FrankenMauser
New member
the45er, S&W trades on a name that they no longer represent. The name brings higher price tags, even though mostly undeserved.
S&W dug themselves into a hole in the '90s and early 2000s, pretty much turning themselves into Colt of the '80s. They've been clawing their way back, but not in quality, in my opinion. Rather, it has been via cost-cutting and producing mass market models, rather than the more refined items that built the brand.
But people still pay 'refined' pricing.
Not only has Ruger refined their investment casting processes to be highly effective, consistent, and reliable; but the rest of the industry has bought in, as well. Some use their own processes. Some use other foundries. But as of 2015, Ruger (Pine Tree Casting) was supplying investment cast parts to more than 40% of their competitors in the firearms industry.
Casting aside...
Outside of recreational and hunting uses, there are quite a few people competing with stock and fairly-stock Rugers today - especially the Mk IV and 22/45.
If I remember correctly, Ruger's tally for top level wins last year, just with 9mm handguns, was 36.
Instead of ignoring everything when you read or hear "Ruger", try listening. Try learning.
Your statements strike me as the kind that come from a person that goes into "standby mode" at the mention of a brand you don't like. "Wake me up when when you want to talk about 'real guns', like Smith & Wesson, Colt, or Kimber..." zZzzzz
So, what dog do I have in this fight? None, really, except disliking misconceptions, outdated opinions, and people that never answer the question posed but instead want to rant about a brand they dislike.
I don't like 1911s. The only one that I own is a mix-master with an H&R frame and a Remington-Rand slide. And I only own it because it is not normal.
I don't like the Ruger Mk series, either. They're decent pistols, but I prefer Buckmarks. (The spring flip is stupid, for the record. Unnecessary and usually just causes problems.)
S&W dug themselves into a hole in the '90s and early 2000s, pretty much turning themselves into Colt of the '80s. They've been clawing their way back, but not in quality, in my opinion. Rather, it has been via cost-cutting and producing mass market models, rather than the more refined items that built the brand.
But people still pay 'refined' pricing.
It might be beneficial to you to step outside of your antiquated echo chamber and take a look around once in a while. You seem to be stuck in the '70s, when Ruger was hated for being "new and unknown". If you check a current calendar, you'll find that that was 50 years ago.My final comment for being proven wrong, Ruger doesn't have and has never had a target like pistol other than the 22 MK series, and those are mostly regutted with aftermarket everything and bested by the buckmark with the spring flip.
Not only has Ruger refined their investment casting processes to be highly effective, consistent, and reliable; but the rest of the industry has bought in, as well. Some use their own processes. Some use other foundries. But as of 2015, Ruger (Pine Tree Casting) was supplying investment cast parts to more than 40% of their competitors in the firearms industry.
Casting aside...
Outside of recreational and hunting uses, there are quite a few people competing with stock and fairly-stock Rugers today - especially the Mk IV and 22/45.
If I remember correctly, Ruger's tally for top level wins last year, just with 9mm handguns, was 36.
Instead of ignoring everything when you read or hear "Ruger", try listening. Try learning.
Your statements strike me as the kind that come from a person that goes into "standby mode" at the mention of a brand you don't like. "Wake me up when when you want to talk about 'real guns', like Smith & Wesson, Colt, or Kimber..." zZzzzz
So, what dog do I have in this fight? None, really, except disliking misconceptions, outdated opinions, and people that never answer the question posed but instead want to rant about a brand they dislike.
I don't like 1911s. The only one that I own is a mix-master with an H&R frame and a Remington-Rand slide. And I only own it because it is not normal.
I don't like the Ruger Mk series, either. They're decent pistols, but I prefer Buckmarks. (The spring flip is stupid, for the record. Unnecessary and usually just causes problems.)