View Full Version : Ruger handguns
Generally speaking, one doesn't hear Ruger mentioned as often as SIG, Glock, Beretta, H&K, or any of the Euro brands when it comes to "my favorite gun" discussions. And they haven't done as well as some of the Euros in military torture testing, as far as I can tell.
Not having owned (or even fired) any Ruger semiautos, why doesn't Ruger seem to be mentioned in the same breath with any of the other quality brands? Is their quality and performance just not up to par with the Euros?
They are not unserviceable. They are a fine commercial/sporting arm.
There are better choices.
Some particular vulnerabilities make them less optimal for intense useage. User groups with them have often struggled.
Ruger provides little support for their guns in the field. Outstanding customer service at the factory, but there's little you can do with them locally.
Alpha Sierra
12-09-07, 10:05
I've never heard of an unreliable Ruger firearm. That said, theit semi auto pistols, up until now, have been very thick and clunky.
The P345 and the SR9 both changed that. The SR9, in particular, is actually a very comfortable pistol and surprisingly slim and concealabe. The only negative I can find with the SR9 is its mushy trigger and long reset. Maybe it will smooth out with use, or maybe someone will figure out how to improve it. But Ruger seems to be very lawyer-dominated so don't look to them for help in the trigger department.
Most Ruger pistols and revolvers are about as indestructible as a machine gets. The vast majority of the much maligned Ruger P89 will still be 100% functional long after anyone reading this is long gone. I predict that when only cockroaches are left to rule planet Earth, they'll be fighting each other with Ruger pistols made in the 1980s and 1990s. :D
Given that, their weakness is that they're kind of "generic guns." Much like generic facial tissues don't measure up to Kleenex or Puffs in terms of creature comforts, Ruger pistols are often rough, oversized, and not as easy to shoot as something with a better trigger mechanism and ergonomics. Sure, the generic tissues will get the snot off of your nose, but they're kind of scratchy and rough, especially if you use them frequently. Rugers are the same way when compared to a Sig Sauer or other "premium" brand.
I personally think the ergonomics of their centerfire semi-autos suck.
I guess that I just have to be different, but I have had 3 friends that have had Ruger centerfire pistols and all 3 had nothing but problems with them. All 3 had to send them back to the factory at least twice.
That said I have had many more friends that have had Ruger .22 pistols and Ruger revolvers and had wonderful luck with them
N.Y.45 ACP
12-09-07, 20:44
My Ruger 22 pistol has been great and has nearly 1000 rounds through it.
Its one problem is field striping ...what a pain in the butt!!!!
So I don't bother breaking it down..I just continue to shoot it :D
Alpha Sierra
12-09-07, 21:22
I personally think the ergonomics of their centerfire semi-autos suck.
I agree with the exception of the SR9. That one does fit like a glove.
The P90 is a real winner for Ruger. Extremely accurate, dead nuts reliable and strong as hell.
The P90 is a real winner for Ruger. Extremely accurate, dead nuts reliable and strong as hell.
And handles like a 10lb hair-dryer...
I have a couple Rugers and they have been fine. A little chunky but they are reliable and fairly accurate.
Most Ruger pistols and revolvers are about as indestructible as a machine gets.
That is perception. Ruger guns are Big and Heavy. This is because they have to be to get an acceptable level of strenghth from an Investment cast component.
Ruger 9mm autos are decent runners. You almost have to try hard to make a 9mm that won't run. And the mild abuse of the 9mm cartridge will make almost any design seem robust. The field stripping is pathetic compared to real service autos. But that's just RUGER... guns that are a pain in the ass to take down.
I limit my ruger ownership to rimfires only. ;)
Their overall construction is pretty sound. It's the little parts inside that are the weakpoints, particularly the magazine catch, ejector, safety/decock lever mechanism, and barrel linkage.
I always liked the P97 .45, but never picked one up. The 95/97, feel much better in the hand than their aluminum/steel frame guns. I am more interested in their revolvers and their .22's than their centerfire autos.
NY45,
I have a MkII standard that is great, but i quit field stripping it. I punch the bore and swab out the action w/ CLP. Maybe I'll strip every 6-7000 rounds.
Most of the people I have talked too have had issues with Rugers. I have shot a buddies & at the time it seemed ok but that was several years ago. Since then he has had serious issues with reliability & it locking back.
I have a P-95 I bought for my mother a few years ago (and replaced with a Browning that she likes much more). It has only been reliable. It isn't graceful and it isn't a HSLD "look at me" pistol, but for a budget gun a new Ruger is not that easy to beat.
A former friend had a very beat-up P-89, complete with huge vertical gouges on the right side of the frame and slide. It shot POI, grouped 4" @ 25 yards, and was 100% reliable with a wide variety of ammunition. Seems pretty good for the $125 he paid for it.
They don't make a whole lot of sense if you have the money though.
I've never quite understood why folks think field-stripping a Mark II is difficult, I've never had a problem. You guys who have problems with it would be positively flummoxed by a Nylon 66.
Always liked the revolvers better than the semiautos.
Great revolvers though........
olds442tyguy
12-12-07, 14:15
Everyone I know with a Ruger has nothing but good to say about their reliability. The problem has always been that they never gave much thought in the ergonomics department.
I haven't held the SR9, but I've shot the P345. It fit my hand like a glove, but it felt like shooting a hot 40S&W rather than a 45 (if that makes any sense). I would have bought one had I not been so unimpressed by the way it shoots.
Alpha Sierra
12-12-07, 21:59
I would have bought one had I not been so unimpressed by the way it shoots.
So it fit your hand like a glove but you were unimpressed with the way it shot?
What exactly does that mean? Maybe I'm a simpleton but I just focus on whether or not the handgun I pick up fits my hand, points naturally, has a decent trigger, and hits POA at a reasonable distance.
Those are quantifiable and measurable. The sensation of how the recoil feels is unimportant to me.
So it fit your hand like a glove but you were unimpressed with the way it shot?
What exactly does that mean? Maybe I'm a simpleton but I just focus on whether or not the handgun I pick up fits my hand, points naturally, has a decent trigger, and hits POA at a reasonable distance.
Those are quantifiable and measurable. The sensation of how the recoil feels is unimportant to me.
I think that's to what he was refering.
olds442tyguy
12-13-07, 13:30
I was fooled by it's ergonomics. It felt great just holding it, but the way it fit my hand gripped and under recoil was a different story.
Alpha Sierra
12-13-07, 17:24
I was fooled by it's ergonomics. It felt great just holding it, but the way it fit my hand gripped and under recoil was a different story.
Ahhhhh, thanks. That DOES make sense now. Yes, behavior under recoil is all important for fast follow ups.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.