jackmoser65
New member
I thought that proper cavalry was trained to fight on horseback, while dragoons, or mounted infantry, were trained to ride to the fight and dismount.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ruger SBH or ??? in .45 Colt
- Thread starter HistoryJunky
- Start date
I was just looking at it from the people sue for anything angle.
people could try, and I don't doubt some of them have, but EVERY gun maker states very plainly (including Ruger, who doesn't offer a written warranty any more) that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE for what happens if you shoot reloads or handloads. Period.
Try to sue Ruger, because YOU put the wrong ammo in the gun, isn't going to go very far, at all, even in today's lawsuit happy world.
I thought that proper cavalry was trained to fight on horseback, while dragoons, or mounted infantry, were trained to ride to the fight and dismount.
(Mustachioed, mutton chopped, monocle'd Brigadier wearing enough braid to decorate a parade float...) "Quit right, my good man!!! PROPER cavalry is trained to fight on horseback! With saber and lance! Proper weapons, indeed!!! And, well, yes, horse archers can be useful, but they aren't PROPER CAVALRY, really..." harummphfs and waddles on....
In the US, any mounted unit was called cavalry, no matter if they actually were, or not, officially.
Driftwood Johnson
New member
I am pretty sure I understand all that. I don't understand why Ruger wouldn't make it more clear though. It seems like if someone got hurt as a result, there could be a lawsuit.
Oh, there were lawsuits. And Ruger lost. No matter how dumb the lawsuits were, Ruger lost a couple when dumb shooters injured themselves with the old Three Screw style Rugers.
That's why Ruger completely redesigned their single action revolvers to include the transfer bar back in the 1970s, so some dumbass would not shoot himself when he dropped a fully load Ruger on its hammer.
Ever since then Ruger has been extremely wary of lawsuits and has always gone the extra mile to cover their butts.
Yeah ... What comes to mind is the ugly billboard on the barrel which is now 'thankfully' turned under on the SAs...Ever since then Ruger has been extremely wary of lawsuits and has always gone the extra mile to cover their butts.
Bob Wright
New member
Oh, there were lawsuits. And Ruger lost. No matter how dumb the lawsuits were, Ruger lost a couple when dumb shooters injured themselves with the old Three Screw style Rugers.
That's why Ruger completely redesigned their single action revolvers to include the transfer bar back in the 1970s, so some dumbass would not shoot himself when he dropped a fully load Ruger on its hammer.
It has been my understanding that the suits were lost because of the new design: the redesign was an admission their Three Screw Action was faulty. Colt has done right well in defending their original Single Action.
Bob Wright