New Ruger rifle barrels.

The Rugers we had were good shooters. My old 220 Swift was an exceptional rifle.
Click to expand...
This is an extremely common theme that you'll see repeated thousands of times - especially when people are discussing how terrible their 'standard cartridge' barrels were (.270 Win, .30-06, .280 Rem, 7x57mm, .257 Roberts, etc.).
It has long been suspected that the varmint barrels were of higher quality, and from a different supplier (Shilen being prime suspect, as noted earlier).

But just because our .220 Swift barrels were fantastic (yes, mine was, too), doesn't mean that other barrels couldn't have varying quality.
 
My Dad had a tang safety 77 Ultralight in 270. He loved it, but I never shot it for groups till after he had passed. With handloads it was a terrifically accurate rifle.

The fact that someone says that a rifle “won’t shoot” doesn’t always mean that the rifle won’t shoot. I recently acquired a rifle that comes from a maker that is known for accurate rifles. I asked the seller why he was getting rid of it, and he said he just could not get it to shoot decent groups, even with handloads. It was in 6.5 CM. I found some H4350, Norma brass, and loaded up 120 gr Nosler BTs. If it won’t shoot great with Nosler BTs, then it IS a bad barrel. I found a load near 44 gr of the 4350 and it shot 3/8 inch groups in my brother’s hands (bags front and rear). That’s good, but my brother is truly OCD, and he commented that the groups were not perfectly centered on the 5/8” circle I use for a target. Geez! So I went down 2 clicks and right 1 click, and he centeredthe next round in one of the little circles. That satisfied him. Point is that this was allegedly one of those rifles that “won’t shoot”, when in actual fact it’s a tack driver.
 
Asking for empirical data on these barrels is reasonable but impossible. I had asked on another forum about breaks between Douglas barrels and the Wilson. One post summed it up. Do you think Ruger tossed all the Douglas barrels then turned to Wilson. I have seen claims of special proof marks for Douglas. For the most part information unsupported. Unsupported does not mean untrue. It means data is unsupported.
Click to expand...

You'll note that I never denied the veracity of largely internet generated claims (I've never seen said claims cited from any other reputable origin) that early on, Ruger used outsourced barrels on their rifles that varied greatly in quality. If this was really happening on a large scale, more than a few people will have had first-hand knowledge of it, making finding empirical data not impossible to find. "Unsupported data" does not mean the information is necessarily untrue but it doesn't follow that because the data is unsupported it must be true.

I'm only curious as to how this information ascended to an unchallenged status in terms of its accepted legitimacy in the absence of verifiable evidence. I have no "dog in the fight", if there's a fight at all and no passion for the answer either way. If someone can provide data supporting the allegation, I'd find it very interesting. Just remaining curious until then. :cool:
 
Ruger Barrels

I stand by what I say: It was the conventional wisdom that Ruger did used Douglas barrels originally. This information was in print and shared in collectors circles. To date, I have never heard this information challenged. This outsourced barrel business appears to have become over generalized. The lowest bidder implies the lowest price won regardless of quality. I asked what were some of these other barrels the Ruger used? There is an assertion. Now where is the specific information. At some point Ruger started to use Wilson barrels. When? One answer is that Wilson barrels came in when Douglas barrels ran out of inventory. Basically, it was possible to have both Wilson and Douglas barrels used to build rifles at the same time. For many of us using Ruger's at the time this bad barrel business is shaky. Once a story from the net is shared twice it becomes rock solid information. I have three Red Pad Number One Ruger's currently. Each rifle gives very good accuracy. In these older guns, I have no idea who actually made the barrels. Whoever it was the rifles are good reliable shooters.
 
Last edited:
Unchallenged "conventional wisdom", even if in print by users posting on internet gun sites and "shared in collectors circles", is still potentially hearsay that sounds logical. You say that you stand by what you say as if you know it to be true. I'm taking no position except to concede that, on the one hand, if enough people claim a certain thing is true and there's no known motive for them to be lying about it, there's good reason to suspect it is true. On the other hand, if you repeat a lie often enough, lots of people become believers for no other reason than they've heard it lots of times.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Ruger, in fact, used barrels from other sources when they first started making Model 77s-it kind of makes some sense that they would. Furthermore, "conventional wisdom" shared by a lot of knowledgeable people would seem to justify some level of believability.

I'm not going to argue this anymore because I've taken no position to the question I posed. In the absence of evidence, there's nothing to argue. I don't care either way. I simply asked if anyone had any empirical evidence to substantiate the claim. Color me still curious.
 
Last edited:
Let's take a look....

Many people lapse into a mode of making snarky statements disguised as questions. Hope this helps you. Don't get lost in your own circular reasoning.:eek:
 
I leave the explaining to the other poster. I'll not disturb your serenity further. What has worked for me in the past is to use the "ignore button." Go in Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top