wasn't an issue (the "Six" series could eat at least 30,000 hot magnum loads), it had to appear to be making the same improvements that S&W were, even if they were phantom improvements. Second, to give the gun an underlug. Unfortunately for Ruger, it did nothing to improve accuracy. All it did was make its guns bigger and heavier. And it deluded people into thinking that one spring doing the job of two was actually better than two springs doing the work of two.
In other words, while S&W actually improved it's .357 in critical areas, Ruger took an incredibly strong revolver and made it heavier and stronger. But for what? To make it look like the 686!
If I had no handguns at all, but needed a revolver for defense, I'd want a revolver light enough to keep in the dresser drawer and to take with me on road trips (preferably in the glove box) and outdoors, for hiking or camping. If money was an object, as it is for many of us, I'd want something that would be comfortable enough for my wife and older children to use, and something that could pack a heavier punch if I were on the road or in the wilderness.
As stated elsewhere, I think the S&W Model 13, in the early 70s, was the perfect handgun. Everyone knew the manufacturer, the gun was modestly priced, easy to work, aim and fire. It also had a perfect balance and, with a Tyler-T adapter and a nice holster, it was beautiful and highly functional. Close on its heels was the Ruger Speed-Six with a 2.75-inch barrel and Pachmayr grips. This gun was not perfect out of the box, but could be improved by dry firing repeatedly. (That's why it doesn't get a "perfect" rating from me.) But these were decent, strong guns that lacked name recognition at the time among newbes.
The 13 still has a great appeal to me, as do the Rugers. But just because gun owners became more sophisticated doesn't mean that we needed heavier, more cumbersome guns. I'd love to put a 6-inch GP-100 on a table next to a 6-inch Security-Six and ask Bill Jordan to take his pick. All I'm saying, folks, is that Ruger fixed a non-existent problem and patterned their .357s on S&W's heavier and more cumbersome line of .357s; however, S&W had reasons: accuracy, range use, competition. Ruger, as far as I can tell, just makes their revolvers heavier and more difficult to use.
The S&W 686 (above) is more accurate and is suited for competition;
however, the Ruger Security-Six is a superior outdoors and field gun, highly
desirable as a hunting gun. It's lighter barrel picks up targets quicker and
easier than the 686.
The smaller-frame .357s added strength to portability. Alas, these
handy little guns are no longer produced, though they're the perfect
dresser drawer gun. They're superior to the SP-101 because they carry
one more round and are more comfortable to shoot. On a woodsy trail,
having one of these beats an SP-101 any day in my view.
Regardless of the barrel length, the Speed- and Security-Six revolvers
melded strength with portability.
.
Yep, I'm also aware that Bill Ruger complained because of his reduced profit margins while the "Six" series was in production. But that was no one's fault but his own. Once you devalue one of your products, it's difficult to raise prices, and he was trying to keep the prices low to appeal to the police market.
When S&W decided to go to a larger frame, heavier .357, they did so because they wanted to copy the Python. But it wasn't enough just to put some extra metal in critical parts and beef it up; S&W also decided to watch the tolerances so that when shot side-by-side, the 686 and the Python would render similar results in accuracy. So S&W addressed two issues: strength and accuracy. And I really think it reasoned that if they were going to make the gun bigger and heavier, that the gun should be every bit as accurate as the Python.
In my opinion, the 686 achieved those two goals.
Ruger, on the other hand, addressed two issues as well. First, since strength wasn't an issue (the "Six" series could eat at least 30,000 hot magnum loads), it had to appear to be making the same improvements that S&W were, even if they were phantom improvements. Second, to give the gun an underlug. Unfortunately for Ruger, it did nothing to improve accuracy. All it did was make its guns bigger and heavier. And it deluded people into thinking that one spring doing the job of two was actually better than two springs doing the work of two.
In other words, while S&W actually improved it's .357 in critical areas, Ruger took an incredibly strong revolver and made it heavier and stronger. But for what? To make it look like the 686!
If I had no handguns at all, but needed a revolver for defense, I'd want a revolver light enough to keep in the dresser drawer and to take with me on road trips (preferably in the glove box) and outdoors, for hiking or camping. If money was an object, as it is for many of us, I'd want something that would be comfortable enough for my wife and older children to use, and something that could pack a heavier punch if I were on the road or in the wilderness.
As stated elsewhere, I think the S&W Model 13, in the early 70s, was the perfect handgun. Everyone knew the manufacturer, the gun was modestly priced, easy to work, aim and fire. It also had a perfect balance and, with a Tyler-T adapter and a nice holster, it was beautiful and highly functional. Close on its heels was the Ruger Speed-Six with a 2.75-inch barrel and Pachmayr grips. This gun was not perfect out of the box, but could be improved by dry firing repeatedly. (That's why it doesn't get a "perfect" rating from me.) But these were decent, strong guns that lacked name recognition at the time among newbes.
The 13 still has a great appeal to me, as do the Rugers. But just because gun owners became more sophisticated doesn't mean that we needed heavier, more cumbersome guns. I'd love to put a 6-inch GP-100 on a table next to a 6-inch Security-Six and ask Bill Jordan to take his pick. All I'm saying, folks, is that Ruger fixed a non-existent problem and patterned their .357s on S&W's heavier and more cumbersome line of .357s; however, S&W had reasons: accuracy, range use, competition. Ruger, as far as I can tell, just makes their revolvers heavier and more difficult to use.
The S&W 686 (above) is more accurate and is suited for competition;
however, the Ruger Security-Six is a superior outdoors and field gun, highly
desirable as a hunting gun. It's lighter barrel picks up targets quicker and
easier than the 686.
The smaller-frame .357s added strength to portability. Alas, these
handy little guns are no longer produced, though they're the perfect
dresser drawer gun. They're superior to the SP-101 because they carry
one more round and are more comfortable to shoot. On a woodsy trail,
having one of these beats an SP-101 any day in my view.
Regardless of the barrel length, the Speed- and Security-Six revolvers
melded strength with portability.
.
I have owned many Rugers over the years, I still have a few. I had several that had issue`s, some where fixed, some never where, I`ve since traded these off. The few that proved to be accurate I still have.
The only exception is my Ruger No 1 ...Truly one of the most beautiful guns ever made. Not especially accurate but I keep it for looks alone.
I think Ruger gets its due respect for well made, durable firearms.
The only exception is my Ruger No 1 ...Truly one of the most beautiful guns ever made. Not especially accurate but I keep it for looks alone.
I think Ruger gets its due respect for well made, durable firearms.