woodsy
Blackhawk
Apparently, this person (Conservative) is beyond appreciating any constructive replies. He/she prefers to rant instead of having the problem resolved. Time to close the thread, methinks.
Conservative said:For some Ruger is a deity - for me it's just a tool and my particular tool purchase has led to maximum frustration and I will say so even if it chaps the buttocks of the diehards...
Yeah, maybe the got the idea from Windows operating systemsFergusonTO35 said:Ruger is perfectly capable of making good guns, and usually does. The biggest problem is that they are rushing so many new models to market and letting the customer do QC .
5of7 said:Yeah, maybe the got the idea from Windows operating systemsFergusonTO35 said:Ruger is perfectly capable of making good guns, and usually does. The biggest problem is that they are rushing so many new models to market and letting the customer do QC .
Conservative said:Took it to the range yesterday.
Oh, I bought a 7 round magazine as an additional magazine to the one that came with the pistol.
After the first 50 or so rounds, the gun started to fail to go into battery or fail to eject.
I've never had so many failures and yes, I know how to shoot and what limp wristing is all about. That wasn't the problem. I have other pistols that have never failed me.
I will go through one maybe two more range efforts and if it continues to fail, (it's broken in with approximately 250/300 rounds shot) I'm gonna retire it. It could serve as a paper weight as I wouldn't give this (no, I'd NEVER sell this to anyone) who would use it to defend themselves with.
My ammo ranged from Blazer 115 grain, FMJ to Fiochhi 115 grain (sp?) to Lawman 147 FMJ and HST 147 grain JHP's.
My Glock 19's will fire all of the above without a hiccup.
My estimation of this pistol is: Don't carry it for self defense as it's unreliable.
I bought it because I thought: Light, dependable, certain that all the reviews could be depended on. I wanted a sub-compact for house and yard carry.
What my experience is: It often fails to go into battery or fails to eject and on and on and on.
You get what you pay for...
As stated earlier, if it continues to fail, (it's already been sent back to Ruger for other problems) I'll retire it, and buy a Glock 43.
Glocks are dependable.
I have 2 that have never failed to perform, ever.
Ruger's quality is dismal...
Conservative said:Took it to the range yesterday.
Oh, I bought a 7 round magazine as an additional magazine to the one that came with the pistol.
After the first 50 or so rounds, the gun started to fail to go into battery or fail to eject.
I've never had so many failures and yes, I know how to shoot and what limp wristing is all about. That wasn't the problem. I have other pistols that have never failed me.
I will go through one maybe two more range efforts and if it continues to fail, (it's broken in with approximately 250/300 rounds shot) I'm gonna retire it. It could serve as a paper weight as I wouldn't give this (no, I'd NEVER sell this to anyone) who would use it to defend themselves with.
My ammo ranged from Blazer 115 grain, FMJ to Fiochhi 115 grain (sp?) to Lawman 147 FMJ and HST 147 grain JHP's.
My Glock 19's will fire all of the above without a hiccup.
My estimation of this pistol is: Don't carry it for self defense as it's unreliable.
I bought it because I thought: Light, dependable, certain that all the reviews could be depended on. I wanted a sub-compact for house and yard carry.
What my experience is: It often fails to go into battery or fails to eject and on and on and on.
You get what you pay for...
As stated earlier, if it continues to fail, (it's already been sent back to Ruger for other problems) I'll retire it, and buy a Glock 43.
Glocks are dependable.
I have 2 that have never failed to perform, ever.
Ruger's quality is dismal...
Conservative said:Lemons pop up in anything manufactured.
Conservative said:jstanfield103,
Thank you for your understanding response.
Armybrat,
Thank you too, and yes, my comment was sweeping, but I fear not that far off the mark. Ruger QC is not what it once was.
Being the persistent cuss that I am, I will continue to shoot it with the hopes as more rounds are expended it'll get better, smooth out if you will, failure to feed or eject becoming a thing of the past, if not it'll either be a paper weight or I'll cut it up into little bitty throw away pieces. I wouldn't give this pistol to anyone as they may actually attempt to depend on it...
As mentioned earlier, the mag it came with performs admirably, the extra 3 I bought to supplement it have all failed to either feed or eject properly. Everyone were Ruger products, not something that'll fit a Ruger, but genuine Ruger products sold by... (in this case Midway). So, they weren't chinese knock offs or something sold by a disreputable supplier.
I have some experience with Sig and once had a failure. So gun failures and me aren't unknown, but not at the level I'm currently experiencing with the LC9S. However Glock, Colt, Savage, plus many others I've had, were outstanding in their dependability.
I've only been on this forum for a short time and see others complaining about this and that regarding Ruger quality problems.
I'm not the only one experiencing problems with poor Ruger quality, who previously I thought of as a high to premium quality and perhaps gave them to much credit...? Thus my constant problems with their products have led me to a level of frustration as to make sweeping comments about them.
Here's a kicker: I usually buy high quality, but broke down and bought a Hi-Point 9mm carbine as a truck gun. I've run about a 1000 rounds through it without a single hiccup. Two other people shot it also with ever encountering a problem.
Odd, we disparage some mfg's, but if their products don't fail...
Then we buy one we expect to perform and it consistently doesn't - am I going to complain...?
Yes, yes I am and the hardcore Ruger fans go amuck.
For some Ruger is a deity - for me it's just a tool and my particular tool purchase has led to maximum frustration and I will say so even if it chaps the buttocks of the diehards...
I don't think the OP will answer your questions, because he/she is a "knocker", who simply wishes to complain. For what reason, I don't know, since the OP cannot cite any specifics. Better for us all to take it with a humongous grain of salt. My LC9sPro has been flawless with all reasonable ammo, besides the deliberately-loaded weak handloads, just to see how low it will accept. Perhaps the thread should be "frozen", lacking any meaningful input from the OP.CoyoteHunter_ said:Conservative:
Did you do an initial cleaning and lubing of the gun before taking it out to the shooting range?
You mentioned several different types of ammo that you used in the gun.
But you failed to mention which ammo you were using when the gun failed?
I've written about certain Hornady Critical Duty 9mm FlexLock 135 gr 9 mm ammo that fails to feed in all three of the different type of Ruger LC9s Pro gun magazines. It's more due to the shape of the bullets head not staking on top of each other and the design of the feed ramp that makes the gun jam. The top bullet will nose down and stick on the bottom of the feed ramp when I use this ammo.
When I use Blazer Brass 9mm 115 gr FMJ bullets they stack perfectly and feed reiiablly all day long.
So could you please make a note as to which ammo caused you gun to not fire properly? Did they all ftf or just one of them. I'm doing research on this subject and would like some feedback.
Did you buy the Pro Mag type magazines for your Ruger Pistol or did you buy the Ruger Italian made magazines or the ones made by Ruger in the USA?