What is wrong with the Ruger SR1911?

D

dahermit

New member
I have noticed that when ever someone inquires as to which 1911 they should buy, only a scant few will recommend the Ruger SR1911. Inasmuch as the plunger tube, being integral with frame, is the only non-standard part (in that it is not a traditional 1911 part). Therefore, why not so much love for the Ruger?

Why is the Ruger not so popular? What is wrong with it? Be specific.
 
Last edited:
I remember them being pretty popular a few years ago. I don’t hear much about them anymore, but idk if that’s a bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
One reason might be that, IIRC, the Ruger 1911s have cast frames. But -- so do a lot of other 1911s.

I dunno -- I've been under the impression that Ruger's 1911s are generally fairly popular.
 
In don’t think there is anything wrong with the Ruger. In a very crowded 1911 market I don’t think there is anything that stands out about it either.
 
I have one and it’s a good shooter, never jammed or not fired. I think it is a good value for the money and Ruger has a reputation for standing behind what they make.
 
dahermit said:
I have noticed that when ever someone inquires as to which 1911 they should buy, only a scant few will recommend the Ruger SR1911. Inasmuch as the plunger tube, being integral with frame, is the only non-standard part (in that it is not a traditional 1911 part). Therefore, way not so much love for the Ruger?

Why is the Ruger not so popular? What is wrong with it? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Your premise is false. There's nothing wrong with it. You really shouldn't make crap up out of thin air.
 
I have had one almost since they were introduced-at that time they were extremely difficult to find.
Mine has been a great shooter-no problems with feeding or such-and the fact the frame is cast has no bearing on my purchase at the time.
Ruger was one of the leading manufacturers in investment casting-I think they have it right by now.
 
Nothing. If they are still currently built as well as the one I had they are the best value 1911 under $1K IMO.

Dan Wesson if you go higher till you hit the semi customs.
 
krunchnik said:
I have had one almost since they were introduced-at that time they were extremely difficult to find.
Mine has been a great shooter-no problems with feeding or such-and the fact the frame is cast has no bearing on my purchase at the time.
Ruger was one of the leading manufacturers in investment casting-I think they have it right by now.
Click to expand...
Yes...when they first came out the street price was less than $400. I never saw one in any of the local stores in my area, and don't see than many now.
As for cast [Sic; Investment Cast] frames, having a industrial background, investment cast vs. milled is a non-issue for me. I have studied and followed Ruger's history of the development of investment casting and know that it produces items of equal strength as milling. As a matter of fact, when he was still alive he claimed that investment casting was better than milling in that investment casting method allowed control over the grain structure. But then, he also claimed that the day would come when they would be able to cast barrels with the rifling already in them...there may have been a bit of P.T. Barnum in old Bill. But I never heard of any weaknesses in his investment cast guns.
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
I remember them being pretty popular a few years ago. I don’t hear much about them anymore, but idk if that’s a bad thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Some years ago there were some complaints about the sights breaking. However that, as I remember was due to improper heat-treatment of MIM parts made by someone other than Ruger. I never heard of any complaints concerning the SR1911 parts made by Ruger themselves.

The only issue I have had with Ruger handguns was with an original Ruger .44 Magnum Blackhawk (not Super Blackhawk) that had a threaded bushing press-fit into the barrel to receive the screw that held the ejector rod in. It shot loose and the ejector rod would fly off complete with threading bushing and screw. I was pretty Green back then and did not know of Rugers exemplary customer service so I took it to a local gunsmith who suggested that he soft-solder the bushing into the barrel (would not harm the Blue). However, the soft-solder would not hold, so he Silver soldered the bushing in (quarter sized Blue burned off), and it never came loose again. That gun was manufactured in Ruger's very early days and he likely changed from the threaded bushing system...I don't know.

The other issue was a used .44 Super Blackhawk that had the front sight canted slightly to the right. I just lived with that problem...which was no biggy in that the rear sight adjustment easily compensated for the tilt using windage adjustment.
 
Last edited:
dahermit said:
Yes...when they first came out the street price was less than $400. I never saw one in any of the local stores in my area, and don't see than many now.
As for cast [Sic; Investment Cast] frames, having a industrial background, investment cast vs. milled is a non-issue for me. I have studied and followed Ruger's history of the development of investment casting and know that it produces items of equal strength as milling. As a matter of fact, when he was still alive he claimed that investment casting was better than milling in that investment casting method allowed control over the grain structure. But then, he also claimed that the day would come when they would be able to cast barrels with the rifling already in them...there may have been a bit of P.T. Barnum in old Bill. But I never heard of any weaknesses in his investment cast guns.
Click to expand...


Less than $400 street price? For the SR1911? I never saw anything close to that. I need to walk some different streets I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I bought my SR1911 Commander used at a great price, it is reliable and accurate. I highly recommend an SR1911.
 
I have owned a Ruger SR1911 for several years. Just shot it again last weekend. It shoots great. It looks great. It’s a good gun.
 
Inasmuch as the plunger tube, being integral with frame, is the only non-standard part
Click to expand...

I actually consider that an improvement. I've seen plunger tubes come loose.

I own one of their 9mm Commander models, and it's a great gun.
 
TunnelRat said:
Less than $400 street price? For the SR1911? I never saw anything close to that. I need to walk some different streets I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Agree, got mine for just over $600 shortly after they came out and that was a pretty good deal for the market at the time (at least I thought so, the internet seemed to agree). Never saw any under $500 at any time.

Perhaps they were thinking of the Remington R1?
 
The only thing I see wrong with it is that it's butt-ugly.
The bead blasting is too fine for a matte finish and too course to be called shiny, and the huge slide serrations just don't look right.
Mine (9mm Commander length) is, however, a great shooter.
 
Tom Servo said:
I actually consider that an improvement. I've seen plunger tubes come loose.

I own one of their 9mm Commander models, and it's a great gun.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I was not thrilled when I read about that integral plunger tube. But thinking about it, it occured to me that it would not be subject to coming loose as are exact copies of the Colt. It also occured to me that if it were to become dented/crushed, it could be milled off flat and holes drilled for attaching a separate tube without too much trouble. So, an integral plunger tube is not all that bad of an idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top