Ruger Fit and Finish

[jhco50]

I found a small gun shop today and decided to visit it for a look see. It was small but had a good selection of all kinds of guns.

I eased over to the Ruger Single action case To look at the pretties and my jaw dropped! I have never seen such crap in all my life. The grip frames were proud all over where they met the frame of the gun and where the top of the frame was supposed to curve into the frame (near the hammer) they stood a good 1/8" above the frame!

The stocks didn't follow the frame all the way around and had gaps at the front where it met the the grip frame near the main frame. I will be honest, Heritage arms fits there cheap Single actions better than these were put together.

Have you guys found this in your areas? If so what is going on at Ruger that they are putting out such junk?

 

[stantheman86]

Ruger is not known for 100% perfect fit and finish, they just make guns that work forever and never break. I've seen some of the more recent Colt Peacemakers and they didn't look too perfect either.

My 1976 Blackhawk has a grip frame that is not 100% flush, nor do the grips fit 100% perfectly but the gun shoots great and will outlast any overpriced Colt or crap Italian clone.

You can spend $300 more for a S&W that will have better cosmetic spit and polish,but will last 1/2 as long :D

 

[flatgate]

The latest Ruger single actions that have been included in my collection are the best "fit and finish" guns I've seen from SR&Co. since those fabulous High Polish Supers from the '60's!

flatgate

 

[BlkHawk73]

I've found the newer stuff to be very well done as well. They're strong, durable, long-lasting firearms that don't break the bank to own. For that, you can occasionally expect a bit of "oops" here or there. Remember, mass production doesn't really allow for precisely fitted everything. If one demands such finely fitted lines and mated surfaces, there's alwys the Freedom Arms stuff at $1000+. :D

 

[TiteGroups]

The last new rugers I bought was a year ago. flat tops, fit and finish was very good on them.

 

[rugerguy]

bottom line were they "brand new, latest models" OR just 'newer'?? ones that may have been altered, swapped around, played with or so called "customized" most we see like that,SOMEONE else changed the grip frame or even the grips....we do recall the early Ruger stainless Vaqueros, had poor fitting wood grips, the metal stuck out almost all the way around..........
maybe these are a "batch" of some yet, unheard of, "seconds"???? :roll: 8) :wink:

 

[ExMachina]

Just got a brand new Ruger Flattop. Overall the gun is fit okay, but there are noticeable imperfections like a bent front sight, a buggered gripframe screw head and several small dings in the finish.

But the gun works where it needs to--bore is polished, timing is perfect, lockup is tight and the barrel-cylinder gap is ideal.

 

[gak]

+1 the current New Vaqueros (.357 Montado and .44 Sp most recent in my case) have been particularly great, but I have no complaints with my ten or so Ruger SAs--Single Six .22 and .32s, and Vaqueros and NVs..

EDIT: I have to say that I have not been as charmed by the newer Single Sixes (esp blued) versus older (but still NM) ones.

 

[Cholo]

I've seen some poorly fit Single Sixes with aluminum grip frames in the last few years. I can't say it's as bad as in the OP, but I wouldn't have bought 3 out of 4 of them. IMHO, their fit and finish is below those of years past. The few all steel Blackhawks I've handled in the same time period were very well fit. I don't see many Ruger SA's at the gun shows, and my newest SA is a mid 90's Bearcat I bought new, so my sampling is small in the scheme of things.

Sure some lemons get out Ruger's door from time to time. I like to handle any new gun I buy. It doesn't take long to find a good one that's met my satisfaction over the years.

 

[WAYNO]

I obviously shop in a different store.

I buy and shoot more new Rugers than the average bumpkin, and I'm thoroughly impressed with what Ruger's been turning out.

I also think that if a body wants to find crap, he'll find it anywhere he looks.

WAYNO.

 

[stantheman86]

So what is the original poster's intent with this post?

To alert the Ruger Forum that Ruger Single Actions do not leave the factory in perfect 100% flawless fit and finish? :lol:

I think I'll stop by the Glock forum and tell them their guns have plastic frames and I don't like them.......

Do you like getting NIB Blackhawks, Vaqueros, etc. for $500 or so, or do you want to pay $800-1000 and have them look a little "prettier"..........

Either way they work the same. When you can get a gun for $500 that will put 150,000+ rounds down the pipe and never need anything, are you gonna fault it for having a little metal that stands out from the wood, or maybe a few rough spots in the blue?

Like I said, with S&W you're paying hundreds more for a pretty gun that isn't as strong as a Ruger..........but then, the S&W stainless guns aren't even that finely fitted anymore, and the blue is more of a spotty matte on the new "Classics", so are new S&W's even worth $700-1000 anymore?

If you want perfect, go spend $10,000 and get a Korth :P

When you find a SA wheelgun that lasts longer than a new Ruger, AND is also priced for the real working man............AND also has perfect fit and finish, come back and let us know.

Some people want perfect looking guns, but then the same people don't want to pay for anything........so what DO you want? Manufacturers lower prices, cut corners on production to keep the WalMart minded gun buyers happy, and people still find a reason to complain.

 

[hutchman]

Nicely put Wayno!

 

[Stoots]

WAYNO and stantheman86:

:D

 

[steamloco76]

I purchased a New GP-100 six inch blued back in 1989 an it has been a superb gun mechanically and accuracy wise. Cosmetically- it wasn't exactly polished to a high shine before being blued and the bluing wore off the muzzle and trigger guard very quickly.

Yesterday, I picked up a used (barley) 2010 production GP-100 four inch blued. It was polished MUCH better before being blued and is much shinier when clean than my older model.

Both are built like the proverbial 'bank vault'.

 

[Cholo]

stantheman86, your attack dog mentality is lost on me. You said what you had to say in your OP. I said what I had to say. WAYNO and others posted what they had to say. You then came back empowered to post your last post. What's up with that? Do you need confirmation to post what you really think about it?

The OP stated his amazement with the new Rugers he saw. His flaw was using the words crap and junk, something I strongly disagree with; though I've seen examples that weren't up to par and might fit that statement. I certainly don't feel that way about all new Rugers in general.

I own many brands of firearms, though Ruger SA's are my favorite. Post as you wish, I do. Maybe next time post how you feel in your initial post without the backing of other Forum members. It's called growing a pair.

As always, just my dos centavos that won't buy you a cheap burrito in Tijuana...

 

[COR]

The answer is ...you saw the exception, not the rule, and I find the New FT models to be well put together and great shooters. If they are so bad make a lowball offer and you'll have a great base gun to send to any custom smith to suit your needs in a single action. Rugers will shoot where you aim them and I consider them a bargain. I'll leave your Heritage comment alone.

You act as though those are the first Rugers you ever saw...

 

[stantheman86]

Check your PM there, Cholo............

 

[jhco50]

My original post was from disappointment. I have several Rugers, older ones. These I saw were just very poor and I was amazed they were on a gun shelf. I must confess, there were 2 really nice ones and both were SS. All of the crappy looking ones were blue Vaquero's except for one blackhawk.

I can only tell you what I saw and what I saw I would not under any circumstances buy.

Don't feel bad. I also saw the new S&W's with MIM parts. The MIM parts were not hiding at all. They looked like the hammers off a cap pistol.

 

[Major T]

I do not have a large collection of Ruger revolvers. A blue Bearcat 8-10 years old, an anniversary .44 flat top age 5, a ss .44 special flat top a year or so old, and a newer ss single six convertible. Fit and finish on all four is excellent to outstanding. Now then, they all needed help on the triggers, but this is something that I can do on an hour or so downtime. The .44 special FT had the nearest to a good trigger out of the box. (My two OLD .22 semi-autos are outstanding other than the 40 and 50 years of hard use.) I am quite happy with my Rugers' quality, especially when you consider the prices. jt

 

[Stoots]

I also saw the new S&W's with MIM parts. The MIM parts were not hiding at all. They looked like the hammers off a cap pistol.

So?

Are you familiar with MIM? Or is this a knee jerk "the old ones aren't made that way" respose?

Many firearm makers use MIM. Ruger is starting to. Glock has for a while.

MIM is used in aerospace engineering applications as well. Done properly (as Ruger, Glock, Smith, etc. demand), the resulting part is of incredible strength and precision.

What's the gripe with MIM?

 

[SteveRuger]

I was @ Sportsmen Warehouse yesterday & was looking @ Rugers all New Stuff. I feel they were all great quaility wise even the No.1 I looked at had nice wood stock on it. IMHO

 

[P90]

Here's a new Ruger that came from the Factory with a excellent trigger and finish. It has since been Engraved, but the original finish was good.

 

[Stoots]

Picked this one up this week. Fit and finish is superb!

 

[steamloco76]

I also saw the new S&W's with MIM parts. The MIM parts were not hiding at all. They looked like the hammers off a cap pistol.

So?

Are you familiar with MIM? Or is this a knee jerk "the old ones aren't made that way" respose?
Many firearm makers use MIM. Ruger is starting to. Glock has for a while.
MIM is used in aerospace engineering applications as well. Done properly (as Ruger, Glock, Smith, etc. demand), the resulting part is of incredible strength and precision.
What's the gripe with MIM?

I'm pretty active on the Smith & Wesson Forum. I own and shoot both older and brand new S&W's. The older models have a definite charm and character all their own. The old 'Carbona' blue process gave a finish that can't be exactly duplicated today and the workmanship involved in hand-fitting the old forged actions is impressive.

Guess what- the best overall trigger on ANY of my S&W's is on a recent production model 67-6 .38 Special. MIM hammer, trigger and lockwork. Two piece tensioned barrel and the dreaded (stupid it is) internal lock. The revolver is a joy to shoot S/A or D/A and is far more accurate than I can hold most days. The other newer S&W's I own with MIM part are excellent guns too.

It is a shame that so many gun owners and collectors instantly HATE any new technology introduced to the gun manufacturing process. Ruger, S&W, Glock and others need to find ways to make an incredibly high quality product that the average shooter/collector can actually afford. How many of us can afford a $6,000 revolver (Korth) that is completely hand assembled and fitted? Also. for those of us who purchase the older used versions- can you imagine how high the demand for and price of those guns would go if nobody purchased the new versions?

Try the new guns-you will probably really like them.

 

[41puka]

Mine have been very well fitted and and shoot great, except for one:

• - 357 New Vaquero stainless.....perfect fit...accurate
  
  - 44 Special blued....perfect fit...accurate
  
  - 41 Magnum blued.....poor fit...chipped paint.....but accurate!

Only pattern that stands out has been the ALUMINUM gripframe and ERH used on the 41 Magnum. The first two are steel gripframes and ERH.

In the end, I removed the paint finish on the 41 mag that was put on by the factory. Then, gently filed down the gripframe ears to mate better with the cylinder frame, and finally repainted with rattle-can epoxy appliance paint.

Now the 41 mag looks great too. :D

 

[stantheman86]

I finally saw an SP101 with the MIM trigger and they really don't look bad at all. Looks like the old cast trigger with a hollow line on the back.

MIM is actually a better and longer wearing material for parts like hammers and triggers. People will complain about MIM all day long, regardless of the fact that the DA pull and SA break will be better than the older cast part guns, the parts will last longer, and new parts can be dropped in without fitting.

I have a few new S&W's, and the actions are great. Also keep in mind S&W no longer services the pre-MIM revolvers, apparently unless you call, use the secret password and say "pretty please" :P I know a few guys who had older S&W's refused for service, but a couple sent back older forged part revolvers and S&W "found"' some old parts to fix them..........

These days, anyone with a lap top is an instant "reviewer" and a critic, which is a good thing but it is not helpful to anyone when these "reviews" consist of "new Rugers and S&W's are crap". With no info as to their performance as actual guns, just "they look like garbage" 8)

 

[Anonymous]

On my three SAs the frame / trigger guard fits are excellent.

Only fit issue is a tiny bit of barrel thread exposed around the forcing cone on the Bearcats.

My Single Six had exposed threads of the frame hole for the barrel, a least a turn short! And the top strap is lightly "threaded" just above the cone. I guess barrel thread tap was inserted a little deep. I sent it back to Ruger with an .011" barrel / cylinder gap. Got it back .0045, with barrel threading nice and neat.

 

[29 Wheelgunner]

Every Ruger single action I have purchased in the last 10 years has been better than expected for a massed produced firearm.

 

[jhco50]

I also saw the new S&W's with MIM parts. The MIM parts were not hiding at all. They looked like the hammers off a cap pistol.

So?

Are you familiar with MIM? Or is this a knee jerk "the old ones aren't made that way" respose?

Many firearm makers use MIM. Ruger is starting to. Glock has for a while.

MIM is used in aerospace engineering applications as well. Done properly (as Ruger, Glock, Smith, etc. demand), the resulting part is of incredible strength and precision.

What's the gripe with MIM?

No, I am not real familiar with MIM. What I saw looked like a regular hamer that was hollowed out on the sides. The hollows looked like cast finish (rough) and were painted black.

If this is fine with buyers, I'm not going to knock it. I wouldn't care for it, but I am old and my guns are old. I personally think the manufacturers are doing us a disservice by making their products as cheap as they can in order to widen their profit margin. Using what I consider sub-standard materials to make up for the lack of quality workmanship is not going to profit in the long term unless they convince the buyers that their shortcuts are better.

I can only be honest in what I saw, and the feelings I felt on the products I looked at. I did not feel that fuzzy feeling of looking at a quality firearm in either case. I don't mean to upset people and this is just my feelings. If you like where our passion is going, buy them. They will keep making what is purchased. I for one cannot bring myself to let loose my limited money on products I don't like.

 

[Stoots]

If this is fine with buyers, I'm not going to knock it. I wouldn't care for it, but I am old and my guns are old. I personally think the manufacturers are doing us a disservice by making their products as cheap as they can in order to widen their profit margin. Using what I consider sub-standard materials to make up for the lack of quality workmanship is not going to profit in the long term unless they convince the buyers that their shortcuts are better.

Those are fair opinions and you are certainly entitled to them. The manufacturers are doing no 'disservice' my making some parts MIM; in fact, many parts that in the past had to be hand-fitted can now be made to exact specs with MIM, and as such can now be made as a 'drop-in' replacement.

And the MIM process may be cheaper to make an identical part in strength as opposed to cast. As a Ruger stockholder, I'm OK with that. I want American companies to widen their profit margins and make money. I want gun companies to succeed.

You used the phrase 'sub-standard materials'. Below are some links to information and tensile strength tests done on MIM vs Cast, etc. If you have some evidence of mass MIM failures (failures more common as opposed to milled, forged or cast parts of the same make and use) as a result of MIM being sub-standard in any way, post it up; I'd be interested in seeing it.


http://www.theplasticsconsultant.com/library/plastic_articles/all_about_metal_injection_molding.pdf

"MIM reportedly is around 98% as dense as wrought iron so it is better than investment casting for strength in small parts. Tensile strength of properly treated MIM parts is close to that of mill forged steel."

http://www.ssisintered.com/MIM_index.html

http://www.kinetics.com/

http://www.phillipsplastics.com/capabilities/processes/metal-injection-molding-mim

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=5620174

Edit to add: After manufacturing, the MIM parts can (if the end-user wishes) undergo the same hardness heat treating that cast, milled or forged parts can.