I’ve read through this thread and learned a few things I didn’t know, for example why Rugers in general aren’t a good platform to build custom. That’s fair enough but I think most guys, myself included, who buy them are just looking to get a foot in the door. I paid $950 new for mine and changed a few accessories out on it more for comfort then accuracy and I’m in it for less then $1500 (before glass). Accuracy wise i average around 5/8 moa at distance. I get that it may not be benchrest quality but I think a guy could be competitive at a PRS type match, maybe not win but at least hang around. I look at the RPR as a great starting point where I can learn as much as possible (windy days are fun) before going to a custom. Heck Krieger and several others make drop in replacement barrels now so one could even go that route after the factory barrel is toast. The shooting sport in general needs to get more younger people my age involved so I’m all for the RPR great way to get started without spending a fortune.
What's so bad about Ruger?
- Thread starter miningshawn
- Start date
You are right, but in 92 or 93 when the stakes were high is when Ruger said high cap magazines were not needed. It never sits well when a gun company goes against the grain.
I have no feelings for Ruger either way, I've just never been that interested in any of their products. other than I did look at a #1 once.
I'm not bad mouthing their product, I've had my ass handed to me in a prairie dog town by a couple # 77's in 220 swift.
The ‘92 Palma rifles they furnished for the US Palma Team didn’t win them any laurels, as they appeared to be designed by a committee that didn’t have a clue what rifle matches were all about. They used crap barrels on rifles that were intended to be used by some of the best US shooters in a prestigious International competition. The guns didn’t shoot, and in the end I think only one US shooter used the Ruger in the match; the rest used their own guns, with most of these being a last minute switch forced upon them by the problems with the Rugers. That didn’t help. And this was with the offer that the guns could be kept, free, by any US shooters who used them in the matches.
My own “last straw” was a couple Vaqueros I purchased when they first came out, including a 38/40 and a 44/40. Nothing seriously wrong with the 38/40, or a matching 45 Colt I bought along with the others. The 44/40, however, wouldn’t keep more than half the rounds fired on a target paper at 25 yards. Seriously, disastrous accuracy. In doing some measurements after a few groups, the problem became obvious; Ruger had changed some dimensions, obviously without putting any thought into the changes. The original 44/40s normally ran nominal .425” to .427” diameter grooves, using comparable projectiles. With the current production, they apparently made a reasonable decision to utilize the now standard .429” projectiles common to the rest of the .44 caliber line now in use. I thought that was perfectly reasonable, and had no argument with that line of thought. However, if you’re going to change the bore/groove dimensions, don’t you think you’d change the chamber throat dimensions to match? Ruger didn’t see it that way, as I found when I started micing the cylinder. So, we had a .429” bullet, being violently swaged down upon firing, exiting a .425” throat in the cylinder, then rattling its way down a .429” barrel. When I called Ruger, I explained the problem and was told that the gun was “in spec.” Yes, I understood that, but couldn’t seem to get them to understand that the specs were what was wrong. I ran into Bill Atkinson at the NRA or SHOT show sometime after, and chatted with him about this. He shook his head and muttered that he’d “told those idiots” that they needed to change these dimensions, but they hadn’t listened to him. He told me to send the gun in to him, which I did. It returned a week or so later, with the chambers reamed out to .429” in the throat. The gun shot pretty well after that. Those, however, were the last Rugers I ever bought. Likely to stay that way, too.
My own “last straw” was a couple Vaqueros I purchased when they first came out, including a 38/40 and a 44/40. Nothing seriously wrong with the 38/40, or a matching 45 Colt I bought along with the others. The 44/40, however, wouldn’t keep more than half the rounds fired on a target paper at 25 yards. Seriously, disastrous accuracy. In doing some measurements after a few groups, the problem became obvious; Ruger had changed some dimensions, obviously without putting any thought into the changes. The original 44/40s normally ran nominal .425” to .427” diameter grooves, using comparable projectiles. With the current production, they apparently made a reasonable decision to utilize the now standard .429” projectiles common to the rest of the .44 caliber line now in use. I thought that was perfectly reasonable, and had no argument with that line of thought. However, if you’re going to change the bore/groove dimensions, don’t you think you’d change the chamber throat dimensions to match? Ruger didn’t see it that way, as I found when I started micing the cylinder. So, we had a .429” bullet, being violently swaged down upon firing, exiting a .425” throat in the cylinder, then rattling its way down a .429” barrel. When I called Ruger, I explained the problem and was told that the gun was “in spec.” Yes, I understood that, but couldn’t seem to get them to understand that the specs were what was wrong. I ran into Bill Atkinson at the NRA or SHOT show sometime after, and chatted with him about this. He shook his head and muttered that he’d “told those idiots” that they needed to change these dimensions, but they hadn’t listened to him. He told me to send the gun in to him, which I did. It returned a week or so later, with the chambers reamed out to .429” in the throat. The gun shot pretty well after that. Those, however, were the last Rugers I ever bought. Likely to stay that way, too.
Had a 77 and put a small rubber washer at the fore end screw between the barrel and stock. Amazing what a three cent washer did for accuracy. Makes a person go W.T.F.
My RPR is holding 0.6 MOA with Hornady Match and ELD-X, and that's with me shooting! LOL
PRS targets are pretty big. I'm not sure they ever drop below 0.5MOA and are frequently more like 2 MOA. The whole series is built around unknown distances and conditions, not pure accuracy. It's way easier for somebody to look at their factory gun that shoots 0.75 MOA and say that it's the problem rather than have an honest look at their skill set.
Most people can afford better gear so the temptation is to try to buy better results with more expensive gear. Nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with trying to tell others that they have to buy expensive gear to have a chance.
Spaz,
what distance? I bought a single shot Savage in 338 Lapua about a year ago. I had the barrel throated, and the second test load I put in it stayed sub-moa. It does that today out to 1000 yards with me behind the butt plate. It has a trigger that I can adjust to 6oz, that stays at 6oz. What do you have your rugger set at?
what distance? I bought a single shot Savage in 338 Lapua about a year ago. I had the barrel throated, and the second test load I put in it stayed sub-moa. It does that today out to 1000 yards with me behind the butt plate. It has a trigger that I can adjust to 6oz, that stays at 6oz. What do you have your rugger set at?
pirate ammo
Guaranteed to take the wind out of their sails
run what you brung, and hope you brung enough..
I wouldn't necessarily pick a Ruger for long range shooting. Parts are not common enough, and there is not enough familiarity in the custom gunsmithing crowd with them.
That being said, my second centerfire rifle I ever got (after a Remington 7400, which is one of the worst turd potato stakes EVER!) was a Ruger M77 VT in 25-06. I got it used but basically NIB condition. It was fairly cheap, and HEAVY, but came with an amazing 2 lb trigger, smooth action, beautiful laminate stock/grey finish, and showed excellent accuracy for a factory rifle! Out of the box it would do <0.5 MOA with Winchester 90 gr HP's. When fed 115 gr Silverips, it was affectionately referred as the "lightning rod" because it killed every single deer dead in its footsteps. I still have it but rarely shoot it.
I also think the point of rifles like the Ruger American and RPR are lost on a forum like this. These are for guys who go out on the weekend and "ring steel at 800 bro!" Unfortunately they without a doubt outnumber BR and F-class shooters significantly, and are a wise business decision for Ruger to target. Ruger has adapted to a market and is really winning now!
That being said, my second centerfire rifle I ever got (after a Remington 7400, which is one of the worst turd potato stakes EVER!) was a Ruger M77 VT in 25-06. I got it used but basically NIB condition. It was fairly cheap, and HEAVY, but came with an amazing 2 lb trigger, smooth action, beautiful laminate stock/grey finish, and showed excellent accuracy for a factory rifle! Out of the box it would do <0.5 MOA with Winchester 90 gr HP's. When fed 115 gr Silverips, it was affectionately referred as the "lightning rod" because it killed every single deer dead in its footsteps. I still have it but rarely shoot it.
I also think the point of rifles like the Ruger American and RPR are lost on a forum like this. These are for guys who go out on the weekend and "ring steel at 800 bro!" Unfortunately they without a doubt outnumber BR and F-class shooters significantly, and are a wise business decision for Ruger to target. Ruger has adapted to a market and is really winning now!
I had to qualify to use the 1,000+ yard range at the training facility I use. Member has to shoot a sub-MOA group at 100 yards. Before I qualified, I practiced for 2 days. On the second day I shot ten 5 round strings. The all ranged between .62 to .68. When I qualified, I shot a .62.
At the 500 yard line, we have a small target that is about 3.5-3.6 inches. That is about .6 MOA. On a calm day (5 mph or less and steady), I can hit that target 10+ times in a row.
I have only shot the 1,000 yard once. I had a pretty crap hit ratio on the 10" target. I kept forgetting to check my bubble and I was using ballistics for a 143gr ELD-X, but was shooting a 140gr ELD. So I need to test the 1,000 again. I can't see the 3.6" at 1,000 due to scope/vision limits.
Ruger says the trigger can go 2.25. I have it all the way down, but no scale to test it. I bought a Timney that is factory set to 1 lb (.5 per stage), but I haven't installed it yet.
Spoken like a true drag racer!
pirate ammo
Guaranteed to take the wind out of their sails
yup, early 90's,,turned e 460 Ford engine into 620 CI ford engine,tubed and tubed 85 T-Bird
urbanrifleman
Site $$ Sponsor
Is it me or are most of these Rugers suck stories from 25-40 years ago?
I would hate to go buy a pickup based on one I bought 40 years ago. Yall would all be driving Toyotas.
I would hate to go buy a pickup based on one I bought 40 years ago. Yall would all be driving Toyotas.
That's the problem with getting people's opinions. When I first got on the dept. in 1980 the old timers were big on S&Ws. They didn't realize that there was a HUGE quality difference from the 50s to the 70s and 80s
You reminded me of something... I had a gap in purchases where I didn't buy any new handguns for 10 years. I had no idea what to buy and I knew this issue you mention was going to potentially be a problem for me. What was a great product or brand in 1998 may not have held true to 2008 or much better products may have evolved.
I did some research and decided, whatever the "used market" was flooded with, was off the table. Especially if they were cheap, compared to original MSRP. Pistols that seemed popular and were either hard to find used and/or sold used for close to original MSRP, are pistols that I paid close attention to.
I figured if the price is low and everyone is getting rid of them, its for a reason. Likely good marketing with not so good of a product. On the other hand, hard to find and still expensive translated to desirable and likely a good product.
Of course a bit more went into it... but that was a big part of it.
Bought a Ruger American Rifle in .308 Win. last month.. Put a Redfield 3-9 scope on it and took it to the range with Remington 150gr SP and some Winchester 150gr. SP.. Shot only 3 shot groups to keep the barrel from heating up too bad. Besides, who shoots more than three shots at an animal enyhow.. The Remington rounds shot into 1.25 - 1.5" groups at 100 yards, but the Winchesters shot in .75 - 1.0" groups. This was factory load.. I finally got all my reloading stuff for the .308 and am working on some 150 gr and 165 gr. handloads.. Using IMR 4064 powder and CCI primers in W-W cases..
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Right there with you man...….love my two new Rugers.
pirate ammo
Guaranteed to take the wind out of their sails
coming soon to a theater near you..One can for-see the day when Benchrest will be dominated by Ruger rifles chambered in something Creedmoor
Brians356
Gold $$ Contributor
Is your Hornet a 77/22?
I sent my 77/22-VMBZ (Varmint Magnum Stainless Laminated) to CPC in the early '90s for his $100 accurizing treatment. He headspaced to my preferred Win 40 JHP ammo. Groups at 100 shrank from 1.5" to 3/4", keeping in mind there is no such thing as "match grade" 22 WMR.
-
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.