I know they're supposed to be a good company with a solid rep but I'm just not interested in anything Ruger puts out

I really wanted a left handed Winchester Featherweight, but Winchester stopped making them, so Ruger got my money instead.

Ironically, Ruger's preferred manufacturing method (investment casting) actually has extra costs associated with making lefty guns (different molds) but Ruger still sells them for the same price as the right handed versions. Meanwhile, companies that CNC their parts just need to mirror the tool paths, so literally zero extra manufacturing cost, but they're whiny faggots about it.

Their revolvers are worse than Taurus in my experience.

>red label shotguns and rifles

Mossberg makes the best shotguns out there, then VEPR and benelli.

Again, just more shit that ruger did well, but everyone else already did better. Maybe their rifles are good, i dunno

Theyre not, faggot

Ruger is a very nice company that pretty much covers all the bases, great beefy revolvers, very reasonably priced 9mm guns, an AR556 as well as the mini 14

>Mossberg makes the best shotguns out there
NO! Mossberg makes one of the cheapest made mass production shotguns out there

But they are. This isn’t the 60s anymore.

Good to know you have no experience with either.

Ruger fills the gap between garbage tier and entering into good tier in my opinion. Most of their guns are just fine but at the same time not so appealing and then they have their guns that stand out.

Too me, their most standout gun is their M77 rifles. Well built, solid, accurate and not really lacking in any department other than some of the earlier M77 mark 2s not having the best trigger without a little work.

All their revolvers are cast garbage. Why buy that when I can get a used Smith for the same price? Or why buy one of their SAAs when I can buy a forged Uberti thats a 100% authentic reproduction for less than a vaquero?

Bullshit. Maybe the maverick is cheap, but the 590 and 590A1 are some slick shotguns. Cant think of any other company I would want a shotgun from.

>ruger
Nah.

Eh.
By that logic I guess so. Still doesnt make me want to buy their ugly shit though. Nu s&w does suck. Ruger wins just by default

I have 5 ruger guns. Security 6, 9, ruger standard 22, and 2 10/22s. They're all fine guns. Nothing outstanding, but you get at least what you pay for.

>hurf durf it's cast so it's bad
Why. Explain with reasons, not buzzwords. Their revolvers are stronger. If cast is bad, why are they better?

>implying casting is bad when done well

>Cant think of any other company I would want a shotgun from.

It's simple, that's because you don't know shit about shotguns. An uninformed opinion has no value. Benelli and Beretta shotguns are infinitely better than Mossberg's.

they still make no.1s

Ok then doctor faggot, enlighten me since youre such a fucking expert in shotguns.

Attached: D9F4689B-A9EE-4BAC-85B2-B236D2748E09.jpg (851x732, 158K)

I can't, just go rent a Benelli. You'll see why it costs 4x as much as a 590. Or better yet a Beretta 1301, since they're not insanely priced and yet still are far better.

I mean, if you didnt notice i was talking strictly pump action. Mossy makes some nice pumps.

But if youre talking semi-auto, no shit.

Im a bit more partial to magfed VEPRs and saiga though.

>magfed remington

Nah

>Is there anything they do exceptionally well?
>make one of the most popular and ubiquitous .22lr rifles in the United States
>incredibly good customer support
>durable and reliable revolvers
>own up to QA/QC fuckups by announcing recalls while other companies often quietly do it
>listen to customers and make different guns based on popular demand
>makes a wide variety of firearms

That being said, the Mini-14 sucks dick and I don’t care for their polymer pistol line but they could be a good value for shooters who are on a budget. They need to stop fucking around and release a lever gun line to shit on the weak-ass market that is present today in the industry.

God tier PCCs

Attached: 6A38835F-4FCE-4B4A-AEDA-38CBBB428A20.jpg (767x1024, 53K)

Did you make this post?
If so, you're the one who brought up Vepr. Which is very much a semi-auto shotgun. I think you are, as you're mentioning Veprs again. You're the one who opened up the semi-auto train, not me.

Also I have to tell you, it is Vepr. Not VEPR. It's not an acronym. It means boar.

This is the worst post I've seen all month

Are they better?

Not him but a Beretta 1301 Tactical with Aridus upgrades like the Magpul stock adapter and CROM shits on a Mossberg any day. The gun is reliable as shit even with shitty birdshot ammo, lightweight yet recoils less than a 590A1 and is a semi auto. Lucky Gunner has articles on the 1301T that point out its merits.
>t. own only a Mossberg 590A1

But then again, you can run an off the shelf 870 or 500/590 well enough to fuck up a home invader or two if you put in the practice. This may sound like a meme but most people don’t survive a single pattern of #1 or 00 buckshot to their upper chest and a pump gun does that just fine. A Benelli M2/M4 or Beretta 1301T just happens to help do it more efficiently and reliably. And today’s shotgun tip of the day
youtu.be/Gq74aiXn1b4

Yes, they are better.
Something to think about with a pump shotgun is if you're injured in the arm, you're pretty fucked. I know, it sounds unlikely, but having to use a gun defensively is pretty unlikely. It seems kinda backwards to prepare for the worst but expect everything to go as planned at the same time. I wouldn't count on getting lucky on the worst day of your life.

Daily reminder that the Ruger strength has nothing to do with Cast vs Forged. Its because of the sideplateless design of the Ruger. A sideplateless forged frame would be stronger than a cast frame ruger

That and the lock work is less delicate. That being said Smiths even post lock are generally tighter than a Ruger

Strictly pumps, in the modern era, in the US. You realistically have 3 choices for something off the shelf and non of them are particularly nice. Perfectly functional yes, but modern pumps are made for cost effective mass manufacture which is how the 870 and 500/590/835 were born. Those two designs along with the nova/supernova work great, but non are what I would call nice or slick and I've owned all of them. Outside of that you have Chinese 870 clones, mavericks, CZ pumps that nobody knows exist, Stevens which nobody gives a shit about and Turk guns. I love my 835 dearly, but saying it's slick is like having the best toyota Corolla

>AR556

>Robin Blue and White available

Huh.

Attached: 8519.jpg (825x245, 27K)

More like they're just as good, its just a different path to the same result.

>Something to think about with a pump shotgun is if you're injured in the arm, you're pretty fucked.

Yup, case and point the Miami FBI shootout in 1986. Also the slide getting caught up in your bedsheets can be a potential concern for pump gun.

>when someone touts Colt's lockup strength

Jesus Christ they should have ditched the v-spring in the 50s

Attached: 20190406_040600.jpg (456x361, 78K)

Just because it's cast doesn't mean it's bad, if the caliber isn't powerful like a 10mm, it will be completely functional.
Though the trade off for cast over Forged is cast has to be made larger and more thick which equates to heavier so it can sustain the same tolerance that a forged metal can.
It's why 10mm 1911's earlier had boom barrels that used to burst, that bullet just generates too much power, and requires forged. But if you stick with .40 or .38 something low, it won't dent it.
Personally i wouldn't touch a cast gun, it's probably weaker than the polymer guns. But for a cheap gun i'll make an exception.

Please stop posting. Ruger revolvers are cast. People make hot loaded .44 magnum way more powerful than 10mm. And they specify those loads are for Rugers only, as they will blow forged S&W's the fuck up.

10mm is a powerful round for a fucking autoloader, not a revolver. It's .357 magnum level, in its hotter loadings. Most are far more mild.

And finally, no that's not why it blew barrels up you goddamn retard. It blew up Glock barrels. In .40. Because retards tried loading .40 like it was 10mm.

Literally 100% of your post is fuddlore, misinformation, and absolute bullshit.

Anyone here has a Ruger no1?
I'm considering getting one and I was wondering if they were worth the money

how hard does hillary give it to you with that blue donkey dildo you like so much

Has a stormtrooper vibe to it, I would buy it if I lived in a place where it snowed

I CC an LCP II which is a solid gun. I unironically prefer shooting my Security 9 over my Glock 19. I find the Security 9 slightly more enjoyable but could see how someone would feel the opposite.

>10/22 which is the most modular .22 rifle
>great 1911s
>$250 glock killers
>lcp custom/lcp 2 which are the best .380 pocket rocket you can buy (fuck off kahr)
>mk iv .22 pistol which is arguably one of the best .22 pistols ever made
Yeah why would anyone want to buy a Ruger

Attached: P_20180614_213617.jpg (4160x2340, 1.35M)

Lcp is a pretty cool gun

Attached: +P yolo.jpg (3150x1979, 1.1M)

Hillary hole

They make mostly good quality, functional, practical products for a mostly fair and affordable price. However all of their products are ugly as fucking sin. My friend is a Ruger fanboy and colelcts their guns, he has quite literally no interest in the aesthical appearance of a firearm.

Be specific. Which ones do you think aren't aesthetic?

I own several Rugers. The 10/22 is a classic, and I really enjoy my Ruger American for what it is. I sold my SR45. The "appeal" to Rugers is you get a functional firearm with decent performance for a decent price. No bells and whistles, usually there's some kind of machining marks or slightly rough edges, and you will get slightly better performance than you pay for. They're generally good entry-level options across the board.

They produce good firearms at excellent prices. Nothing Ruger makes is going to blow you away but if you're not a richfag they have a lot of interesting options for the price. Generally Rugers perform reliably and are well made, they just lack aesthetic and "bells and whistles" features. Also their customer service is excellent in my experience.

What they do exceptionally well is make affordable, reliable but fairly basic firearms, also customer service.

They're the go-to if you want good single action revolvers but not refinance your mother's basement. Their AR rifles are about on par with S&W's. Their basic bitch ARs are a little more unique compared to your standard M4gery and their MPR, or more advanced, line is about $100 more. Their Minis, although "worse" than an AR, do have their charm.
I've heard good things about their 1911, even claims that it's the best 1911 you can get for the price, but I have no personal experience with them so I can't say. Their LCR and LCP line is full of perfectly adequate CC guns. The double action revolvers are very robust but not as smooth as some other companies' wheelguns. Their bolt actions are a resounding "huh" and their single shot rifles seem fun but not fun enough to actually spend money on. Oh, and the 10/22 is the Glock/AR of .22 rifles.

>RIDF
Seriously dude I hope this was bait.

Kek. Mossbergs are good for durability and price but there's no craftsmanship to them compared to the red label Rugers, which were relatively nice for a Ruger. Even on gunbroker right now they're bidding pretty high

You're an idiot user

I like what i like and you like what you like.

>Was talking strictly pump
>Comparing Mossberg El cheapo special to an O/U Ruger Red Label
Best way to learn is to shut your cock holster and listen sometimes dingus, you don't know everything, which is strikingly apparent to us

>Im a bit more partial to magfed VEPRs and saiga though.
That's because the only thing you do with the 10 pound pieces of shit is sit them in your closet.

I like both. Smiths tend to have better triggers, and Ruger's non-LCR revolvers have a stronger lockup (crane).

Smiths tend to have more grip options as well. I don't think Ruger has any real equivalent to the K-Frame either, but I could be wrong on that.

Ruger is what Taurus wishes it could be. A quality manufacturer that produces solid guns at reasonable prices (and has good customer service).

Ruger makes relatively cheap and reliable tools. They aren't the nicest looking guns and don't hold value as much as older S&W but they are still solid guns. Plus, on the off chance I actually have to use a gun for self defense I wouldn't mind if I have to let a cheap LCP or LC9 sit in a police desk for a few weeks while the legal shit gets sorted out.

For revolvers: Old S&W > any Ruger > New S&W

>i dunno
only accurate part of your post

Attached: how_mentally_retarded_are_you-f.jpg (800x418, 42K)

>cast is too weak, can't trust it!
>meanwhile (in reality) super hot buffalo bore loads are advertised as RUGER LOAD ONLY because they'll blow other revolvers (even forged ones) up

They make nothing but trash

They need to make this in 9mm

Attached: 587E7293-090A-4912-B544-F0249ABEBE6C.jpg (475x206, 18K)

People shit on Ruger because Bill cucked up back in the day. Also Ruger doesn't make for the military. Everyone wants military guns so they overlook Ruger because of the obsession with "combat proven" firearms. I like all the Ruger guns I've owned, no regrets.

Cast revolvers are worse because they're uglier and larger/heavier than they would otherwise need to be. It's made to be cheap and easy to manufacture which it does well but theres no other reason to want a cast gun. They're like the glock of revolvers, functional and dependable but not special or desirable.

>uglier
subjective even though I agree with you

>larger/heavier
This is always a good thing for revolvers.

My only Ruger experiance is a GP100 bought for wife about 20 years ago abd an LCP bought for her a few years ago to carry when dressed up. They seem well made, she's shot a lot of rounds through them with only a few FTF with LCP when new. I seem to feel they are a solid company, but I don't have much experience with their other offerings. I would buy again.

Where do people get this idea that because a revolver has RUGER© stamped on it, it's automatically indestructible? Only the redhawk, super redhawk, and blackhawk are built noticeably more sturdy than competing S&W offerings. The GP100, SP101, security six, vaquero, lcr etc. are NOT capable of taking more serious abuse than a Smith.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as Ruger-only ammo. There are a variety of firearms that can handle Buffalo Bore's hottest loads, some better than the strongest Rugers. These include Freedom arms guns (probably the toughest revolvers made) and older Dan Wessons.

Scratch vaquero from the list, I forgot those were the ones built on SBH frames but they're basically the same as SBH's durability wise.

Their ARs are good for poorfags who have too much pride to settle for Anderson, and the Security 9 seems like a really good budget pistol. Double stack 9mm for Makarov prices.

Also they did the whole scout rifle thing. Lots of fudd guns, too.

The US military has issued Ruger revolvers in the past though, and Border Patrol has issued Ruger revolvers in the past as well. How are they not "combat proven"?

Nobody wants guns used by border guards, they want the guns used by the military.

>Where do people get this idea that because a revolver has RUGER© stamped on it, it's automatically indestructible?

When people are talking about that kind of thing it's nearly always in the context of high powered rounds like .44 mag, .454 Casull, etc, at which point we are automatically talking about the redhawk, blackhawk, and their super models. The super blackhawk and the vaquero are especially popular for 3rd-party big bore conversions because the vaquero's grip frame is unusually well suited for dealing with very high recoil, and because the super blackhawk is both large enough and strong enough to be customized into things like .475 and .500 linebaugh, etc. I've never heard anyone talk about things like the security six or the LCR in this context.

>>There are a variety of firearms that can handle Buffalo Bore's hottest loads, some better than the strongest Rugers.
Agreed, and there are many more: Taurus Raging Bull, Manurhin, etc.

>The super blackhawk and the vaquero
this.
standard starting point for most of the big-bore custom conversions is to get your hands on pic related (new model blackhawk in .357 Maximum), swap the Vaquero's grip frame, then rebarrel.

Attached: 6169710_0.jpg (1000x484, 52K)

You actual retard. None of what you said is true and guess what Ruger makes a 10mm revolver

>Border Patrol
>"combat proven"

kek

I'm not going to be too hard on the guy because "combat proven" is a complete meme anyway. Lots of things have been through combat. Mosins have been through combat, that doesn't make them particularly good. Mil-spec and "combat proven" is a sleazy but incredibly effective way of enticing clueless civilians to buy shit.

Never buy Ruger, remember 1994!

Whatever you say noguns

Attached: 1555949118266.png (680x680, 368K)

Based

Bill Ruger is dead now, user.

Bill is long dead.
The company makes everything from fudd shit to CCW guns to ARs and standard cap mags. Should we keep browbeating Germany for WWII?

The model 77 isnt some whispy fucking push feed its a mans rifle OP

>I'm not interested in anything Ruger puts out
>Why don't I like guns I have no interest in?

I dunno dude. I don't like mangoes. Don't know why, I just don't.

literally there only good gun

Thats a big iron you have there

Don't beat the strawman, no one implied that all Rugers are made of adamantium, just that certians Rugers are objectively better at handling higher pressure than comparible Smith's.
>There are a variety of firearms that can handle Buffalo Bore's hottest loads, some better than the strongest Rugers. These include Freedom arms guns (probably the toughest revolvers made) and older Dan Wessons.
Right, and none of those include current Smiths, which was the point being discussed. Follow the chain a little better next time

>J-Frame
Ruger LCR
>K-frame
Ruger SP101
>L-frame
Ruger GP100, Security-Six (out of production)
What Ruger DOES NOT have is a direct equivalent to the N-frame. The Redhawk/Super Redhawk fills the same role but it's a DA designed around looking more like a SA.

Smiths have better triggers out of the box, but Rugers have more room for improvement with basic polishing. End result is both will get to about the same place after work.

Also the LCR's lockup is still stronger than an Airweight's, although yes it's not as good as one of the steel-framed J-frames.
>bolt guns are either best in class or very close to best in class at all tiers
>has dominated the .22lr pistol field for basically forever with the Mk-series, SR22 remains best in class for "tactical" .22lr pistols
>best of best for strong revolvers, there's a reason "Ruger only" loads exist

It wasn't a strawman, I brought it up because he claimed there is a "Ruger only" load when theres no such thing since non-Ruger guns can shoot it no problem.

The Red Label was finished well but poorly designed. It was EXTREMELY muzzle heavy and poorly balanced, it was like swinging a brick tied to the end of a broomstick. But it was pretty, and it was reliable.

Ruger is the "everyman's" brand. They don't really lead the class in anything, but they are quality, and affordable.