Plastic ERH on new Bearcats?
- Thread starter Jayhawkhuntclub
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
I was also really upset when they changed the trigger housing on the 10/22 to plastic, but I guess "cheap" is the "in thing" now. They spout all this crap about it being a better trigger setup, but , it's better for who ? Better for Ruger, means CHEAPER, & it really sucks !! I looked at a new 10/22 Stainless, with the "Tupperware Trigger", & I'll probably look for an older used one, thank You Ruger !!!
Even the grips?
So is a plastic ejector rod housing, though I don't think I should have to replace it. Lo-Bo, I don't like the idea either so I hear what you're saying and I'm with you. I have an OM Flattop with plastic grips and I like them just fine because they're original.
if they can 'color' the housing 'correctly', it should hold up better than the anodized aluminums one do, but then one cannot 'buff 'em out and make them "shiny" and into a two tone affair either, oh well...........oh-oh, then theres the grip frames ahead........ :shock:
yankee7809
Single-Sixer
Their starting to sound like my old "Fanner Fifty" from Mattel... Ah grammer school.
Yosemite Sam
Hunter
Yes. In my esteemed opinion, a polymer ejector housing would be inferior to a metal one, and I wouldn't own a single action that was so outfitted. Given that criteria, the plastic housing is "inferior", because it makes an inferior overall product, in my opinion, based on my criteria, for me personally.BlkHawk73":v2f05ss1 said:
I don't care if it "worked", it's still a plastic wart on what should be an all metal gun. If you want one, fine, but please don't try to tell me that putting plastic on something and cheapening its manufacture is somehow not cheapening the whole.
-- Sam
COR
Blackhawk
BlkHawk73":1mge5qom said:
WHAT!?!?! "Shirley" you jest.
Jeff Quinn
Single-Sixer
No truth at all to those ejector rod housings being plastic.
This info is straight from Ruger.
Jeff
This info is straight from Ruger.
Jeff
CraigC
Hawkeye
They are aluminum. My stainless New Bearcat shipped directly from Ruger back in November and it is aluminum. I'm not surprised though, as there are lots of folks on the `net who can't tell the difference between matte blued steel and "spray paint". Like Skeeter said, the world is producing idiots at a rate faster than they can be consumed.....and they all have internet access. Of course, I would reply to the thread at TFL but I was banned a few months ago for confronting this very kind of idiot. :roll:
While it's annoying from a traditionalist view, the plastic 10/22 trigger housing actually is a better quality part than the older alloy ones.
Ruger switched because aluminum is more abrasive to the casting molds than polymer. Those were cast in gang molds, with multiple cavities. The cavities wore unevenly, which was leaving molds with one or two cavities that were worn out while the others were still usable. Since molds are not cheap, it wasn't economically feasible to toss one out when just one cavity might be unusable, so Ruger would continue to use the mold till other cavities wore out, but obviously at reduced capacity since the bad cavity couldn't be filled on each pour along with the good ones that could.
That was inefficient from a manufacturing process, and negatively affected Ruger.
The part that negatively affected us, the buyers, was that as molds began to wear at different rates, the quality of the castings from a given mold was variable. Those used on production guns had to remain within certain tolerance ranges, but edges might be a little less squared on some, overall dimensions might be a tiny fraction larger on some, pinholes might be a little less precise on some, and so on.
That sometimes resulted in what you could probably consider a "sloppier" overall fit. Which is NOT saying such guns were sloppy in themselves or shoddily made.
It also sometimes meant more time might be needed by an assembler on some guns in correcting very minor imperfections.
The 10/22 was designed to be a mass-produced item, and each time one or more guns requires more individual attention than others it slows down the production process.
Polymer wears the molds at a more even and slower rate, which allows Ruger to continue using them at full-pour-capacity longer, and it also produces more uniform trigger housings with more uniform pinholes & other critical dimensions.
Polymer housings are also much stronger than aluminum counterparts. A drop on an alloy housing will either bend it or break it entirely, an equivalent drop on a polymer housing may scratch or nick it, but won't otherwise harm it.
I'm a traditionalist myself, but I have to admit I can see the sense of the change in materials here.
It actually does benefit both Ruger AND the consumer.
Denis
Ruger switched because aluminum is more abrasive to the casting molds than polymer. Those were cast in gang molds, with multiple cavities. The cavities wore unevenly, which was leaving molds with one or two cavities that were worn out while the others were still usable. Since molds are not cheap, it wasn't economically feasible to toss one out when just one cavity might be unusable, so Ruger would continue to use the mold till other cavities wore out, but obviously at reduced capacity since the bad cavity couldn't be filled on each pour along with the good ones that could.
That was inefficient from a manufacturing process, and negatively affected Ruger.
The part that negatively affected us, the buyers, was that as molds began to wear at different rates, the quality of the castings from a given mold was variable. Those used on production guns had to remain within certain tolerance ranges, but edges might be a little less squared on some, overall dimensions might be a tiny fraction larger on some, pinholes might be a little less precise on some, and so on.
That sometimes resulted in what you could probably consider a "sloppier" overall fit. Which is NOT saying such guns were sloppy in themselves or shoddily made.
It also sometimes meant more time might be needed by an assembler on some guns in correcting very minor imperfections.
The 10/22 was designed to be a mass-produced item, and each time one or more guns requires more individual attention than others it slows down the production process.
Polymer wears the molds at a more even and slower rate, which allows Ruger to continue using them at full-pour-capacity longer, and it also produces more uniform trigger housings with more uniform pinholes & other critical dimensions.
Polymer housings are also much stronger than aluminum counterparts. A drop on an alloy housing will either bend it or break it entirely, an equivalent drop on a polymer housing may scratch or nick it, but won't otherwise harm it.
I'm a traditionalist myself, but I have to admit I can see the sense of the change in materials here.
It actually does benefit both Ruger AND the consumer.
Denis
CraigC
Hawkeye
I agree Denis, as usual. Lots of unfounded complaining about the switch to polymer trigger housings. IMHO, there's blued steel and then there's everything else. So to me, polymer is a step forward. We all know how ugly anodized or coated aluminum gets when it wears. This eliminates that issue entirely. I have to assume this is the same polymer they use on pistol frames, not cheap ABS plastic like some folks pretend. The serious tinkerers are gonna change the whole trigger group anyway so for them, it is all moot. The 10/22 was always an inexpensive .22 rifle so I'm not sure what folks expect for $200. Perhaps too much?
I just don't want any plastic on my sixguns and ivory micarta doesn't count!
I just don't want any plastic on my sixguns and ivory micarta doesn't count!
Yup, it's not a cheap ABS plastic, it's a quality polymer & there IS a difference.
And- the oogly finish wear you get on aluminum certainly is avoided with polymer.
Aside from the various polymer grip concoctions, I would not buy or own a sixgun with plastic on it.
The Python I bought in '94 had a plastic front sight blade that so offended me it was immediately replaced with a steel version.
Denis
And- the oogly finish wear you get on aluminum certainly is avoided with polymer.
Aside from the various polymer grip concoctions, I would not buy or own a sixgun with plastic on it.
The Python I bought in '94 had a plastic front sight blade that so offended me it was immediately replaced with a steel version.
Denis
Yeah, I don't have an issue with the functionality of the poly parts, but the idea of it sure rubs me the wrong way.
Why, yes, I am a curmudgeon . . .
Why, yes, I am a curmudgeon . . .
Yosemite Sam
Hunter
I've often thought that somewhere, back in the day, some guy was complaining about the pre-war S&W models that are all the rage now: "It's not like my pappy's gun! They done screwed it up by putting this second lock on it", or something.DPris":1iy01ndj said:There were probably old troopers who griped about the change from iron to steel in early Colt Peacemakers, too.
I feel the same way on the poly issue. Emotionally, it's just not right. Intellectually, everybody wins.
Denis
I will still go to great lengths to avoid plastic (be it "high quality ABS/fiber reinforced nylon" or not) on guns where it doesn't belong. I own a couple of Glocks, a Walther PPS, an LCP, and other poly guns, where plastic is inherent to the design. It isn't an inherent part of a single action revolver (and yes, I realize it's been resolved that this isn't an issue). Personally, I gave up on the 10/22 some time ago.
-- Sam
