Best All Around Gun Company

[bannockburn]

I would go with Ruger even though they no longer make a shotgun, they pretty much have the bases covered with all of their other offerings. CZ comes to mind as well with their line-up and they do carry shotguns but no revolvers. Likewise FN Herstal and Beretta have similar products with handguns, rifles, and shotguns but again no revolvers.

 

[Bentonville]

Some posters took their opportunity to bash HK when the OP asked for opinions of the best gun companies. I guess haters gonna hate. Can't help but wonder if some haters have ever owned what they hate?
However, FOR ME, HK offers an awesome line-up of weapons and all that are offered are quality weapons. It should be repeated: HK Customer Service is second to none. There are many great companies and HK is at the top of the pile. Sometimes diluting a brand with many offerings in order to satisfy everybody can dilute the quality of the brand.

 

[red rick]

The OP didn't ask the best gun company , he asked best all around gun company . HK makes good defense firearms and you could argue the best defense gun company , but they cannot cover all the bases to qualify as the best all around gun company .

 

[George Dickel]

I have to go with Ruger also, even if they don't make a shotgun. Their rifle and hand gun line-up is pretty extensive and broad.

 

[Bentonville]

Red Rick, point made and point taken.

 

[hot chili powder]

Gotta be RUGER.....great customer service & guns tuff as h*ll. Remington is 2nd due to some quality control issues.

 

[grampajack]

I've gotta say Ruger isn't much better than Remington in terms of quality control these days. I would say the last two Rugers I bought were junk, but that would be unfair to junk. I can't even call them crap because at least crap has its uses. Just out of curiosity, has anyone wondered why the used market is so flooded with so many used, "unfired" LCPs?

 

[stoky]

Few corporate entities have trampled as rough shod over civilian gun owners, seeking an advantageous position at the tax trough, as H&K, .

 

[Hanzo581]

I've gotta say Ruger isn't much better than Remington in terms of quality control these days. I would say the last two Rugers I bought were junk, but that would be unfair to junk. I can't even call them crap because at least crap has its uses. Just out of curiosity, has anyone wondered why the used market is so flooded with so many used, "unfired" LCPs?

That's my issue with them, their new company goal is to make 2 million guns a year. How about you switch to a quality over quantity model and try to have fewer lemons leave the factory?

 

[greyling22]

"Can't think of any company that covers all those bases. Even if Remington did (they don't), I still wouldn't vote for em. Pushing out a load of crap in every category doesn't make you the best. Seems like an exercise in futility. What's the competition?"

like I said, CZ. now, for a revolver you'd have to buy a dan wesson (owned by cz) but that's not a bad thing.

 

[stoky]

That's my issue with them, their new company goal is to make 2 million guns a year. How about you switch to a quality over quantity model and try to have fewer lemons leave the factory?

Sad to hear
........but far from unique.

 

[grampajack]

Few corporate entities have trampled as rough shod over civilian gun owners, seeking an advantageous position at the tax trough, as H&K, .

I'm not really sure what their exact relationship with the German government is, but they've developed a serious entitlement complex as a result of it. I think the shining example of their crappy attitude is exemplified by how they killed the P90 program for NATO by throwing a little hissy fit over the MP7 not being adopted, despite the fact that it was clearly inferior. As for their treatment of the civilian market, I've heard they do the best they can with the laws they have to work around. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I do know that the prices they expect are obscene. Case in point is the new MP5 lookalike they just released. That is criminal in my opinion, especially considering the thing is ugly as sin.

That's my issue with them, their new company goal is to make 2 million guns a year. How about you switch to a quality over quantity model and try to have fewer lemons leave the factory?

There's always been something deeply wrong with Ruger. Daddy Ruger made pretty decent guns in terms of the quality control, but the man was a liberal turncoat his entire life as far as I could ever tell. Now that the next generation has taken over I think they're just out to make as much money as they can regardless of any ideals the Ruger family may hold. Lots of people commended them for ending Ruger's liberal policies regarding folding stocks and the like, but I don't think it was out of any sense of loyalty to the constitution that they did so. I think they just saw the handwriting on the wall and knew they had to make changes to save their bottom line. A thoroughly dishonorable company in my opinion, through and through.

 

[stoky]

I'll give Bill, RIP, a pass, taking into consideration the intense pressure put on manufacturers at the time. He was personally subpoenaed in a murder trial, by a self aggrandizing DA spouting hoplophobic nonsense.
The restrictions were more dog and pony than reality. From folding stocks to magazines, the stuff was as available as any other mala prohibita material......and cheaper than most.
Lots of manufacturers hop aboard the popularity train. Ruger laid tracks for things that became popular.

 

[22-rimfire]

Long guns = Remington
Handguns = Smith & Wesson

Ruger does bridge the two in many ways.

 

[Zeke/PA]

I am a big fan of Ruger especially because of the #1 Single Shots of which I own three.
I also own a Super Blackhawk, a Single Six, a P95, a MK 1 and an Old Army.

 

[Solomonson]

and all those big green guns just sitting around waiting for their turn for a recall.

So you say. I recently bought another 870. It now has about 1K rounds through it without missing a beat. Remington still makes great guns.

 

[bikemutt]

The R51 boondoggle turned me off on Remington. But, I did handle a new Ruger 22 rifle the other day which should never have made it past QC. I guess they all slip up once in a while.

 

[AZAndy]

I'm a little disheartened to read of others' troubles with Rugers. Other than having a front sight blade break off on a SR1911, I've been happy with the few I have, and wouldn't hesitate to buy another-- been eyeballing a Lightweight 1911 and may just have to do something about that soon. Ruger would have been happy to replace the sight for me; since the autos are made here in town, I could have just dropped the gun off at the factory and had it done, but I had been thinking about putting a fiber optic on it anyway so that's what I did. I guess my vote would be for Ruger too.

 

[Speedo66]

I've always thought that while Ruger's were strong, they were cheaply made. From their tube receiver .22's to their cast frames on other guns. Never felt their handguns had the solid quality feel Smith's had.

If I had to pick one company, it would be Browning. Quality, innovative guns, from their Buckmarks to their real rifle cartridge lever actions, to their fine shotguns. They seem to do it all well.

 

[hdwhit]

Hanzo581 wrote:
They had to have a firearm available in every major category that was competitive with the competition,

Given that qualifier, I am not aware of anyone selling guns in the United States that currently markets an:

• Automatic pistol,
• Revolver (single and/or double action),
• Lever action rifle (rimfire and/or center-fire),
• Bolt action rifle (rimfire and/or center-fire),
• AR,
• Repeating shotgun (semi-auto or pump), and
• Break-open shotgun (single or double barrel)

So, I have no single answer to the question.

I used to be particularly partial to Ruger. I have a couple of early Mini-14s that have outlasted the Energizer Bunny, but when I went looking for a new one to give to my son, I was bitterly disappointed with the quality that I found combined with what I regarded as an realisticially high price.

 

[Panzerschwein]

COLT.

No other company has been more instrumental in producing quality and original AMERICAN design than Colt's. Their products are fantastic and their guns are simply legendary. They are one of the last "old school" gun companies in America and they have resisted the urge to sell out to the common people for many decades, instead focusing on crafting the finest and most reliable rifles and pistols currently being mass produced anywhere in the world IMHO. Their guns hold their value and used example command sky high prices for a reason. They are COLT'S and they wear the pony, nobody does it like a Colt's!

 

[grampajack]

COLT.

No other company has been more instrumental in producing quality and original AMERICAN design than Colt's. Their products are fantastic and their guns are simply legendary. They are one of the last "old school" gun companies in America and they have resisted the urge to sell out to the common people for many decades, instead focusing on crafting the finest and most reliable rifles and pistols currently being mass produced anywhere in the world IMHO. Their guns hold their value and used example command sky high prices for a reason. They are COLT'S and they wear the pony, nobody does it like a Colt's!

I wouldn't use the words "original" and "Colt" in the same sentence.

 

[HexHead]

The Beretta conglomerate....
Beretta shotguns
Beretta pistols
Uberti Revolvers or Beretta Stampede revolvers
Sako rifles
Beretta ARX rifles.

 

[tsieger]

I'll admit - I'm a little biased on this one because I've had more experience with Remington than I have with Ruger. On that note - I'd say Remington. Their handgun lineup might be slimmer than Ruger's, but all-around, they offer an impressive line-up. And they've been around the longest. Their shotguns are amazing - 870s are one of the most popular around and the 1100s have been great as well. Their rifles have been fantastic, and their new "modern sporting" guns (Ads) are pretty great. All-in-all, I'd say Remington takes the cake.

I think Springfield has been making strides in recent years as well. It'll be a long time before they overtake a Ruger or Remington though - or Smith & We soon, for that matter.

 

[Old Dog]

Although there's not one single Remington product I'd put at the top of the list for handguns, rifles or shotguns these days -- the variety and breadth of its line-up (okay, and I'm counting Marlin and Bushmaster too) has to put them at the top, in spite of the fact the company doesn't produce a modern revolver.

Ruger's made strides, but, alas, no shotgun, so even though it beats Big Green in the handgun category handily, they're still second-place.

Beretta (yeah, its subsidiary's cowboy revolvers notwithstanding) and FN trailing behind ...

I'm a huge Colt fanboy, but until we see some more new production revolvers, and with nothing beyond MSRs, they're not close to being in the game yet.

.

Some posters took their opportunity to bash HK when the OP asked for opinions of the best gun companies. I guess haters gonna hate. Can't help but wonder if some haters have ever owned what they hate?
However, FOR ME, HK offers an awesome line-up of weapons and all that are offered are quality weapons. It should be repeated: HK Customer Service is second to none. There are many great companies and HK is at the top of the pile. Sometimes diluting a brand with many offerings in order to satisfy everybody can dilute the quality of the brand.

Yeah, but those those of us who worked for employers that issued HK products and had to deal with the company's "customer service," well, we know better ... Won't deny, quality weapons, though they'll cost you more, typically 35-40 per cent, more expensive than comparable platforms from competing brands.