ruger fanboy thread

>be bill ruger
>write to congress to ban all magazines over 10 rounds
>fast forward
>hey! Here is a company made 25 round detachable magazine and exclusive supressor, go NRA!

All that aside. Very high performance guns. My 10/22 was my first gun and is my pride and joy

File: 1200px-Lewis_Machine_and_Tool_Company.svg.png (34KB, 1200x482px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1200x482px

>>35137794
You need to step it up OP

>>35137794
i only bought my ruger because i didn't have enough neetbux for the colt 6920 i really wanted. ruger is kind of a fud tier company imo although their stuff works ok. they have no style. for me it's generally european or noguns.

File: 454 blackhawk.jpg (57KB, 590x291px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 590x291px

>>35137794
I have an SP101 and a Redhawk

Anyone who glimpses at the Redhawk usually gets an instantaneous boner. Got some nice Karl Nill wood grips on that bad boy, too.

.357MAG GP100 4" is next on my list, followed by the .454 Casull Ruger Super Blackhawk Bisley 6".

People say they're ugly, I just like the simple, plain-Jane aesthetic they're going for. No fluff, just a big hunk of metal designed to shoot powerful handgun cartridges.

>>35137794
I currently own:
A Mini-14
A 10/22
An LCR in .357
A Predator in .308

Love them all. Ruger and Henry are the two American firearms companies that are really on top of their game right now.

>>35138158
You are a good person, dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

I want my first real gun to be a ruger mark series pistol

File: sr1911.jpg (255KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1000x700px

Out of the 6 guns on my wishlist 3 of them are rugers

>SR 1911 in 10mm/45
>LCP 2
>SR9E

>>35138207
Henry and Ruger are the current kings of American Fudd Mountain now that Browning and Winchester are Japanese.

Not that there's anything wrong with Japanese, but a lot of US hunting gun and cowboy companies have been dropping the ball; people STILL are hesitant about Marlin and Remington, and S&W still gets shat on for the Hillary Hole thing.

File: mk 4 hunter.jpg (533KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 1920x1080px

>>35138423
oh and I forgot the mk 4 hunter

>>35137794
Should I buy a 556? I don't really want an AR but they're so damn cheap it seems dumb not to get one.

>>35138158
pics please

>>35138444
mp sport 2 is better imo

love my LCRx in .38 special +p

it's just a kit gun, perfect for the glovebox. but what the actual fuck ruger, $36 for a 5 rd. speedloader?

>>35138444
mine's been great. haven't shot steel but don't want crappy russian ammo anyways. works with cpd steel and lancer mags too so far. i had a mp15 before. only difference is no chrome barrel in the ruger. whatever. get one, they're good in my experience. the rear sight is way too fucking small though. i'm going to drill it out bigger i think so i can actually see. that is my only complaint so far, the shit rear sight.

>>35138889
forgot, i've shot two actually with no problems, as my dad has one as well. his runs fine too.

Just picked up a mini 14 ranch and couldn't hit anything at 50 yards because any time I adjusted elevation it would change windage and throw my shots off 5 inches but I'm sure it'll be a great rifle once the tech sights come in.

>>35138101
>wanted lolcolt
>"settled" for ruger
>european or noguns
geeeeeet the fuck out noguns

>>35137794
I have a GP100 and an LCR. Good guns.

File: RugerAmerican9mm.png (373KB, 1000x700px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1000x700px

>>35137794
I have LCR, LCRx, LCP2, SR9C, SR9, SR40C, SR40, 10/22, GP100, AR556 and more.

>>35138101
>I wanted a colt
>But Ruger is for fudds

Sorry anon, you're retarded

File: 5801.jpg (36KB, 825x160px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 825x160px

Shot my first Buck with one of these so Ruger will always have a special place in my gun cabinet.

>>35137794
M77 30.06 stainless
Lcp
M77 is really a great gun. Its really a mauser 98 made by ruger. Lcp is better than most want to admit. Not great but great for its purpose.

File: IMG_0524.jpg (344KB, 2096x867px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 2096x867px

Don't mind if i do

>>35137794
I just want Winchester USA (or Japan) to make a handgun. That's all I want.

>>35137794
YES, YES, You are correct

10/22 Takedown
American predator
American 9 compact
SR1911
Super Blackhawk

I love my Rugers. I'd buy the shit out of Roger pump 12 gauge

>>35139449
I bought the Ruger American Pistol Compact 9mm because glocks are overpriced and I like the looks of it, and the ergo's were much better than an M&P 9c or the shield at the time when I bought it.

Carry it every day.

File: P_20170601_181115.jpg (2MB, 4096x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4096x2304px

>>35141024
Pic

Love the 10/22, MK series pistols and the LCP II.


But fuck the AR-556 and their Mini-14. It's full of proprietary crap.
But besides those two, they're a solid company.


If ANYTHING goes wrong with your gun, they are fucking Amazon quality customer service. My LCP II's mag release spring was shitty so I sent it in. They replaced it, did a free trigger job and sent it back with a few Ruger a nice cloth and a small goodie bag with decals/pens/lanyards/etc.


And they paid for it all. The fix left me without my gun for a hot 4 days. I mean, come on. No one else can compete with that.

File: 15B777C8-2FA6-489E-A987-7177B4570B48.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>35138423
>LCP2
Enjoy :)

>>35137794
Thanks hat do you NIGGERS think of Ruger DI ARs?

>>35137794
>company supports banning features that other competition uses to take advantage instead of improving their game
>indirectly supports gun control through this mean just because they are fucking fudds

They should be removed from existence.

For me it's Ruger: The manufacturer of the LEAST reliable autoloading firearms on the market.

>>35137794
Love their guns. But the most unpleasant gun I've every shot was a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in .454 Casull, but that's just because it has such a short barrel. I shot the Standard Super Redhawk in .454 the same day and it was pretty nice

>>35141273
Are you the same guy who made the thread asking for the best semi-auto .22lr because you hated the 10/22 and then everyone said to get a 10/22? Mine jams a little with Federal bulk pack but runs CCI perfectly

>>35141130
>trusting your life to a Ruger
Darwin Award xD

>>35141535
Y-Yes. But that's beside the point and all Rugers jam like there's no tomorrow.

>>35137794
Got a good deal on a very lightly used sr9c. I carry it everyday and open carry it with the extended 17rd mag when hunting. One of the more pleasant compact guns to shoot I think.

File: p345.jpg (28KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x550px

I have nothing but good things to say about the P345.

Great gun, eats high pressure ammo for breakfast. Cheap and sexy that can be found for 350$ in great condition. Mags are normally about 13$ too.

File: 1493405838354.png (325KB, 1440x1688px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 1440x1688px

>>35141273

>>35137794
Ruger barely makes any firearms I want to buy.
>.44 Mag Toklat
>.357 Redhawk in a normal barrel length like 4.2"
>repro AC556 stocks and factory Mini-14 SBRs
My money is theirs for the taking, but apparently they just don't want it badly enough.

>>35141273
>Le Ruger semis are bad meme

>>35141797
I want to get a handgun in 45. so I think I might get one of those

File: jam.jpg (74KB, 642x428px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 642x428px

>>35141581
I'll show you jam you fucking nigger.

The creation of the .204 alone makes me love Ruger.

>>35137794

Have a 9E, have yet to have a problem with it.

>>35137794
>created by fudd
>mini 30 can't even shoot steel
>10mm 1911 is bushingless, try taking that bitch down in the field
>10/22s don't even have last round hold opens
>only reason 10/22 is king is because the aftermarket, nearly every other semi auto .22 is better than the 10/22 in every way
>charge 800 dollars for a semi auto 5.56 that isn't even 1.5 MOA
>makes the gun scouts take proprietary mags
>literally realize their 50 dollar mini 30 mags arent selling so they create an american rifle in x39 just to sell off the hundred thousand mini 30 mags they created for when shillary won
>ar-556 has proprietary parts
It like you fan girls literally like people taking money from you for no reason

>>35142245
>Mom, I posted the memes again!

>>35141871
>>35142113
If you're going to get a Ruger, stick with their revolvers and bolt guns. It's all they're good for.

>>35139449
W-w-why are the sights back the front?

File: IMG_20170711_212717.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

Out of all my glocks and xd's, my 9e is one of my favorites. Great ergonomics and trigger.

How are Ruger AR15s (di)?

>>35142268
>Doesnt state any reasons why

Every time

i have 9e with over 3000 rounds through it and never had a problem at all. ( i clean it though

I want a vaquero, but the billboard really puts me off. Stainless is really the only option because I don't want to have to get it reblued after buffing out the disclaimer. It'd be nice if they just didn't deface their guns in the first place.

My daily carry is still a Ruger p85. Just haven't found anything I like better to replace it with. Never had it jam or a fail to feed. 30 years old and still shoots great.

File: 1234234214.jpg (246KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 960x540px

my Ruger American .308 spills blood

>>35141065
Honestly, their service is so great, never heard anything bad about it

I bought a Ruger Scout and I like it. Apart from the but where the rear sight feel off because the screw stepped. But that may have been my fault.

>>35137794
>vanilla ice cream of gun brands

>>35144208
did you fuck the deer while it was still warm

>>35142268
You are full of shit. My 9E has never malfunctioned on me and I've been shooting it regularly for god knows how long with various ammo and conditions

File: 20170503_144750.jpg (2MB, 2576x1932px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2576x1932px

>>35144195
Ruger P89C here.....performs flawlessly.

File: IMG_20170608_084309.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

New vaquero. 357 mag.

>>35141273
(You)
Just have it.

>>35144509
Yeah, i blew my load in the deer to keep it warm while its strapped on the roof of my truck

>>35144467

Vanilla, coffee and cookie dough are the only good ones as ice cream is generally shit.

>>35139449
Lmfao why are the sights reversed?

>>35137794
Ruger has more past and current outstanding product recalls than any other firearms manufacturer on the market to include major safety recalls.

>>35138440
better get that looked at (pic related)

File: IMG_0258.jpg (79KB, 751x825px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 751x825px

>>35144868

>>35138101
Colt is the fudd company. You actually did better
"settling" for a Ruger considering it's just as good quality for cheaper. Ruger has a lot of fudd followers, but their new stuff like the American pistol, the RPR, and their AR's aren't very fudd. I'm a big Ruger fan myself, because they're a good American company that makes quality yet reasonably priced guns.

>>35144868
That means they actually give a shit about their products

>>35144888
>tons of product recalls because low quality = they care about the quality of the product they out out
what

File: IMG_0259.jpg (26KB, 280x270px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 280x270px

>>35144888
this is how rugerfags actually think

>>35144904
They don't want their guns grenading like Glock Perfection, killing their customers, and fixing flaws when they become known.

>>35144933
>I can't refute his point, better post a reaction image

No need to be bootyblasted Anon

File: IMG_9947.jpg (72KB, 920x690px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 920x690px

>>35144960
refute what point retard? you're the one who claims that ruger sending low quality guns to the market means that the company "gives a shit" about their products! you know that other major manufacturers don't have nearly the same level of safety recalls and shit right?

the level of cognitive dissonance is real with you man. jesus

>my ruger broke
>wow they really care about me as a consumer

my fucking sides are in orbit, thank you rugerfag

>>35145014
>ruger sending low quality guns to the market means that the company "gives a shit" about their products

Your reading comprehension is pretty poor dude. Never said that. They do recalls to ensure reliable functioning and safety from any gun manufactured by them at any time.

Enjoy blowing your fingers off or NDing into your leg nigger

File: ruger.png (2MB, 1156x1204px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1156x1204px

Do you people only own handguns/ARs/AKs?

>>35138423
I want an SR1911 10mm real bad

File: IMG_0261.jpg (232KB, 1242x1132px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1242x1132px

>>35145096
rofl wut

>Enjoy blowing your fingers off or NDing into your leg nigger
>your gun company doesn't perpetuatally recall their guns (cause they aren't piles of shit like rugers) so you're less safe! hurrrr

>>35145275
it's obviously bait, anon.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 247x204px

Anyone here carry an American compact? This thread got me looking into finally replacing my p85 or at least retiring it to a truck and getting g something a little easier to conceal.

>>35142293
>>35144831
To make an already ugly gun uglier?
Functional, but(t) ugly.

>>35145127
Love my RPR

>>35145799
same here. seems like /k/ is just obsessed with handguns :( haven't seen a precision rifle thread in forever.

>>35144831
To make suicide easier.

>>35145275
>Wut

I figured you wouldn't understand since you're a dumb nigger

>>35141318
>>35142941
fanboys are cancer

>>35144888
>>35144960
>>35145096
I'm not the OP you're arguing with, but I agree with him.
>fixing flaws when they become known
This is part of the problem. They should be doing more extensive and comprehensive testing and putting out a high quality weapon from day 1. They rush products to compete with other brands and end up with more recalls. They're don't give a shit about product quality, they care about not getting sued.

>>35146805
extensive and comprehensive testing and putting out a high quality weapon from day 1 is why the SCAR costs as much as it does

>>35142209
I have 5 handguns and I often wish I never bought most of them, got something like a 9e and just spent the rest of the money on ammo instead.

Yeah, having some variety is nice, but all but two of them just stay in the safe most of the time. I have a Beretta 92fs that I've shot twice. For the money I could have just bought 3k rounds of some shitty practice steelcase ammo.

>>35137794
Back when i was a wee lad i thought Ruger was the company that made the Luger, but they had to change the company name after the war.

File: IMG_1651.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>35138066
Duh, because it was in his best business interests at the time. Dont pretend like he had any real problem with assault rifles. For christ sakes Ruger used to make civilian AC556 ASSAULT RIFLES.They were mini14s that had 3 firemodes; semi auto, burst, and full auto; along with a folding stock and factory 30 round magazines.

Hell, they still serviced them during the AWB if you send them in.

Ruger is a great company. Affordable, quality guns. Pic related shows 3 mark .22s. One of them is ~50 years old and the newer ones beside it are made just as well.

>>35138440
Why would you get an mk 4 over an mk3? The only advantage is easier field trip, but its a target .22. The mk 3 is better made.

>>35147239
Better made my ass. The MK IV is solid as a fucking rock.

>>35147357
It's half aluminum. Your version have steel parts riding on aluminum in some spots. It's a poor design with a significantly reduced lifespan compared to an all steel design.

It's not like weight matters with a target pistol, and you still have to clean the gun after every use because half the gun is steel. The only reason Ruger used aluminum instead of steel for the frame, is machine time. It's nothing but a cost saving measure.

>>35147378
That's not even considering that you can get a mk3 for about $40 less than an mk4.

>>35147378
The stainless steel one is entirely steel, it's machined out of a solid block. Even the blued ones with an aluminum lower will never have an issue, it's a fucking .22. Mark iiis have stamped lowers, so if any version was going to wear out (which they won't, there are still mark is in great condition out there) it would be older ones. Plus the instructions for taking apart a mark IV don't call for hitting it with a fucking hammer.

Hold one in your hand before you cry about it.

>>35147404
Are you retarded? Of course you don't need to worry about strains developing, or damage from field stripping. We are talking about the bearing surfaces wearing in. Once again, the only purpose of using Aluminum for the frame is to save costs. It does not provide any benefit and is an unnecessary revision in the best target .22 design ever made.

Are you literally incapable of reading?

I have lots of Rugers and like them but.
I wish they'd stop insisting on needing to molest my old model blackhawk with their stupid "safety" upgrade if I want any parts or repairs.
Whatever the lawsuit deal was in the 70s can't still be binding, can it? Tons of companies make SAA replicas that also need to be carried with an empty chamber, why is the Ruger consumer so much dumber?

>>35147437
Nigger, I'm looking at a Mark IV that's in front of me right now that has no aluminum parts in it at all.

I never said shit about field stripping it causing wear, only that it's ridiculous that gun that came out in 2004 should need a hammer to take apart.

You will literally never have a problem with any of the aluminum lower models unless you count not being able to stick magnets to them because you jerk off to Insane Clown Posse or something.

You'll never have a problem with the durability of any Mark series gun, but between a stamped sheetmetal steel lower and a CNC machined aluminum lower, I'll take the latter. But even then you don't have to because they make an all steel one, which I only picked because I liked the look and because I wanted the extra weight.

The only functional difference between the III and the IV is the takedown procedure. If you want to argue that a lifetime of easy cleaning isn't worth the $40 price difference, then whatever, but saying the MK III is "better made" is a fucking farce.

>>35147497
Once again, its a target .22. There is no reason you need to field strip it more than once a year. Even that is a bit often, assuming you take care of it. Feel free to check their estimated round count lifespan, the aluminum framed version is about 6000 rounds lower than the steel.

Once again, it is a cost saving measure that adds no value.

>>35141581
>xD
Get the fuck out

>>35147545
Oh, ok, I'm getting trolled. Makes sense now, but congrats, I fell for it until now.

For any noguns reading along that are worried by the bullshit this faggot is spreading, just ignore his dumb ass. I've taken mine apart hundreds of times and put over 10k rounds through it since I got it. I clean it after every range trip (since .22 target pistols don't run well when very dirty) and have never noticed a single sign of wear to the bearing surfaces like he's describing. I know people with aluminum lower ones with similar round counts and they've never had an issue. If you buy any Mark series gun and clean it whenever it gets too gunked up to be reliable, it will last you your entire life, then your kids and grandkids' lives. If you could afford the ammo, you might be able to start wearing out the barrel after a quarter million rounds or so, and you might have to replace some springs over time, but you would never wear out the frame.

If this was actually a problem AR-15s would come apart at the takedown pins in a few years, meanwhile AR lowers that are old enough to be fucking C&R eligible are still working fine..

>>35147653
And I should add, if you ever did somehow wear out or damage a mark iv frame, since it's not the serialized component of the gun (the barrel/upper receiver is), you could just ship it to Ruger via USPS and have them replace it, no ffl needed.

>>35147653
Are you seriously retarded? You realize people install kns pins specifically because the holes eggshape when you hit high round counts of aobut 30-40k rounds?

My mk1 is currently at over 60k rounds in it's lifetime, the barrel has been replaced once, and I have replaced both of my factory magazine springs; the gun is still kicking. You will never seen an aluminum framed mk iv at 60000 rounds.

Once again, aluminum offers no benefits to steel for a target .22, and is only a cost saving measure. It is not debatable.

>>35147678
You should never have to replace the frame on any gun. Also funny that you assume you will still be able to buy a mkiv receiver through the mail in 50 years.

>>35147701
The wear in AR receivers is from pin rotation, not from the recoil. The lugs that hold the Mark IV together are massive and don't rotate. It's a non issue.

You earlier claimed (without a source) that the lifetime round count difference between an aluminum framed version and a steel one is 6k rounds. Even assuming that's true, and I can't find any information saying it is, but compared to the lifetime of the gun it would be negligible. And again, until you can show me where either Ruger claimed that or testing showed it, I don't believe it anyway.

The benefit is that it IS cheaper, you retard.

>>35147713
Funny you assume the earliest anyone would have a problem with an aluminum lower is in 50 years. It's almost like it's a nonissue and you know it.

>>35147383
the basic one is aluminum

the target is entirely stainless

get the fuck out

>>35147901
The Ar recevier wear is caused by steel parts moving in contact with aluminum.

My claim of about 6k difference is from an AvE test. and the point is that the aluminum provides no benefit over the steel, AND costs more. You can buy a brand new mk3 for less than new mk4.

Pros of Aluminum
>...

Cons
>lower life span

The aluminum costs less for Ruger, they did not pass the savings on to consumers. Simple, isn't it?

Lastly, my assumption on 50 years is just based on the fact that my mk1 is ~50 years old now. You know damn well in a matter of decades, you will almost certainly not be able to get that frame in the mail. If you ever do ruin it, you will be fucked. I'd rather it be like the mk1, where the parts that do eventually fail are springs and barrels.

>>35147966
>The Ar recevier wear is caused by steel parts moving in contact with aluminum.

And guess what doesn't happen on a Mark IV? The pins the upper receiver lugs mate with in the aluminum frame are steel. They don't move within the frame. The upper that does contact and rotate on them when you open the gun is steel. There is no steel on aluminum rotation anywhere in the gun.

>My claim of about 6k difference is from an AvE test. and the point is that the aluminum provides no benefit over the steel, AND costs more. You can buy a brand new mk3 for less than new mk4.

So am I correct in saying that there was no actual round count endurance testing done on a Mark IV then? Because if so you still have zero proof.

Have you ever considered that the Mark III might be cheaper than the IV isn't because Ruger is trying to overcharge for Aluminum but because the mk III is an older model?

>The aluminum costs less for Ruger, they did not pass the savings on to consumers. Simple, isn't it?

Actually they did, because the blued one with the aluminum receiver is cheaper than the stainless one by about $200, or at least that was the price gap when I bought my stainless one.

>Lastly, my assumption on 50 years is just based on the fact that my mk1 is ~50 years old now. You know damn well in a matter of decades, you will almost certainly not be able to get that frame in the mail. If you ever do ruin it, you will be fucked. I'd rather it be like the mk1, where the parts that do eventually fail are springs and barrels.

And if your Mark I frame from 50 years ago rusts you'll be in the same situation, so that's a complete wash. You still have no evidence of the aluminum lowers eventually failing.

This whole thing is a dumb argument. Any mark series gun will work fine forever if you do basic maintenance on it. If you want to keep having to hammer yours open over $40, be my fucking guest.

>>35148100
>And guess what doesn't happen on a Mark IV? The pins the upper receiver lugs mate with in the aluminum frame are steel. They don't move within the frame. The upper that does contact and rotate on them when you open the gun is steel. There is no steel on aluminum rotation anywhere in the gun.
Right, Just aluminum sliding on steel.

>So am I correct in saying that there was no actual round count endurance testing done on a Mark IV then? Because if so you still have zero proof.
What, do you expect a Ruger press release declaring it?

>Have you ever considered that the Mark III might be cheaper than the IV isn't because Ruger is trying to overcharge for Aluminum but because the mk III is an older model?
Sure that's why, what is your point? Because the gun is 2 years old, but still brand new, its bad?

>Actually they did, because the blued one with the aluminum receiver is cheaper than the stainless one by about $200, or at least that was the price gap when I bought my stainless one.
No they didn't. Feel free to check the original MSRP on the Ruger MK3 target pistol and the MK4 target pistol. They are the exact same. You are trying to compare the cost of stainless to standard blued steel. The SS MK3 was the same price as the SS MK4.

>And if your Mark I frame from 50 years ago rusts you'll be in the same situation, so that's a complete wash. You still have no evidence of the aluminum lowers eventually failing.
That would be user error, not something caused through normal prescribed use of the gun.

I own 4 rugers.

I would make love to my ruger if my cock was small enough

SP101 or LCR if I want a Ruger snub?

>>35148156
>Right, Just aluminum sliding on steel.
Maybe you can't read, but there is no aluminum sliding on steel anywhere in the mk IV. All the lockups are steel to steel. I bet you cry about Mossberg 500's having aluminum receivers too, thinking the barrel locks into the aluminum.

>What, do you expect a Ruger press release declaring it?
No, but if you're going to claim a 6000 round life difference I expect you to back it up with some actual testing.

>Sure that's why, what is your point? Because the gun is 2 years old, but still brand new, its bad?
Further proof you can't read. I've said multiple times that the Mk III is fine. It's common practice for companies to lower the price on the old model when a new one comes out, it's just standard practice. Gen 4 Glock's dropped in price when the gen 5s came out despite the fact they still work just as well as they did two months ago. Glock is even still going to make them new for years to come. Nothing about their manufacturing changed except the fact that a new model has been released.

>No they didn't. Feel free to check the original MSRP on the Ruger MK3 target pistol and the MK4 target pistol. They are the exact same. You are trying to compare the cost of stainless to standard blued steel. The SS MK3 was the same price as the SS MK4.
Ok? You're comparing stampings (mk iii) to machinings (mk iv), and ignoring a decade of inflation as well.

>>35148248
Inflation has been negligible over the past 2 years. It is far cheaper to machine Aluminum than to stamp steel. As for the price drop on the MK3s, EXACTLY. Why would you spend more for a gun of lesser quality?

Oh, and as for Mossberg, relax I would never own one. There are higher quality shotguns for marginally more. Only mouth breathers buy Mossberg shotguns.

>>35148276
>Why would you spend more for a gun of lesser quality?

Because it annoys retards like you that make baseless arguments with zero proof to back them up.

>>35148291
And shit, almost forgot: I also don't have to hit mine with a hammer to take it apart ;^)

>>35148276
>There are higher quality shotguns for marginally more

name literally 3

>>35148291
You are literally arguing that aluminum is more tough than steel. Do I seriously need to bring out the stress strain curves for you?

You literally said that even if its true, you would rather just buy a new frame when yours breaks. You literally are astounding.

>>35148307
>Weatherby PA-08
>Browning BPS
>Benelli Nova

>>35148345
>Benelli Nova
nice but it doesn't come in wood
>Weatherby PA-08
literally who brand
>browning bps
only acceptable one on this list

there's nothing wrong with mossman 500's

>>35148311
>You are literally arguing that aluminum is more tough than steel.

lol where?

>Do I seriously need to bring out the stress strain curves for you?

I'm well aware that steel is stronger than aluminum. My argument this entire time has been that for this application it doesn't matter.

>You literally said that even if its true, you would rather just buy a new frame when yours breaks.

Again, where? Saying that Ruger would replace it for you IF you somehow wore it out or broke it doesn't mean I'd rather buy a new frame "when" it breaks. Because it won't.

"Literally" has an actual meaning, you know.

>>35148378
>>35148378
Mossberg is the inbred retarded cousin of Remington.

All three I named are manufactured with better materials, to higher specs than mossberg.

>>35148414
the BPS isn't even in the same ballpark, it's double the price and semi-automatic

no shit its better

>>35148404
The entire time. There is no benefit of using aluminum on a target pistol except cost, but ruger isnt passing the cost onto consumers. This is undebatable fact.

The application does matter. I want a gun that will run flawlessly after 500,000,000 rounds. Any that has an aluminum frame, will not.

And sure, today if it breaks ruger will replace it for you, but if you wear it out in 20 years, they wont unless you pay them. It it breaks within the next 100 years at a minimum they should pay for it.

>>35148422
No, it can be had for 500. That is only a little bit more, which I said it would initially. That's like a day of wages more.

File: 09_misato-organize.jpg (127KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 640x480px

>>35148449
>only a little more
>double the price

>>35148436
>This is an undebatable fact
>I wan't a 500 million round gun
>gun should be maintenance free
Go ahead, show us your nogunz...

File: 140908-M-KK554-007.jpg (330KB, 2779x1406px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 2779x1406px

>>35148276
>Only mouth breathers buy Mossberg shotguns.
True facts.

>>35148345
Bru, the Nova is mostly plastic.

>>35148477
>what is exaggerator
The frame of a target .22 should never wear out. You should be able to run it with a machine 24/7 for hundreds of years having to only ever oil it, and ocassionally replace barrels and springs.

As such Ruger BETTER replace a damaged frame, even in 100, nay 500 years for free.

>>35148476
If the price on a bottle of coke goes from 1.00 to 1.25, is it significantly expensive even though it went up by 25%?

>>35148497
And? For a shotgun there is nothing wrong with using lighter materials. Aluminum on shotguns also has a valid purpose besides cost savings. I said that they should not be used on target .22s because weight is irrelevant.

>>35148510
>The frame of a target .22 should never wear out.
You do realize that we live in a physical world with friction, right?

File: MKIV.jpg (208KB, 975x1300px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 975x1300px

>>35148414
You sound like an asspie that sits around freaking out over immaterial differences between guns instead of actually shooting them. Part of design, engineering and manufacturing is picking materials that are the most economical, yet suitable for the application.

>>35148436
>The entire time. There is no benefit of using aluminum on a target pistol except cost, but ruger isnt passing the cost onto consumers. This is undebatable fact.

Oh I think it's plenty debatable alright. Just like your nonexistent endurance testing, until you can show me a manufacturing cost breakdown of their blued/aluminum mk iv target vs the stainless one, you have no proof that they're not passing on the savings.

You still haven't shown me where I said aluminum is stronger than steel.

>The application does matter. I want a gun that will run flawlessly after 500,000,000 rounds. Any that has an aluminum frame, will not.

lol. Literally lol. I bet you heard the six sigma spiel from some motivational speaker and think it's anything more than an unattainable goal. And you still have no proof that the aluminum one wears out faster than the steel one. Show me proof that ANY steel mk gun has shot 500 MILLION FUCKING ROUNDS lol.

Not to resort to more personal attacks, but at this point I'm actually wondering if the original guy I was arguing with left and you're just pretending to be him while saying retarded shit to make him look bad.

Post a picture of your ruger or fuck off.

>And sure, today if it breaks ruger will replace it for you, but if you wear it out in 20 years, they wont unless you pay them. It it breaks within the next 100 years at a minimum they should pay for it.

>waaaaaa a company won't provide free support forever!!

Again, this is a wash with any other mk series gun.

Fuck off, retard.

>inb4 crying about photo rotation

Deal with it, faggot.

>>35148536
Which is why they should be overbuilt like the old rugers. Your childrens' childrens' children should be able to use your .22 ruger.

>>35148545
You speak in absolutes yet hardly concede the fact that nothing is absolute.

>>35148554
Right, that's why 2 replies ago I said it was obviously an exaggeration.

>>35148544
Are you still trying to compare the stainless steel cost to the normal blued/carbon steel gun?

I already posted pics of my rugers, one is at 60,000 rounds and the frame is still in excellent shape, I have no doubt it will still function in 200 years.

By the way, you realize six sigma/lean is literally about cost cutting?

>>35148590
So do you want guns to be built strong or to your exaggerated definition of "strong"?
Pro-tip : only one of those 2 actually matters.

>>35148476
$250 more than an original price of $250 isn't something trivial to be written off.

>>35148610
Yes it is, that's like two days of work. That is nothing for a gun that will be around for a lifetime++

>>35148590
>Are you still trying to compare the stainless steel cost to the normal blued/carbon steel gun?
Are you still not posting a cost breakdown?

>I already posted pics of my rugers, one is at 60,000 rounds and the frame is still in excellent shape, I have no doubt it will still function in 200 years.
So then should I assume >>35147208 is you? You went from talking about how great Ruger is to spending a thread ripping on them for making a gun with a "poor design with a significantly reduced lifespan"? Because the only other picture of a mk ITT I noticed is the mk IV that post was a reply to. If I missed one let me know.

Still waiting for you to show me where I "literally" said aluminum was stronger than steel too lol.

>>35148633

is the mk iv >>35147239 was a reply to*

>>35148633
Yes, and that is why I recommend everyone considering mk4 get mk3s instead. They are superior.

You can either believe that aluminum is as tough as steel, or admit you are wrong.

>>35148663
You can either admit that in the case of a mk style 22lr handgun, an aluminum vs steel frame doesn't make a difference, or you can admit that you have autism said autism is keeping you from just admitting the former.

>>35148685
An aluminum frame won't last 500 millions rounds, a steel one will.

>>35148685
I never denied having autism, that doesnt make me incorrect.

The materials always matter, just because .22lr is less jarring than .223, doesnt mean that there wont be a variance between lifespan of an all steel mk3 and an aluminum mk4.

File: IMG_3091.jpg (72KB, 1200x265px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1200x265px

So Ruger just came out with an American in 7.62x39 that takes mini 30 mags

Anyone shoot one yet?

File: proofs4.png (37KB, 944x948px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 944x948px

>>35148693
Proofs?

>>35148685
you two are going to fug, aren't you ?

>>35148698
You won't be alive to see the difference.
>b-b-but muh children
Stop lying to yourself.

Just got back from a range trip with my 10/22. In ~100 rounds I had 5-6 jams. American Eagle 38gr JHP. Was only 6cpr though so I don't mind too much.

File: pa-08_upland.jpg (54KB, 1600x488px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1600x488px

>>35148345
>>35148378
>look up PA-08
>it's actually really beautiful
Dammit, now I want one

>>35148698
Fucking kek. I told you I knew I was being trolled before but at least up until now it was fun, but when you make it this blatantly obvious it takes the fun out of it.

Good night, senpai.

>>35148712
Banging the mentally ill is wrong, anon.

>>35148729
Hows it feel to know you are less familiar with material science than someone who applies for the ADA?

Enjoy your recall
>https://ruger.com/dataProcess/markIVRecall/

>>35148746
Jokes on you, Ruger fixed mine for free while I was on vacation and wasn't going to be shooting it anyway, and they sent it back with an extra magazine, also for free.

So yeah you could say I enjoyed it.

lmao the only real argument you need against the mark four is that the blued target version, what once was one of the sexiest guns made, now is half blued and half anodized, yuck.

>>35148746
>I know material science
>"ummmmm steel is harder than aluminum"
Fucking LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Any reason not to get a Super Redhawk 7.5" as babby's first .44 Mag?

So here's a question...

I recently bought a 583-series Mini-14 which came with a set of scope rings that I'm never going to use with that rifle. On the other hand, I have a Ruger American Predator in .308 sitting at my LGS while my waiting period expires, and I definitely plan to mount a scope on it. So my question is: Can anyone think of any reason why it would be a bad idea to use the rings from my Mini-14 on my Predator, or would it be all good?

>>35148828
Ruger rings aren't so good.
If you're a poorfag then it doesn't matter, but if you want to squeeze the accuracy out then better rings will help.

>>35137794
Naw, man. Smith and Wesson. Those locks are HELPFUL!

>>35148851
>better rings will help.
Such as?

File: sr2-3_reticle_1x6.jpg (158KB, 1410x1365px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1410x1365px

>>35148828
get an EOTech Vudu 1-6x and put it on the Mini

>>35148706
I wish they would come out with an extended mag for my American in 30-06

>>35148896
Already planning to put a Holosun HS510C on the Mini. Never heard anything bad about it.

>>35148887
Ruger locks are surprisingly good. They look like just masterlocks, but the one I took apart had 5 security pins in it. IIRC 3 serrated and 2 mushroom.

The shackle is also extremely hard, it damaged my file when I tested it. The weakest spot on the lock on it is the laminated steel body, but desu the average nigger is not going through the lock without an angle grinder and half an hour.

Are the trolls just trolling or is there an element of truth? Is there an actual reason to recommend against buying Ruger semis?

>>35148956
Yes.

The 10/22 isnt as reliable as a lot of people say. In mine, I cant use bulk ammo or aftermarket mags. I even sent it to ruger once over it, they said they replaced several parts, but it still wont run right unless I am using factory 10 round mags and cci stinger ammo.

>>35144874
The recall is almost completely unnecessary. Its literally just because some retard out there will not follow basic safety at some point and might ND.

>>35145014
Name better manufacturers at a similar price point

>>35145275
Gj being retarded ni&er

>>35147022
And even they didnt get it right

>>35149020
I've owned two 10/22s, one made around 2007 and one purchased less than a year ago. Both run flawlessly with bulk ammo

I won't own a River because they do nothing better than the other option.

.357 Magnum or any revolver?
>Smith and Wesson
Small carry 9mm?
>Shield 9
1911?
>Springfield Armory and their anti gun politics
5.56 semiauto rifle?
>PSA
Semiauto full size pistol?
>Block, Sig, Smith, HK, CZ...

>>35147378
Shoulda just got the 22/45. Polymer vframe bro

>>35149129
And those options do little better than Ruger. Glock only makes pistols yet they still suck niggerdicks

File: 1014213_02_buffalo_bore_44_mag_heavy_p__640.jpg (43KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x360px

>>35149129
>any revolver?
>>Smith and Wesson
Go ahead, shoot some 340-grain bearfucker .44 mags in your Model 29.
See what happens, assuming they even fit.

>>35149120
Did you replace extractors? What mags?

Is there any way to unfuck the magazines on the Mark III?

>>35149471
What do you think is fucked about them?

>>35145787

It feels ok in the hand.

>>35149380
Both stock. I just use the 10rds as I haven't tried the 25s. The two Butler Creek 25rd mags I used would wear out and cause feeding issues.

>>35148276
>Mossberg, relax I would never own one. There are higher quality shotguns for marginally more. Only mouth breathers buy Mossberg shotguns.
Bait so hard it blinded me

>>35148311
Does it hurt being this fuckjng stupid

>>35148449
What is literally double for 500$, Alex?

>>35148545
>Waaaaaaah, my gun MIGHT only last three life times instead of four

>>35144509
>>35144621
Never change /k/

>>35148693
Kek, no

>People arguing about aluminum in .22 pistols
>Lightweight commanders exist, which do have accelerated wear in comparison to steel framed counterparts, but even then they last for thousands upon thousands of rounds

If you shoot an aluminum Mark X enough to fuck up the frame I'd be surprised if you have any rifling left.

>>35149884
But you can replace barrels far easier than frames.

Besides, aluminum gun parts have value..... in carry guns. Not in target guns. There is nothing wrong with aluminum on a sig, or commander, or AR, or shotgun, or ...

Target pistols don't get humped through the woods, or worn on your hip all day long. Weight on a target pistol is irrelevant, why use any material besides the strongest?

File: redhawk.jpg (1MB, 3263x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3263x2448px

>>35138580
>>35138264
Here's my Redhawk.

>>35149933
>But you can replace barrels far easier than frames.
Why would that be true? On the mark iv you can replace either with supreme ease. In fact the barrel is the harder part to replace for mark ivs since the upper is the part that is serialized

>>35149972
The machining that goes into a barrel is far easier to DIY. Anyone who has used a metal lathe for half an hour can turn a barrel for a .22.

Machining down a frame has a steeper learning curve.

Not to mention that a metal lathe is far easier to run at home than a full size bridgeport.

>>35149933
>Target pistols don't get humped through the woods, or worn on your hip all day long. Weight on a target pistol is irrelevant, why use any material besides the strongest
At face value that is a reasonable question. The problem is when you try to imply an entire model line of firearms are shit because one or two versions of the least expensive model arent made with the best possible material. Theres nothing wrong with the mark iv just the same as there is nothing wrong with the mark iii. The differences between the two are nominal, you are basically paying 40$ to have a redisigned field stripping experience

>>35149575

They feed at a shitty angle - far too low. The Mark II magazines are markedly different, and those feed ammo that the Mark III just won't.

>>35150031
But with that 40 you are also getting a gun with parts that are less tough, and cost less for Ruger to make.

If they reduced the price from mk3 levels, instead of keeping them on par, I would have no issue.

>>35149995
I hope you are joking. 99% of users will bole machining jack shit so what you said makes no difference.

>>35150047
You are paying 10% more for "latest thing". Do you not know how capitalism works? The difference in material is negligible

>>35150051
We are talking about getting the part if the gun fails in 100 years. I do not believe you will be able to order a replacement frame or barrel for a handgun in 100 years. The fact is, any moron with an hour on a lathe can make a barrel. If your frame breaks, tough luck unless you are an experienced machinist.

I have the equipment in my basement to make a new barrel for a ruger mark 3. I dont because I can buy one, but I always can.

Good luck banning billets of carbon steel.

>>35150064
No, you are paying 25% more for the latest thing because you a low education consumer. When Lenovo laptops began lowering their quality while maintaining prices, I bought a Dell Precision 7720. When Dewalt switched from machined gears in their drills to powdered metal, I bought a makita.

Cub Cadet has recently joined the list of companies I will no longer support in the future. Vote with your dollars.

You may be willing to pay for the newest product regardless because it's new, I will not.

>>35150102
>Cub Cadet has recently joined the list of companies I will no longer support in the future.

That... THING is an insult to the late corpse of International Harvester and their Cub.

>>35150102
I love how you act like Makita is any better than DeWalt.

>>35149933
>But you can replace barrels far easier than frames.

On a Ruger Mark X? Good fucking luck. Besides, aftermarket frames exist. Your arguments about weight are immaterial.

>>35150069
Yo, how do those grips treat you with full power loads? I keep wanting to get grips that are like what Taffin shows off in his Book of the .44 pictures but Bear Hug went out of business IIRC.

>>35149939
>If the guns fails
>One of the most popular pistols ever with assloads of aftermarket support
>Uncontrolled part
>Not 3D printing your own frame out of lunar titanium literally a century from now when sexbots are cheap and effective
Just get a rimfire revolver, anon, you're clearly too paranoid to trust semiautomatic mechanisms to outlast the heat-death of the universe.

>>35150277
Not him but let's get real here, Makita is the toughest around. I've been using a Makita grinder at work that's 2 decades old and has been through more brushes than I've seen some Dewalts go through disks without shitting the bed.

>>35150342
>I've been using a Makita grinder at work that's 2 decades old
That's a glowing recommendation of Makita tools from the 90s, but says nothing about their current output.

>>35150277
Makita is superior for drills now.

Makita:
>Samsung battery cells
>Rubber boot on trigger to protect pot
>Machined and hardened gears
>Yukiwa Seiko Chuck
>brushless AC motor
>Fully potted control board

DeWalt
>shit batteries, nominal capacity is WAY off
>Unprotected potentiometer on trigger
>Every single gear is powdered metal
>Shitty made in china Jacobs Chuck
>brushed DC motor, brushes have almost 0 copper content
>Control board has shitty mosfets known to fail

need i go on?

>>35150342
well made corded tools are basically unstoppable

>>35150443
Plus, the cables on Makita tools are the best in the industry. They feel like natural rubber, and never kink or crack.

>>35150384
They're still good. I cracked open a new 18v cordless grinder a year ago and it still has that glorious Makita power tool scent. Hard to describe it but I visualize it as Japanese factory scent.

Basically, Dewalt is for the Mexican day laborer, Makita for the 80k/yr metalworker

>>35150537
The basic $70 makita is superior to the top tier dewalt.

>>35150069
Because 1911 parts are super scarce right? Ffs you are retarded

>>35150102
>40
>25%
You arent too good at maths are you?

>>35150683
You aren't accounting for the lower quality parts. I estimate overall increase in cost at $100 accounting for the lower machine time and material cost.

>>35150784
So they find a way to make an equal quality product cheaper and you want a handout for it? Fuckin commie

>>35151099
>equal quality
let me tell you why thats bullshit...

>>35149089
Smith & Wesson.

File: IMG_9275.jpg (140KB, 600x803px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 600x803px

>>35148436
Congratulations anon. You are the biggest autist I have ever seen on /k/. Again, bravo.

File: 1467213703124.jpg (26KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x375px

>>35148436
>I want a gun that will run flawlessly after 500,000,000 rounds.

>>35141024
What holster do you use?

>>35148894
Talley rings are some of the best

>>35150397
Dewalt is Black and Decker
Need I go on?

>>35150537
We use Metabo pleb.

>>35150537
You judge tool quality... Based on the scent of the packaging?

Jesus goddamn Christ, I knew /k/ is filled with retards but c'mon nigger

>>35153496
Pssst, don't tell anon there is a Makita factory in Telford UK
That drill might have limey or mudblood scent
That anon is such a faggot

>>35153551
There are lots of Asians in the UK.

>>35153955
Hoorah for the Cliff Claven fact of the day

>>35140307
This is bait

>>35149939
Did you file off the warning/rollmark? They really bug me too. Looks great.

>>35154093
So a round that can take down humans doesn't effect deer?

File: another taxpayer-funded Delta safari.jpg (278KB, 640x613px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 640x613px

>>35154093
>he fell for the "5.56 is no good for medium game" meme

>>35145836
It's easier for plebs. Precision rifles are expensive and require patience and skill and are not appealing for the ADD or Call It Duty/AR crews.

I have handguns and ARs. But they're tools. Long range rifles are the only thing I'm actually passionate about.

>>35148706
Never understood the point of bolt guns in 7.62x39. Doesn't make sense to me.

>>35155131
>Precision rifles are expensive and require patience and skill and vast tracts of land that basically don't exist in half the country

>>35155372
>""""""""half""""""""

>>35137794
How did a company that didn't exist until the late 1940's become the biggest firearms manufacturer in the US?

>>35156939
>counting Alaska, as if anybody is going to prone out behind their Arctic Warfare Magnum and enjoy a day of precision shooting in the -40F cold with polar bears constantly wandering onto the range and forcihng ceasefires

I am gay porn hard for ruger. I own
>p95
>sp101 327 fed
>lcr 22 mag
>gp100 357
>redhawk 45 long colt/45 acp
>10/22
>speed six
>mark 2 standard

Ruger and Smith&Wesson are my favorites, I own a Ruger and I'm looking into getting a new S&W

File: Ruger1.jpg (87KB, 481x640px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 481x640px

17 HMR

File: 10222.jpg (245KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 720x1280px

10/22

>>35157177
They never made any major mistakes and didn't get bought out. S&W had to deal with police switching to largely foreign produced semiautos, Colt had to contend with being bought out by assholes who think people care about names more than guns, and Winchester literally has their guns made in Japan or Belgium/Portugal. Don't even get me started on Freedom Group.

They don't do everything right, but the worst that anyone can say about Ruger is that their CQ has slipped in the past few years and Bill was a fudd, and even the latter is irrelevant in the face of $500 AR-556's and 30 round mags slung by them without a single fuck given.

>>35142245
Im a dumbass but what does he mean by that ruger ar has proprietary parts especially the ruger scout mags?

>>35137794
Bros, I just ordered a Ruger 9e. Did i make a good choice?

>>35137794

SR9c
Ruger American .300blk (meme gun, but I like it anyway)
Ruger Silenthawk airgun (licensed, not manufactured)
Ruger AR-556 on the way from Buds.

I like them. Good standards, if a bit cucky on the politics.

>>35138083
Over priced roll marks don't really mean much

>>35161283

The compact ones have better reputations, but for a budget handgun, the 9e is considered pretty good tier. You did fine.

>>35146711
you are cancer

File: 1491081314978.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>35161403
thanks dear

Anybody own the SR22? I'm looking to buy my old lady one. I bought her an LCP but she flinches and anticipates the shot too much to hit anything worth a damn. In her defense though the LCP is just so tiny, there's not much to hold onto. She handles my LC9 just fine and actually prefers it (there's more to hold onto).

Although .22 isn't much for self defense, I'd rather her actually hit something instead of shy away from the shots.

I'm either looking at getting another LC9 or the SR22 for her. Thoughts? Recommendations?

>>35163929
If she shoots the LC9 competently, why not get her one of her own?

>>35159934
That Anon has no idea what's he's talking about

Anyone own a gunsite scout? Was thinking of picking one up in either 308 win or 450 bushmaster. I hear good things but I was wondering if any autists from /k/ had any hands on time with the rifle.

Would mostly be used for hunting in the brush of Texas and such

>>35147239
for one. the MK4 doesn't have that gay loaded chamber indicator.

>>35166678
Fine, neither do the MK1s and MK2s.

>>35148817

>>35167239
Found this in a forum. This guy said it better than I can.


Mk IV is first. Excellent takedown trumps any other feature. I examined one this week with the worse trigger ever! The trigger and mag disco are an easy Volquarson $100 fix then you have a perfect mark pistol with no loaded chamber indicator and the mag disco fixed with a trigger kit.

Mk II, is 2nd with no mag disconnect and improved controls over the MkI, and no chamber indicator. I dont have one yet. I trust the RFC chit chat. I understand some were drilled and tapped.

Mk I, 3rd with nice trigger, no chamber indicator and no disconnect. I dont mind the controls, but MkII is better. I have a last year target model, bone stock.

Mk III, 4th, with awful loaded chamber indicator makes this the worse. Also has a mag disconnect. The trigger on my slab side, seems better than the current IV hunter. Dont know if this is typical or a random variable. You can fix a trigger, the LCI can be removed, but it is a big negative. My MkIII is stock. And take down is miserable on all except the IV. I forgot to add, the MkIII is drilled and tapped for a base, this might bump the gun up one level if that feature is needed.

>>35138158
super blackhawk makes my dick hard

>>35137794
bumping to keep ebin thread alive

>>35159743
>>35159776
Which one do you like better? Which one do you think is the best overall rifle?

Looking to get a 10/22 or American rimfire but i cant decide whether i want rugged simplicity(american) or rapid fire fun(10/22).

Also will be adding a cheap 3-9×40 scope to whichever i decide to buy.

Please halp!

File: 102222.jpg (283KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 720x1280px

>>35173309
the 10/22 by far. Obviously these two guns are for different purposes:

The 17HMR zero'd at 100 yards for long range bolt action shooting

The 10/22 I customized (new stock, charging handle, trigger group, etc) and is a ton of fun for plinking and shooting fast.

they should make a mini-14 in .308

>>35159776
that's really sexy

>>35175708
......anon.

>>35175838
You know, like a... Mega-14.
Or a Maxi-14.

Macro-14

File: AA9126_2.jpg (708KB, 2100x1242px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 2100x1242px

>>35175708
It could look like this

>>35161283

You did ok. It'll do what it's supposed to do.

File: 308 mini 14 leaked concept art.jpg (80KB, 1000x701px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1000x701px

>>35177070
Or like this.

>>35137794
Their QC has come up a bit. Though their AR offering is a bit silly.

Still thinking they should make more of their 1911 clones, and work on a Garand and M-14 offering.

is 500 bucks a good price for a 6 inch security six or 357 blackhawk? been wanting a 357 revolver and my shop has both in stock for the same price.

File: Awesome.png (508KB, 670x288px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 670x288px

>tfw trying to buy a used ruger mark pistol for cheap

It's so hard

>>35138440
Such a sexy gun, I wish they sold one chambered in 9mm.

>>35137794

It really bothers me that they dont have a larger/longer grips available for their pistols.

I want the sr22, but I'm literally hickok45 status.

Also, why the fuck hasnt ruger embraced the adjustable gas block yet?
Their AR's would benefit, and the minis would benefit.

Lastly: will ruger ever create a mini14/300 that uses ar mags?

>>35179276
"Because adjustable gas blocks would price them out of their target market" and "No".

>>35179276
>Lastly: will ruger ever create a mini14/300 that uses ar mags?

And risk upsetting their California butt buddies? Never.

File: 1022.jpg (206KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 720x1280px

>>35175746
Thank you my friend

File: century.png (17KB, 400x125px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 400x125px

>Ruger best American Firearms Company...

Think again. Fuccbois

>>35137794
>hurr durr ruger iz da best!

Ruger is better than hi-point but don't get carried away OP. Their guns are still cast pieces of shit that happen to work *most* of the time.

>>35180036
>cast pieces of shit that happen to work *most* of the time
Most guns contain investment cast and MIM parts these days, this has been the case for many years now - including those overpriced German bricks made by that company who hates you. Ruger still catches a disproportionate amount of shit to this day simply for being pioneers in the field.

>>35180192
>including those overpriced German bricks made by that company who hates you
Glocks?

>>35179852
Kys

>>35180192
>Ruger still catches a disproportionate amount of shit to this day

the amount of shit they receive is perfect for how bad their products are. also, how can you live with yourself? you have such bad taste.

File: xgi.jpg (55KB, 620x410px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 620x410px

>>35175708
Maybe if they ever work out the kinks in the XGI.
Could be a nice rival to the M1a and all the other producers of civillian M14s

>>35181171
I'd definitely rather have an XGI than an M1A.

File: Spec-Sheet.jpg (255KB, 732x1024px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 732x1024px

>>35137794
Assuming you're not baiting, I'm right there with you OP. I love this company. Pic related might just be my first foray into AR ownership, if they would just hurry up and make some shotguns and a centerfire auto pistol that isn't stunningly mediocre I could gladly own nothing but Rugers for the rest of my life.