Question on Ruger - the pistols and the politics.

  • Thread starter Thread starter RH
  • Start date Start date
R

RH

New member
I will hopefully soon be in the market for a first pistol. Due primarily to price, I was looking at the KelTec or polymer Taurus in 9mm, but several forumites have suggested that if the pistol will be your first (it will) or only (hopefully, not!) handgun, you will be disappointed with either one. Since I live in NJ for the foreseeable future, CCW does not enter the equation, I'm looking for a fun/cheap gun to shoot at the range and keep safe and within reach in the home.

Now (again, looking at economics) I'm leaning towards a Ruger in 9mm. Most of you seem to speak highly of their quality,reliability, and cost factor .A couple of questions - 1)still waiting for my hardcopy catalog, from the website I can't tell the difference between the several 9mm's Ruger makes. Differences ? Recommendations ?
2) I've seen forumites make passing remarks about Bill Ruger's politics. What's the story there ? S&W is not even in consideration, is Ruger in the same league ?

Thanks for your time.
 
I have heard people thrash Ruger pistols and I have heard people praise them. This is my .02

I have two ruger handguns. One is a GP-100 revolver and the other a .40 cal auto. Both have been flawless. The revolver is very accurate. The auto never fails to go bang or to feed another bullet.

When I was shopping, I did some poking around here and went to many gun shops. The general consensus is: Ruger pistol

ugly
not elegant
bulky
extremely reliable
always functions
resonably accurate
great value

I am pleased with mine. I don't regret getting either handgun. I don't think you will either.
 
Ruger wrote members of congress advocating mag capacity limits because Glock and other imports were kicking his backside in the marketplace with their larger mag capacities. It was his attempt at garnering a larger marketshare.

His original proposal was to have mag capacity limitations greater than the 10 round limit, but that backfired and we are stuck with that due to his cheerleading and greed.

There is a special place in hell for him and the clintonazis.
 
I own a Ruger P-90 .45 and as long as I have had it, it has proved again and again to be reliable, rugged and accurate and indeed one of my favorite pistols. If you want a good quality handgun, you can't go wrong with a Ruger IMHO.

------------------
"what gives a government that arms the whole world the right to disarm it's own citizens?"
 
The Ruger P95 is the best buy in a 9mm Pistol the world over. For around $330 + tax you will get a weapon that: will shoot ANY factory loaded 9mm ammo to CID or SAAMI Spec (+P+,+P or whatever), is impervious to rust or adverse conditions if you take care of it, has holsters made for it galore, has an abundance of 15 round mags still available and and plenty of Factory ten-rounders available for less than $25.00.

Ruger pistols are over-engineered and designed to shoot any factory load numerous times with no damage. The P95 in testing, shot 20,000 +P and +P+ loads with no appreciable damage to the frame much less the rest of the weapon. The P 97 was fired 5,000 times in a gun rag test and never malfunctioned. The triggers are a bit rough but they smooth out over time.

The greater slide to frame contact in the P97 and P95 have improved the inherent accuracy significantly. My P97 is good for a group of .75" at ten yards with anything I shoot. That is good enough for me as a Civie. Anything beyond 7 yards is considered offensive rather thasn defensive shooting in the area where I live. Some have gone beyond the 7 yard mark and managed to stay out of the penitentiary but not without considerable expense.

Due to the fact that socialists are controlling our schools, I have been forced to put the Kiddos in private institutions to ensure that they still say the Pledge of Allegiance, recognize God and study our Constitution without bias. As such, I have emptied the safe of the Sigs, Glocks and Berettas to finance their education. Ruger has been a Godsend. Lest any public shcool teacher be offended, I went to public schools and my mother was a teacher for 30+ years. I know that there are many fine teachers and some of them are on TFL.

Yes, Bill Ruger made a mistake with the Mag capacity ban and he has repented contrary to popular belief. Go to the Ruger Website which I think is www.ruger-firearms.com and look at his postion statement which I think is in the news section. Also, make note of the fact that he gave one million dollars with no tax shelter to the NRA and he continues to be one of the largest contributors to Pro-Gun politicians.

Go with the Ruger. For the money, it can't be beaten.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
There is, simply, not a better value in a 9mm pistol than Ruger's P95.

For less than $300 out the door (in most places), you get an accurate, reliable, and durable pistol that is easy to shoot well.

As to politics, William B. Ruger DID express his opinion to memebers of Congress, (as is his right) on the futility of a ban on "semi-automatic assault weapons", suggesting, instead, a simple ban on magazines over 15 rounds. WB Ruger DID NOT, by himself, elect all those democrats that passed the '94 Crime Bill so Clinton could sign it.

There's an estimated 80 million gun owners in the US and only 3.5 million belong to the NRA. Who's more to blame for the Crime bill? You do the math. Then JOIN THE NRA, GOA, SAF, or some other gun rights organization AND VOTE!

PLEASE!!

------------------
Make mine lean, mean, and 9x19!

[This message has been edited by 9x19 (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
I own several Ruger revolvers, and they are all good guns. I don't have any Ruger semi-autos, but I'm also confident that they are well-made and reliable. That said, if you are looking for a first gun, and want a 9mm, I would look closely at the CZ75 line. These are available for $300-$400, and I think they are a little more nicely designed and made than the Rugers. Legal high (normal) capacity magazines are still available for not too much ($40 or so I think).

I also agree that, for a first handgun, and for general target shooting and plinking, you'd be better off with something like a Ruger or CZ than a compact Kel-tec or Taurus, which are more for concealed carry and close range self defense.

You might also consider a Ruger or Browning .22 pistol. They are accurate, inexpensive to shoot, and a lot of fun. If you want something more powerful for self defense, maybe get a Makarov or FEG PA-63 for around $150 to go with the .22.

Just some thoughts. Good luck.

Doug
 
Will, just a friendly reminder. The Shooting Times review of the P97 totaled 10.000 rounds w/o malfuncion. The vast majority of which was Winchester ball, but it does speak well of the design. The best part was that the gun ended up being MORE accurate after that "break-in" period! :)
 
Thanks for all the replies ! Reminding everyone again that I live in NJ (grrrr !) I would plan on using only ball, since we have a murky law that in effect bans all hollow-point ammo, although you can buy them everywhere you buy ammo. The idiots who wrote this doozy of a law apparently can't diferentiate between "dum-dum", Hollow point, and "armor piercing" ammo. Dum-dums, alright.

I also briefly considered a Mak, but I really don't want anything even remotely "exotic", either in arms or caliber. I'd just be more comfortable with a simple gun that any smith could work on, chambered in common, easy to find and cheap to mail order ammo. The price is certainly attractive, though ! Sounds like a great piece for the afficiandos, but again, probably not the best choice for a first or only handgun.
 
RH:

If you are limited to ball only by all means look at the Ruger P97 in .45ACP.The muzzle flip is greater than the 9mm but I don't notice much of a difference with the recoil of the .45ACP through the Ruger P97.

Here me know and believe me later when I tell you that if you are restricted to ball ammo only, the .45ACP is far better than the 9mm in my most humble opinion. It is worth learning to shoot a caliber with a little more punch if you cannot use hollowpoints.

Just my opinion and no I do not want to start a flame war. I will say with the modern hollowpoint bullet designs, the 9mm is a wonderful cartridge combining capacity, controlability and ample power. With ball ammo, I believe the same cannot be said of the 9mm. Our armed forces switched to the 9mm for political reasons so that we would be "compatible" with NATO not because the 9mm in ball configuration is better than the .45ACP. Believe me, the soldiers would not have changed if the politicians who are not in harm's way had not made it mandantory.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."

[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited July 04, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited July 04, 2000).]
 
slickpuppy,
That seems strange that Ruger would do that do garner market share because they would have to bite the same bullet. They were 15+1 round guns at the time... only 2 less than Glock. I heard originally that Ruger proposed 15, and they (antis) made it 10.

RH, I highly recommend the Ruger P-95. It's the polymer 9mm. If you want a Ruger .45, I recommend the P-97.

Ben

------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
 
Sorry but the best value in high quality DA 9mm isn't a Ruger, it's a CZ75B. Compare the trigger pulls of a CZ75B side by side with a Ruger, compare the accuracy, the slide to frame fit and the barrel lock up. Rugers are fine, durable, and over built but they aren't on par with a CZ75B.

I too have heard much about Ruger selling us out with his writing a draft of the mag limit. There was more at work then just Ruger. From what I've heard the NRA was pushing for no limit, Ruger and his allies for 15 rounds, another group for 10 and the extremist for complete abolition. After several votes the NRA was asked to support the 15 rounds limit. They refused and the Ruger group went with the ten rounds. We got the ten rounds limit by a narrow vote. As a result of this Ruger donated $1 million to the NRA museum. Notice that he did not give to NRA-ILA but to the museum. I think this also speaks for his stance. "

Look folks, we ca either harp about this or do something about it. Lets make sure GW gets elected, pro-RKBA congressmen and senators get elected, and maybe we can repeal the unconstitutional ban.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
Ruger helped get the assault weapons ban passed so that his assault weapon would be exempt. For those who don't believe me, I refer you to 18 U.S.C. § 922, Appendix I, which lists the Mini-14 (without non-folding stock) as a weapon that cannot be regulated as an assault weapon. Let's see: the weapon sued in the Miami 1986 FBI massacre and it doesn't make the list? Makes one wonder, huh?

Ruger sold us out. As for his "apology" and payoff, he has done nothing to undo the damage he did.

[This message has been edited by buzz_knox (edited July 05, 2000).]
 
The CZ is a great gun but I am seeing the price of them up in the $400.00 + tax range and I live in one of the most competitive gun markets in the country.

Also, there is no de-cocker on the CZ-75 and I shun that set-up for a beginner since you will be forced to manually ride the trigger down on a live round with your thumb. I have been shooting for 29 years and I don't care this configuration to this day.

I stand by my proverbial guns on supporting Ruger. He has given generously to the RKBA movement and had our nation not elected Clinton, none of this owuld have happened.

We are doing exactly what the Clintonists want us to do by boycotting Ruger and to a degree S&W as bad as I hate to admit it. Clinton - 349; Gun lobby - 0. Clinton is turning us against each other and he is winning. Again, I hate to admit it but he is winning the endgame, not us at this point. Tecolote is right, vote Bush.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
I like the Ruger pistols, though I don't own any, and I think Ruger is a decent company.

Will - a CZ owner is never "forced to manually ride the trigger down on a live round" - condition one, done.

RH - shoot, or at least handle, the Ruger, CZ, and anything else that fits your hand and budget. I agree with those who recommend a .40-something if you're restricted to ball.
 
Ruger quality control seems very poor. I have witnessed first hand several Rugers with various problems straight from the factory. Although Ruger has a first class customer service department. Ruger fixed every problem ASAP. I currently own three Rugers, and wouldn't hesitate to buy another knowing that they will fix any problems. But as I previously stated, I do believe Ruger puts out its fair share of lemons.
 
Why would you want a Ruger when you could have a CZ?

CZ75 B - the standard, single/double action, $349 with tritium night sights from J&G Sales
CZ75 DAO - Double action only, $369 from J&G
CZ75 BD - Decocker model, $369 from J&G

Hi-cap mags are very, very plentiful, and cheap.
 
I do like the CZ-75 and yes it is a wonderful weapon. However, I refuse to carry a handgun in condition one. My definition of condition one is with the chamber empty. Why you ask? Can you imagine saying "Okay Mr. Career criminal, give me a chance to camber a round into my self-defense pistol. Don't shoot me! I'm not ready yet!" I don't think so.

The Ruger is still less expensive and if there is a problem, their service is usually great. I would say the CZ-75 BD with a de-cocker is a safe bet but I cannot, in good conscious recommend a pistol with no de-cocker to a newbie.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top