jhearne said:
Ruger uses a pretty heavy and generous coating of grease and a lighter oil to protect them for storage as said above. It doesn't have to explain the grit, just has to bring logic to your sarcastic observation/explanation of your own MKIII.
Ever look at the extractor on your MKIII and see what it's face looks like? Do you shoot dirty ammo? Ruger also shoots a decent number of rounds before they ship a gun to verify proper function, it's likely they don't clean the gun afterwards but just wipe easily accessible faces down. If they tear into the gun to clean it, they'd have to check for function again and reshoot it, getting it dirty again. My MKIII can never stay clean, I've yet to find a clean .22LR ammo....then again, with 250+ rounds per range trip, I'd expect a politician to tell me the truth before I'd expect to come home with a clean gun.
Josh
Hi Josh,
Yes my comments above are sarcastic, and yet, I still haven't heard a plausible explanation as to why there is metal shavings and grit in new guns coming from the factory, except that these conditions made it past Ruger's quality controls.
I don't know what kind of ammo ruger is testing guns with then. I just finished cleaning my mkIII after 1k rounds of very dirty bulk ammo, and the controls and action were not gritty at all.
I had sent another mkIII hunter (which I no longer own) back to the factory, they fired 50 rounds through it and sent it back to me. If that's what they do to test a gun that has known issues, I doubt that they would fire any more than 50 rounds through a new pistol.
Now, I can't seriously complain about having to clean up a gun that cost 280, but is in many ways, just as good as guns costing 3x the amount. I will, however, feel free to make sarcastic comments about Ruger's amazing attention to detail.
Cheers,
