Ruger Firearms

>>32777706
They're cheap and reliable firearms, don't let the retards tell you otherwise

>>32777706
High quality, affordable guns.

>>32777753
Okay, but do they last? Will I really get a gun that functions better longer if I pay up for a different brand name?

>>32777706
they are fine

check these dubs
>>32777777

Good budget firearms, only a few I'd depend my life on. Others would make for great range toys. They have GOAT customer service.

That's about all you need to know, ignore other biased /k/ answers.

>>32777706
Triggers are garbage.
Fit and finish are crude.
The new "American" pistol has a wonky back strap that makes the gun feel like shit to shoot.

Other than that they're okay.

>>32777789
they will last. i would rate it as middle tier. you get a lot for the price.
>>32777733
this. also don't fall for the bill ruger says you don't need more than 10 rounds meme. he's dead now so it doesn't matter anymore. they even make 25 round mags for 10/22 now.

>>32777789
Yeah, this >>32777887 but they are durable and reliable.

>>32777706
they're fine

Ruger is the Denny's of fire arms manufacturers: there's good value, it's pretty good, and there's something for everyone. You can still go to Waffle House if you want to save 15% but you give up a lot of choice and quality for that small saving.

File: feeding the pigs.jpg (213KB, 1023x669px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1023x669px

When it comes to revolvers you should buy old Smiths new Rugers and shoot other peoples Colts.
Seriously though, Ruger is number one when it comes to new production revolvers.
Their other products are generally very good and their customer service is outstanding.

I'd take a pic of my scoped Super Redhawk, but I'm lazy so here's a Slav feeding the boars.

>>32777706
Ruger's pretty good in general. They have some pricey guns and some not so pricey guns, but all of them are reliable. They're excellent quality considering what you pay for them.

If you want to buy something, it's safe to say that you can't go wrong looking at the ones made by Ruger. They're one of the top manufacturers and it's for good reason.

>>32777706
I own a Ruger P94. Was $350 at a gunshow.

Extremely over-built, but In a good way. Never had a jam and the accuracy is acceptable but the motherfucker is a brick with a grip on it. Still a good value for the money; infact the Ruger P-series was designed to cheaply replace the M1911 in US service but Beretta beat Ruger to developing a pistol that met the military's requirements.

>>32777706
As a LGS employee I am conflicted

Pros-
>relatively good value (bang for buck)
>women seem to like the LC9
>excellent beginner AR (AR-556)
>Ruger Precision Rifle is pretty fucking sweet for the price
>10/22
>few complaints
>overall a decent company

Cons:
>LCP and every fucking retard who buys one for a first gun because its "concealable," realizes it shoots like absolute dogshit and tries to return it

No joke we now tell people specifically that we won't take returns and that they won't like shooting it and tell them to try it on our range but they don't, end up hating it and get mad at us for not telling them that gun is a fucking shitbox

>bill ruger can suck my cock from beyond the grave
>fudds claiming ruger is the best rifle/handgun/blowjob ever and if you don't agree then "I don't know why yur workin here sonny."
>the only people that buy the SR series pistols get denied
>Ruger American pistol is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen
>the few times they do have problems, the gun is pretty fucked and needs replacement
>SR-556 is a great gun but its not $1600 great
>only runs their rewards program during the shitty season

I'm kind of half and half

I quite like my Ruger firearms. Have a very old Mk.1 that has never given me issues. Originally my father's, now I've purchased from him.
Plus, my EDC is a Ruger LCP. Nice and compact, lightweight, and given the size is remarkably accurate and easy to shoot.

>>32778164

Ever sell a Ruger No.1?

>>32778213
Never had one in to be honest. I've seen only seen one in person and it was .45-70.

>>32778164
lmao this happened to me.
Last year I bought a LC9s as my first gun and hate it so much.
Now it just collects dust

>>32778268
why do you hate it? picked up the Pro about a couple weeks ago and it shoots great, albeit not a great idea to do so for very long. haven't had any issues with it.

>>32778337
Mines a pro too and its very snappy. I explained it to my guy an my LGS and he said its by far the most common complaint. I cant control the snap no matter how hard I try. I'm a smaller guy and putting all of my force on controlling the recoil and it still bounces all over the place.

>>32777706
Their revolvers and .22lr guns are some of the best value firearms out there.

Their semi auto pistols I'm not sold on.

>>32778467
Personally, I'll admit to being a fan of their 1911s when it comes to their semi auto pistols. I own a SR1911 Commander. It's not bad at all.

>>32778400
yeah, it is a little snappy and that's what I meant by not shooting it for too long at a time. I can get some pretty decent groupings at normal defensive ranges, so that's really all I care for. haven't had any malfunctions which is good too.

File: charter arms bulldog.jpg (293KB, 1600x1028px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1600x1028px

>>32777706
second rate, but on the up and coming. Kind of like charter arms back in the day. Not as nice as a colt or smith and wesson (in the case glocks, sigs, S@W) but still very robust and one of the most reliable and reasonably priced.
Shame they arent able to knock some others off their throne and take a spot in the military/LEO market, but I doubt those brands are going anywhere for anyone. They have been getting more popular as of late, there was a time when I only knew like two people who had rugers

>>32777706
Virtually every gun they make works, and it works well. None of them are the best in class in any category, but I'll be damned if they aren't priced right and reliable.

They do make good guns. None of them you buy people are going to drool over. They are like Hondas and Toyotas in that respect.

>>32778268
>>32778517

Not tryna shit on you but I'm glad I picked the shield 9mm over the pro.

That extra weight in the slide REALLY makes shooting it feel,like a fullsize gun.

I shot a glock 23 and could barely control it I shot a friends shield in .40 and I swear it was much more easier to shoot then the g23.

>>32778164
>>LCP and every fucking retard who buys one for a first gun because its "concealable," realizes it shoots like absolute dogshit and tries to return it

I just picked up an LCP but it wasnt my first gun,and I bought it because its concealable. Its pretty snappy but honestly no worse then the first few times I shot .357 out of a SP101. It's not a range toy but, at least for me, its a gun that gives me no excuse not to have a gun on me. I really like it so far but I would never recommend it or any pocket .380 for a first gun.

>>32777706
I'm a pretty unabashed Ruger fanboy at this point. It all started when my wife picked up a snub-nose SP101 for her first gun (probably a mistake in retrospect not getting a 3'' but she shoots it well) an I just loved how meaty and durable it is. After you get used to the shock of shooting .357's in it they are kind of fun to shoot.

Then I got a Ruger AR-556 as my first AR. I was between the Ruger and Mossberg MMR, and the AR-556 was what the LGS had. I dont really know shit about AR's, and from what I've gathered all the budget AR's are fairly even, but its still a good deal if you dont wanna build.

Then I picked up my LCP. The trigger isnt great...but my previous handgun was a Taurus Millenium Pro. The Taurus isn't a terrible gun like some would have you believe, or I got a "good one". But the trigger on that thing has a mile worth of slack,and that slack has always fucked me up shooting. So going to the LCP trigger, while heavy DAO, feels better because I dont have all that take up.

Overall I like everything I've purchased from Ruger. I think their revolvers are generally higher tier then their semi-autos, but I think the LC-series are pretty good budget carry options.

>>32777706
Rugers are NOT high quality firearms, but they do tend to work fine. I've owned a few Rugers and I've seen quite a few different types of flaws from the manufacturer - some cosmetic, some functional. My brother has had his gun totally replaced by Ruger because they couldn't fix it and it was easier to just send a replacement. In general, these guns tend to work out of the box, but the manufacturer may need to tweak it after you shoot it a little bit.

The difference is that if you do get something from Ruger with a flaw, they WILL make it right, for free. They are not like Taurus or Kel-tec, who will sell you a flawed gun but then replace it with another flawed gun.

I like Ruger as a company quite a lot. I like the way they are constantly releasing new combinations of barrel lengths, stock types, calibers and in general mixing things up. They also do a pretty good job of listening to customer feedback and simply improving their existing designs. The Mark IV and LCP II are great examples of that.

If money is no object, then a Ruger probably isn't going to be on your short list. Smith & Wesson revolvers have gone downhill in QC, but they are still nicer than Ruger revolvers. There are a large number of companies that make a better semi-auto than Ruger. However, if money is a factor, then you can get a lot of value with a Ruger.

>>32779288
>Smith & Wesson revolvers have gone downhill in QC, but they are still nicer than Ruger revolvers

Not disagreeing with you, but my little experience with both tells me the difference in quality between a Ruger and a S&W is smaller then the difference between a Taurus/Rossi and a Ruger. Revolver market kind of sucks for lack of options.

>>32779288
lol, S&W makes dogshit. Have you seen what they call bluing? Their revolvers are made of junk and are full of MIM garbage.
Meanwhile Ruger makes revolvers that are damn near indestructible. Are they as nice as old Smiths or Colts? No, but they're the best thing going on the market today.

>>32779399
Maybe it's just my experience, then. I've owned two Smith & Wesson revolvers and my dad owns one. All have been completely flawless. I've owned five Ruger revolvers and my brother owns one. Two of them had such serious flaws from the factory that they would have essentially been bricks if not for being sent back to the factory for work. Small sample size, yes. But 2 in 6 is not a good lemon rate for Ruger. It should be zero.

The people who point to the thicker steel on the Rugers and claim "stronger" are not, in my opinion, using sound reasoning to reach their conclusion. Metal thickness alone does not determine strength, but it's not like S&W's are blowing up with factory loaded ammunition. All that extra metal goes to waste if the gun can't turn its own cylinder when it gets just a little bit of carbon on the front of the cylinder face.

>>32779476
My Blackhawk, Super Redhawk, and Mk II beg to disagree. Meanwhile the new production (Hillary Holed) Smiths I've handled and shot have had mildly better triggers (sometimes maybe) while having worse everything else. They feel and look cheap, and operate like an imported Taurus, Rhom, Alpha, etc. junk.

I've handled and shot old Smiths. A 27-2 is an amazing work of mechanical art. They are close to the quality of my grandfathers (now my dad's) Colt Python.
What S&W is building today is a disgrace to the fine guns they once made. At least Colt had the decency to get out of the revolver business instead of continuing to make cheap imitations of once great products.

>>32779288
I am >>32778164

Actually if I had a ton of money you bet your ass I'd have some absolutely built to the hilt .22's. A 10/22 and a Mark IV with tons of money dropped into them. I've always wanted a baller build 10/22.

>>32779561
>Meanwhile the new production (Hillary Holed) Smiths I've handled and shot have had mildly better triggers (sometimes maybe) while having worse everything else. They feel and look cheap, and operate like an imported Taurus, Rhom, Alpha, etc. junk.
I don't know what any of that means. Did they have actual problems, or do you just not think they are attractive? It doesn't sound like you've actually owned any Smiths, new or old, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why I should take your opinion with more than a single grain of salt.

>>32778467
>Their .22lr guns are some of the best

I was looking to get a 22lr handgun to go with a 10/22 to learn shooting basics of both rifle & pistol while only having to stock up on one type of ammo.

Problem is I'm 6'2- Is the SR-22 (and similar 22lr pistols) going to be too small for my hands?

Is there a good 22 pistol for a big guy or should I just save up for a 9mm & convert it?

>>32780272
Nutnfancy loved the sr22 and he's about as big as you

File: ruger-lcp111.jpg (56KB, 618x343px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 618x343px

I own all types of guns. Browning, Smiths, Moss berg, Remington, Kahr, Rutgers, Glock, HK, etc.

And Ruger is definitely top tier, one of my favorite brands. Their revolvers are the most solid I've ever held. They're like metal indestructible bricks.

The 10/22 is my favorite gun of theirs. There hasn't been a single semi-auto .22 that has compared to theirs in versatility, quality, reliability and durability.

The SP101, the LCR and LCP have got to be my favorites behind the 10/22.

My dad has the 9mm semi auto of Ruger and has been more reliable than my glocks.

Perhaps the Mini 14 is the only Ruger gun I'm not sold on. Needless to say. Huge Ruger fan when it comes to their firearms at least.

Reliability is what I think of when I think of Ruger.

>>32780272

Just because a gun is in .22lr doesn't necessarily mean it's small. Ruger's. 22lr handguns are actually pretty big.

File: 20170110_211911.jpg (2MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1440px

>>32779561

I was with you up until you mentioned the Colt revolvers.

Anyone who's well versed in the revolver world knows for a FACT that the Colts revolvers are extremely overrated. And have developed a cult following due to their now scarcity and shows like TWD.

Colts have shitty reliability and shitty triggers, and frame problems that Smiths did not have back then. And as a matter of fact still don't today.

Colts are nice looking and they're not bad either, they're obviously collectibles but on performance I wouldn't rate them higher than even modern Smiths.

T.revolver know it all.

Gotta agree with you on the modern Smiths being shitty compared to the older ones.

The best modern Smith I ever held was the 586-8. Other than the Hillary hole, it felt as solid made as their originals. With a better trigger too.

I recently acquired a 627 and don't know what to make of it. I felt like I paid too much and the quality wasn't there. In the end it feels like I paid alot for a 8 shot revolver.

>>32777892
Not a bad option if you live somewhere with restrictions on mag size. Here it's 7 so fuck me I guess.

Ruger is great. It seems like they're one of the last companies that cares about their customers. They're happy to put out firearms in all kinds of weird calibers if Ruger owners tell them they want it. Their coverage of their products also extends to any owner, so if you buy used they still take care of you.

They do have a few misses but most of their line-up is solid. The LC9/P was an early subcompact that copied the KelTec but the new versions are a big improvement. I don't know why they made the American pistols, nobody does. The SR's are excellent. The GP100 I tried in .22 also had a stupidly heavy trigger for some reason, but it's one company I actually trust to make working and reliable firearms.

>>32779561
>unironically comparing S&W's revolvers with Taurus, Rohm, and Alfa Project

The main QC problems you see on modern S&Ws are cosmetic issues/weak finishes and canted barrels on the models with one piece barrel assemblies. For you to compare them to Taurus (loose lockup), Rohm (zinc alloy gun that glocknades), or Alfa Project (made by a company that previously only made blank firing prop guns) shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.


>>32780364
The assertion that "older S&Ws have better performance than newer ones" is a meme perpetuated by fudds. It is nonsense on the level of ".45 ACP will knock a man down with its stopping power" or ".22 LR will bounce around in the skull like a pinball." The newer guns are mechanically stronger than older ones of the same model due to advances in metallurgy, and they're also more consistent in quality from gun to gun due to improvements in both manufacturing and engineering.

You don't need to take my word for this though. If you know who Buffalo Bore is, you know that 1.) their ammo is the hottest production ammo you will find and that 2.) they test their ammo in actual guns rather than test barrels. Their owner who does some of the testing himself observed that

>You'll notice that new S&W revolvers with short barrels are often shooting faster than older S&W revolvers with longer barrels. The new S&W revolvers are very good and are made with equipment that makes them more consistent and faster than the S&W revolvers of yesteryear.

Source: https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=102

>>32780824
Where do you live that you're limited to 7?

>>32777706
They're anti gun shitlords.

>>32782856
Not that guy, but upstate NY allegedly limits you to 7 shots.

File: 1467646352009.jpg (11KB, 240x196px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x196px

>>32782869

>>32777706
They make decent guns, and good revolvers, but they shuttered a lot of their cool projects ages ago and they need to revive them. Oh lord bring back the PC9. Also they have one of the best warranties I've ever seen. I bought a beat up LC9 for cc and sent it in no charge for a complete fixer upper and the gun is basically brand new. If Ruger would step out and make more shit they'd really be killing it, but at least they're doing good now (SR1911 in 9mm HOT DAMN)

>>32782795
>Older is better
Usually what people are saying when they say this is that they find the finish to be better or they are impressed with something made from when the expertise was there (i.e. revolver makers almost all dried up for awhile). In general I agree, newer things will likely be made with better materials/machining, but that's assuming a company didn't drop the ball, which is a big gamble in itself.

>>32784044
Ruger Red Label is coming back, it's something

>>32784428
>ruger red label

What is this?

>>32777850
Customer service is GOAT to be sure.
>Had a mag catch issue on LC9.
>Do you want us to fix it or you fix it yourself and call us to walk you through it
>Option 2
>New catch arrives in mail 2 days later.
>Install myself, no need to call
>Gun works great ever since.
>Also sends a bunch of swag along with parts.

>>32782924
NY'er here, that part of the safe act got repealed. We're only limited to 10.

Kill me.

>>32778003

>denny's
>better than Waffle House

That's a pretty bad opinion you got there

File: 20160203_173320.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

I dunno much about them. I got a New model Super Blackhawk 'cause it was the only revolver the shop had at the time. .44 mag is pretty fun to shoot. And I haven't had any problems yet. Is $600 a good price or was I jewed?

>>32784845
IHOP beats the fuck out of both of them.

>>32784845
Sorry buddy, but TeeJays is the best 24hr breakfast chain in the U.S

File: gp 100.jpg (80KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 736x552px

>>32778164
im pretty much the same way. they are what they are, a simple, budget minded gun. Built like a fucking tank and some are beautiful, but most are over all meh

>>32785186
Sorry, but you can't call it the best chain in the whole U.S. if it only exists in one State.

>>32785288
I can if I want. What are you going to do about it?

>>32778400
I have a pro. It's designed to be concealable, not shootable. It's not a good choice for a first gun if you want something you can shoot for fun rather than carry.

>>32777753
This.

A Ruger pistol will last you a lifetime, I have one from the 70s that still shoots great.

File: rugerredlabelAW.jpg (327KB, 800x595px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 800x595px

>>32784716
An over-under that doesn't cost $1500 and isn't Turkish. Crossing fingers for a pump 870 that will kill Remington off.

>>32778164
>>32779213
Yeah, I'm one of those as well that got an LCP later as a back-up. But I'm not disappointed by it, it's rather nice. It's short barrel of course you're not going to be out target shooting with it. But it's fairly accurate and light and something you wouldn't mind carrying every day. It feels like a poor man's James Bond weapon.

>>32777706
I love my 10/22 takedown
Its pretty accurate for a 22
Id like to get a LC9
I'd buy a mini 14 if it were cheaper cuz A-Team
Thats about all I want from them tho
I shot a ruger american and it was better than a G19

>>32780272
With as low the recoil is on a .22lr there's no such thing as too small no matter the size of your hands.

File: RugerSecuritySix357.jpg (26KB, 454x341px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 454x341px

I still have my Ruger Security Six, which I bought new back in 1975. Over the years, I have probably fired more than 5000 rounds through it. It's built like a tank. It has never failed to work. It will probably outlast me.

>>32778952
>I shot a glock 23 and could barely control it

WTF dude

>>32780824
new york is 10 rounds senpai

>>32777706
pretty much this >>32777753
LC9s > Shield 9
The LC9s has a good trigger and good controls.
The Shield 9 (and 40) have the worst trigger of all time and a pretty shit slide release

The Ruger American (and compact) are actually pretty legit pistols. I'll never understand why Ruger went full retard with the name, but the pistols themselves are actually decent. I bet you didn't know that the Ruger American Pistol has a modular FCG just like the P320, because Ruger fucked up promoting the gun too!

LCP > Bodyguard
The LCP is what it is: A clone of the P3AT. It would be nice if the sights were usable, but that can be fixed with some white or green paint on the front sight.
inb4 >using sights on a pocket pistol
The Bodyguard is just a straight 0/10 piece of shit in every way.

SR9c / M&P 9c
The SR9c is again the better gun, but I need to call Ruger the fuck out on this one. The flush magazine is larger than the M&P 9c by 1/4" BUT THE ONLY FLUSH MAGS THEY MAKE ARE 10 ROUND. THEY COULD FIT 13 OR 14 ROUNDS IN THERE.
Ruger American Compact Pistol
SAME SHIT, STILL ONLY 10 AND 17 ROUNDERS
Bill Ruger is dead, boys. Get your shit together and make a real magazine.

AR-556 vs M&P Sport II:
M&P Sport II hands down. Nevermind the proprietary barrel nut Ruger graces us with, the M&P Sport II is much more reliable.

>>32777706
Not a fan of their pistols or mini. love their revolvers, single shot rifles and 22's.

>>32777706
The only Ruger I wasn't happy with was my mini 14.

Ran great, but the accuracy was shit.

I've got a
single six, a security six, an sr22, and a Blackhawk.

I unfortunately sold my p90 and my red hawk during hard times but both were good guns.

>>32784898
You done good. I paid almost that much for my .357 Blackhawk!

>>32791056
Must have been the older mini 14. Mine seem fairly accurate, like has been said Ruger tends to listen to their customers. But they have yet to listen to suggestions to make the mini use the same mags as the AR.
Ruger likely doesn't want to do this because of the similarity between the mini 14 and mini 30.

>>32777733

quads
dubs
fpbp

and they've got you're back with sending you spare parts

>>32791653
>and they've got you're back with sending you spare parts

This is true.
I put the recoil spring on backwards on my P90DC and it gouged up the guide rod, causing the slide to sometimes not go all the way into battery.
I called them up, explained to them what I did (completely my fault) and they shipped me a new guide rod free of charge.

The owner's survey ends on Feb 2nd. Requested pump shotgun, lever action, .22 magnum pistol, and new .327 compact revolver. If they did it they could kill Remington, Marlin, and Kel-Tec in about 3 years.

File: ruger380.jpg (63KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 800x600px

>>32778164

lol

i rented several of those small 380s and they kick very snappy so i ended up buying the lc380 which is quite nice but it weighs 19z vs. the lcp at maybe 9z

>>32777887
Larry vickersplease eat a snickers.

I had the pleasure of shooting a Ruger LCP last week.

0/10 would not repeat. I guess it's a good CC weapon if you like wearing skin tight clothes or something but my PPK is small enough to conceal and it's far more accurate.