CajunBass
Member
<lol> You've noticed that too? I don't even bother to post what I pay for anything anymore. There is always someone who knows where you can get them all day long for half what I paid, and they'll buy you a pizza to seal the deal.
Cheapo Plinker ... Rohm?
- Thread starter Nushif
- Start date
- Status
<lol> You've noticed that too? I don't even bother to post what I pay for anything anymore. There is always someone who knows where you can get them all day long for half what I paid, and they'll buy you a pizza to seal the deal.
murdoc rose
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 582
Rohm gets most of its bad rep from a series of small poorly made Saturday night specials. They also made various higher quality guns like yours. It is not a ruger but you didnt buy it expecting that. Make sure the rear sight is good and tight they have a habit of loosing up and falling off.
The earliest models are the most problematic, the RG10 isn't worth buying for over $50. The guns got better as they went so later guns like the .38 sp pistols are generally better than the .22 short ones. None of them are worth more than $100 or so out the door.
Most of the bad press about them stems from the Brady bunch due to the fact that Reagan and his bodyguards were shot with an RG14 revolver.
I've got two RG23 pistols that have always worked great but I've had an RG10and an RG66 (same model the OP has) that didn't last too long before problems...then again the RG66 had two previous owners that used it like crazy. The biggest problem is that the earlier RG pistols had very shoddy quality control. They won't blow your hand off but may stop locking up properly after a while. Basically they're a cheap gun made for the working man at very low prices and not really intended to be fired a ton. The RG66 was kinda like the Heritage RR of the Reagan days. This gun will never be anybody's pride and joy but they're not as bad as most people say they are.
RG23 short barrel: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/NewPictures020.jpg
RG23 long barrel: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/NewPictures017.jpg
RG66: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/My guns/RgModel66.jpg
Also don't believe the guy talking about how zamak guns disintigrate due to rusting. Funny fact about zamak is that with all of the things that make it inferior like the low melting point and its soft composition, there is one redeeming fact...it is more resistant to rust when compared to steel. The cylinders and barrels are more likely to rust than the frames due to this.
Most of the bad press about them stems from the Brady bunch due to the fact that Reagan and his bodyguards were shot with an RG14 revolver.
I've got two RG23 pistols that have always worked great but I've had an RG10and an RG66 (same model the OP has) that didn't last too long before problems...then again the RG66 had two previous owners that used it like crazy. The biggest problem is that the earlier RG pistols had very shoddy quality control. They won't blow your hand off but may stop locking up properly after a while. Basically they're a cheap gun made for the working man at very low prices and not really intended to be fired a ton. The RG66 was kinda like the Heritage RR of the Reagan days. This gun will never be anybody's pride and joy but they're not as bad as most people say they are.
RG23 short barrel: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/NewPictures020.jpg
RG23 long barrel: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/NewPictures017.jpg
RG66: http://i848.photobucket.com/albums/ab47/Myguns223/My guns/RgModel66.jpg
Also don't believe the guy talking about how zamak guns disintigrate due to rusting. Funny fact about zamak is that with all of the things that make it inferior like the low melting point and its soft composition, there is one redeeming fact...it is more resistant to rust when compared to steel. The cylinders and barrels are more likely to rust than the frames due to this.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Zinc alloys deserving to be called Zamak actually have some industrial standards of purity.
"Pot metal" should be reseved to label zinc alloys with impurities or no standards (such as used for toys or cheap ornaments).
Zamak should hold up. Pot metal could easily corrode from the inside out.
The problem with RG was that their quality control was all over the place, year to year, model to model. They are like the old American gunmaker Noble, they made some good guns, some lemons, but they were inexpensive. If the gun works, fine; if it doesn't, the repair cost could easily exceed the value of the gun.
"Pot metal" should be reseved to label zinc alloys with impurities or no standards (such as used for toys or cheap ornaments).
Zamak should hold up. Pot metal could easily corrode from the inside out.
The problem with RG was that their quality control was all over the place, year to year, model to model. They are like the old American gunmaker Noble, they made some good guns, some lemons, but they were inexpensive. If the gun works, fine; if it doesn't, the repair cost could easily exceed the value of the gun.
CTPhil
Member
Nice looking pistols you've got there, Kiln!
Carl N. Brown
Member
starting ref
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Röhm_(RG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Röhm_(RG)
aryfrosty
Member
RGs...
Before I start please understand that I don't intend my remarks to be critical of anyone on here...Sometimes folks have good experiences with a gun that someone else may find disgusting.
I started buying RGs when I was 17. I tried several of the little $10.00 devils before I realized that they were garbage. One was so bad that I started firing at a piece of cardboard box, about 2'x3', from 10 feet away without any rounds on target. I walked up to 6' and fired and still had no rounds on the target.
I strongly encourage anyone who wants a handgun for protection to stay away from some of the el-cheapo-supremo handguns and look for a good gunshop that has used guns or ploice trade-ins and see what they can do. You might be pleasantly surprised at what you will find.
Before I start please understand that I don't intend my remarks to be critical of anyone on here...Sometimes folks have good experiences with a gun that someone else may find disgusting.
I started buying RGs when I was 17. I tried several of the little $10.00 devils before I realized that they were garbage. One was so bad that I started firing at a piece of cardboard box, about 2'x3', from 10 feet away without any rounds on target. I walked up to 6' and fired and still had no rounds on the target.
I strongly encourage anyone who wants a handgun for protection to stay away from some of the el-cheapo-supremo handguns and look for a good gunshop that has used guns or ploice trade-ins and see what they can do. You might be pleasantly surprised at what you will find.
jimmyraythomason
Member
The key to getting a reliable firearm is to forget the brand name on the side. Buying a firearm based on the brand can let you down just as an "off" brand can pleasantly surprise. Always thoroughly inspect EVERY gun you buy,new and used. ALL brands have their problems just as all brands have their jewels. Buying or rejecting based on brand will often leave you disappointed.
CajunBass
Member
Who said anything about protection? The OP stated from the start that the gun was a fun plinker.
Nushif
Member
With a loading gate. Very important. Loading gate and six shots.
- Status
