"They are MY requirements for My purpose"
And the OP's question was one about concensus from a group without any particular purpose.
As before: "Greatness" is a term that exists as a synergy between both subjective and objective criteria.
Objectively the Ruger is as functional as a Colt Python or a S&W K or J frame. Absolutely. I don't think that this is in debate. Probably more robust lockwork than a Colt. That's objective criteria. But
Subjectively, "Greatness" also speaks to fit and finish, industrial design, aesthetic beauty & proportion, a long history of use, and the items impact on history by both being used as a tool and by influencing other following designs.
By that token the S&W Military and Police (K Frame Smith), taken as one design must be rated the top. Essentially, all other modern revolvers are copies of this singular design. It has been produced in more sub-models, over a longer period of time, than any other. It's armed everyone from cops and robbers, to airmen flying over the Pacific, to British troops issued them as lend-lease, to the average guy as his bedside revolver, to every NYC cop for decades. It's been copied by everyone, has always been built to a very high quality level, is aesthetically pleasing, reliable, stong, and has been manufactured continuously with only slight modifications since
1899. It's essential "rightness" is absolute. It is, by every measure, the greatest double action revolver ever made. Colt gave it a run for the money for a while, and made some gorgeous revolvers in so doing, but dropped the ball and fell out of the race. Sorry Colt... you're second.
By the same set of criteria the Rugers, taken as a lot, must rate near the middle of the list. Above direct M&P copies like the Taurus and Rossi (notice that they didn't copy a Ruger...
), and WAY below the S&W and still below the Colts. In terms of "greatness" they are... <shrugs>.. just average.
Is the Ruger functional? Sure. Durable? Yes. Strong? Very. Suitable and absolutely satisfying to you? Absolutely. Something that I, were I a purchasing agent, would buy 10,000 of if I needed to arm some police group that demanded revolvers? Without a second thought. Greatest Double Action Revolver? Don't embarass yourself further.
"This makes Timex the better timepiece for me, if replacements are readily available. If not, and I had to have a watch, could have only 1 watch and it had to last for 40 years I would take the Rolex and live with the lack of accuracy"
Really? And do tell us all about "lack of accuracy". I live on a boat six months out of the year. I do celestial navigation daily with mine just to keep in practice, and am never off more than a mile. It loses 1 second a day. I hacked it against WWV three months ago, and recheck it periodically with WWV as I tune up the radio for weather. It's now it's about a minute and a half off in ACCURACY but it's as PRECISE as can be. Rolexes are precise. Whatever rate they have (daily error) will be the same every day if you do your part. Owners who understand them know that these machines, for that's what they are, run most precisely when (A): they are kept at constant temperature (wear it all the time), and (B) position is randomized (they run at slightly different rates when face up, face down, crown up, crown down, etc). Educated professional users aboard ship, in Antarctica, and in other places where it counts wear them CONSTANTLY so as to keep them at temperature and to randomize the position. Your "uneducated yuppie luxury-product buying user" protects it like a gem, rotates it with the other watches he owns, takes it off and tosses it on the dresser or into his jewelry box randomly. It changes temperature, and he never puts it down when it's off his wrist in the same position. Then he complains about poor accuracy? Well DUH! That's like shooting different loads every day, under completely different conditions of wind and temperature, with a loose scope, and then complaining about poor rifle accuracy. Uhh.... <sigh>: Every Rolex Chronometer (not all are so qualified) comes out of Swiss COSC testing rated officially as a chronometer. It WILL keep a precise rate and can be adjusted to excellent accuracy. It's no different than a precision rifle: Treat it well and reduce the variables and it'll be
precise. It may always shoot an inch left and a half inch high, but it'll always been repeatable, which is precision. Sighting it in after you have it shopoting precisely makes it *accurate*. Ideally we want our machines to be both precise
and accurate. If you want a precise AND accurate mechanical watch you wear it constantly for a year to break the bearings and gears in, send it back for lubrication & cleaning to remove the fine pieces of microscopic mechanical debris that are honed off the gears in that first year, and then six months later you send it in for final adjustment *without being relubricated* and then put it on your wrist and
never take it off (except maybe for hot showers). Do that and it'll hold rate precisely and be accurate for decades. Ignore this and it's no different than not breaking in a rifle bore and cleaning the bore correctly, and checking bedding and action screw tensions, and then complaining. It's a PRECISION MACHINE. Treat it like one.
As for
practical precision timekeeoping use, in the daily navigation log here there's a small corner where chronometer error is logged, same as aboard a ship. Every day you subtract a second and on the third day you subtract two seconds. PRECISION is the key, and it's as precise as a, well, it's as precise as a
Chronometer...
One of the functions of the old Naval Observatory (NO) was to rate and set Chronometers. Every ship had three, with each of the three compared daily by the Quartermaster to both it's own log and rate, and to the others. With three you can detect one that's gone off and continue with the other two. With only two you can see one is splitting from the other, but then further cross-checks are difficult. Chronometers were set at the NO and then watched for a few months to get their rate, and were issued to each ship already running and set, with their rate log. A year later the three might each be an hour off the others, but with the known rates and a daily chronometer log, absolute time was known. The three chronometers were kept in gimbals, in a padded box, and it was a requirement for the quartermaster to keep the log, wind them, and make a daily report to the Captain "Sir, it is approaching noon and the chronometers have been wound" to which he receives the reply "Very well, quartermaster, carry on". Chrono time was transferred to a deck-watch that was carried by the quartermaster for shooting the daily celestial sights and was used to sync the other clocks aboard ship. Even with WWV available, this routine is invariable. Old habits die hard. I keep a navigation log that includes chronometer time aboard my trawler. The term "Superlative Chronometer, Officially Certified" on the face of a Rolex has very real meaning: It's not there for decoration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COSC
Once again, it takes a little effort to use things to their limits. Some folks take pride in so doing. Others don't even understand the problem, never mind the cure. Education is the cure. You now know more about mechanical watches than you probably knew before. See, education works!
There is a point to all of this:
Those that
educate themselves similarly to the history and development of the double action revolver from 1899 to the present day will not come to the conclusion that the Ruger is the "greatest double action revolver ever made". Nobody with any indepth knowlage about the subject would think that. It's a farcical propisition on its face. Anyone can hold an opinion. It's an educated opinion that counts. Only you can cure that for yourself.
Best,
Willie
.
