MTbisley44 said:Any updates for us?
Yawn said:I think it should become a frequent flier back to prescott asap. You shouldnt have he fix of one problem to cause another.
Yawn said:Well, I agree to that... but i would give Ruger one last chance first. Actually, i would give them one more chsnce before I just demanded a brand new firearm from them.
Bear Paw Jack said:Sorry to hear that. I know you were excited about the gun when you got it. Believe I would call Ruger and talk to the supervisor on this and see what he says.
That's what I have stated also. On the other hand, at well over a dollar per round for higher-velocity factory ammo, if they tested too much with this stuff, it would erase any profit on such a gun. :wink:Cholo said:WAYNO, that's really disappointing. For the life of me I can't figure why Ruger would test them with low powered rounds. That's almost like testing their .357's with .38's.
Heliman said:Yawn said:Well, I agree to that... but i would give Ruger one last chance first. Actually, i would give them one more chsnce before I just demanded a brand new firearm from them.
WAYNO and I shoot together. Lately we have been trying to iron out problems with cycling/feeding high power rounds. I have had an occasional failure with my SR, but WAYNO's pistol jam's quite a bit more. We have done a lot of expensive testing and trials at the range, but still the problem exists. I personally think, at this point, that it is a recoil spring issue. Ruger spring rate 18/19 lbs. Wilson Combat shows springs in the 19 lb. range for 45 +P , but 24 lb for 10mm/460 Rowland. Now, will the spring be too heavy for standard loads? Dunno, but higher spring rate may be the answer.... OR just send it back to Ruger.
Dave
Cholo said:WAYNO, that's really disappointing. For the life of me I can't figure why Ruger would test them with low powered rounds. That's almost like testing their .357's with .38's.
WAYNO said:Cholo said:WAYNO, that's really disappointing. For the life of me I can't figure why Ruger would test them with low powered rounds. That's almost like testing their .357's with .38's.
That's what I have stated also. On the other hand, at well over a dollar per round for higher-velocity factory ammo, if they tested too much with this stuff, it would erase any profit on such a gun.
cmonti77 said:This has been a pretty eye-opening thread with regard Ruger's present QC, and reinforces my appreciate for this forum. I was seriously considering one of those new 'target' SR-1911's (albeit the 9mm version) but now I think I'll wait for Coonan to make a 9mm.
Heliman said:I just got off the phone with Ruger Customer Service regarding this issue with "powder puff +P" loads as it pertains to failure to feed issues. He repeatedly said that this pistol is engineered to handle "standard SAAMI loadings". I finally got the guy to say it is not designed to handle +P+ loads.
Dave
WAYNO said:Heliman said:I just got off the phone with Ruger Customer Service regarding this issue with "powder puff +P" loads as it pertains to failure to feed issues. He repeatedly said that this pistol is engineered to handle "standard SAAMI loadings". I finally got the guy to say it is not designed to handle +P+ loads.
Dave
But we're not talking +P+ loads. We're talking SAAMI loads at the upper end of the factory loaded 10mm spectrum. Why would he feel the need to mention +P+ loads? Is this how they're trying to get out of any responsibility?
cmonti77 said:This has been a pretty eye-opening thread with regard Ruger's present QC, and reinforces my appreciate for this forum. I was seriously considering one of those new 'target' SR-1911's (albeit the 9mm version) but now I think I'll wait for Coonan to make a 9mm.