Ruger Wrangler versus Heritage Rough Rider

chicharrones said:
Which is a pretty cool feature considering I usually want to load or unload when the cylinder is unlocked. Seems perfectly suited to single action guns with frame mounted firing pins.
Click to expand...

Not cool to me. It's the main reason I wont own a Ruger SA centerfire.
 
It seems authenticity is very important?

Makes me wonder what we're doing with these, and should we be wearing chaps? :eek:
 
I am the happy owner of 4 SSs, 2 Wranglers, 5 HRRs, a S&W top break, A Blackhawk, and 6 different Italian Clones in various calibers and barrel lengths. What's not to love about any SA revolver?
Variety is the spice of life. Feel free to choose the number of clicks, style of safety, barrel length, finish, grip material, what ever floats yer boat. I like them all.
 
I can live with the hammer block. I don't like it but I can live with it. I do have a Single Six. I'm a little more lenient with .22's.

qaCtNdwl.jpg
 
chicharrones said:
Pshaw.

The shooter is the main reason a handgun muzzle moves when the shot is fired. Not to mention that a fat diameter 7.5" long barrel with a small .22 caliber hole launching rimfire cartridges isn't some 22" sporter rifle firing .30 cal cartridges through a noodle thin barrel.

All other things being equal, a long sight radius gives the opportunity for the shooter to make more precise sight alignment, as long as the shooter can see the sights well and hold the muzzle steady.
Click to expand...
Admittedly, I do not know what steel is being used for the barrel of the Wrangler, I figure it would make sense if Ruger used the barrels of the SIngle Six as I doubt there'd be much cost savings to using a lower quality steel, but the frame itself not being a strong metal has me thinking it doesn't absorb vibration well and that transmits to the barrel, which if longer will vibrate more.

Furthermore, if I wanted a 7 inch long barrel .22 SA revolver, I'd just get a Single Six. The only reason I went with Heritage was the had the adjustable sights in a 9 shot .22 LR/Mag combo model. Had Ruger made a 9 shot .22 LR/Mag combo Single 9, I would have probably gotten that.
 
TTv2 said:
but the frame itself not being a strong metal has me thinking it doesn't absorb vibration well and that transmits to the barrel, which if longer will vibrate more.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that for a New York minute.
 
CraigC said:
Fascinating theory.
Click to expand...
There haven't been a lot of Zamak framed revolvers made, we've had Aluminum framed snubs for many years, but those are a higher grade of Aluminum (usually 7075) and with a short snub barrel. I may be mistaken, but I've never seen an Aluminum frame revolver with a barrel longer than 3 inches. That could be due to lack of demand, maybe the ergonomics are bad and they're not easy to shoot, or it could be that the frames are too soft and can't handle the whip from the vibrations.

There hasn't been much of a push to make a larger than a J or K frame revolver with Aluminum. I would think that more mass of Aluminum in the frame would help and allow a barrel longer than 3 inches to be used, but again, I doubt there is any interest in an N frame revolver that is limited to .38 Special.

I would totally buy one in .45 Colt.
 
TTv2 said:
There haven't been a lot of Zamak framed revolvers made, we've had Aluminum framed snubs for many years, but those are a higher grade of Aluminum (usually 7075) and with a short snub barrel. I may be mistaken, but I've never seen an Aluminum frame revolver with a barrel longer than 3 inches. That could be due to lack of demand, maybe the ergonomics are bad and they're not easy to shoot, or it could be that the frames are too soft and can't handle the whip from the vibrations.

There hasn't been much of a push to make a larger than a J or K frame revolver with Aluminum. I would think that more mass of Aluminum in the frame would help and allow a barrel longer than 3 inches to be used, but again, I doubt there is any interest in an N frame revolver that is limited to .38 Special.

I would totally buy one in .45 Colt.
Click to expand...

Scandium-Aluminum alloy framed N-Frame revolvers.

.357 magnum with 5" barrels
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/performance-center-model-327-trr8

https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/performance-center-model-m-p-r8

.44 magnum with 4.13" barrel
https://www.smith-wesson.com/product/n-frame-163414
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2021/08/smith-wesson-329pd-airlite-44-mag/
 
Last edited:
 
The Wrangler has an aluminum frame. It's a $200 fixed sight plinker. Not a match pistol.


TTv2 said:
Scandium isn't Aluminum. I'm not talking about an alloy of the two, I'm talking all Aluminum like the S&W 317.
Click to expand...
Scandium is mostly a marketing term, the alloy is primarily aluminum. There's just enough scandium in it to call it that.
 
CraigC said:
The Wrangler has an aluminum frame. It's a $200 fixed sight plinker. Not a match pistol.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if it's a match pistol or not, the Wrangler doesn't appear to be an accurate revolver. I would like to see how it matches up against a Heritage with fixed sights and adjustable sights given the Heritage is its primary competition.

Of course, it opens the question of what to expect from a sub $200 .22 revolver. The most important function would be safety, the second would be reliability in going bang every time. Past that it's personal preference and if someone can't accept keyholing or 5 inch groups at 10 yards, I would consider that a revolver that needs to be sent back. If people are okay with that because the cylinder gets released during the loading gate opening, because it doesn't have a safety on the side of the frame, or because on the side of the barrel it says Ruger, then that's their preference.
 
TTv2 said:
Doesn't matter if it's a match pistol or not, the Wrangler doesn't appear to be an accurate revolver. I would like to see how it matches up against a Heritage with fixed sights and adjustable sights given the Heritage is its primary competition.

Of course, it opens the question of what to expect from a sub $200 .22 revolver. The most important function would be safety, the second would be reliability in going bang every time. Past that it's personal preference and if someone can't accept keyholing or 5 inch groups at 10 yards, I would consider that a revolver that needs to be sent back. If people are okay with that because the cylinder gets released during the loading gate opening, because it doesn't have a safety on the side of the frame, or because on the side of the barrel it says Ruger, then that's their preference.
Click to expand...

Personally, I’d expect an average Wrangler or RR to shoot double the group size of a good Single Six. Of course, some Single Sixes can be dogs, too.

Basing this on expectations of money from my wallet.

Keyholing would not be acceptable, and I’d be ticked off if my cheap gun had to run premium ammo to shoot decent enough for plinking.
 
Last edited:
chicharrones said:
I knew you’d counter with that. @CraigC is right about the alloy.

Too much theorizing instead of shooting.
Click to expand...
My thinking was that the longer barrel will do nothing to improve inherent accuracy, not help the shooter shoot better.

chicharrones said:
Personally, I’d expect an average Wrangler or RR to shoot double the group size of a good Single Six. Of course, some Single Sixes can be dogs, too.

Basing this on expectations of money from my wallet.

Keyholing would not be acceptable, and I’d be ticked off if my cheap gun had to run premium ammo to shoot decent enough for plinking.
Click to expand...
So about 5 inches at 25 yards? Yeah, I think that's about right for the Wrangler or Rough Rider. I wouldn't accept keyholing either with below premium ammo.
 
I took my wrangler to the range yesterday and compared with a Rossi Plinker, a rather low priced revolver when they were in production, at 12 yards using mini-mags. Now then: I had some wind to contend with, was shooting straight into the sun and my tremors weren't completely under control. Not the best of conditions at all but I was using a good rest and had a steady sight picture with each gun. I got groups with the wrangler about three times the size of the groups I shot with the Rossi and those were not exactly spectacular. The saucer for a coffee cup might have covered the groups from the wrangler. If I were to give it a name it would be "scattershot". If I could get it to shoot just a little better I would trade it off but I don't want to stick someone else with it. I guess it's time to call Ruger and see what they say.
 
I make no claims about Wrangler accuracy. I have yet to bench test one and doubt I ever will. Maybe with the 7.5" when I find one. I will say that keyholing is never acceptable and I doubt 5" groups at 25yds would be either.


TTv2 said:
Doesn't matter if it's a match pistol or not.....
Click to expand...
It does when you start talking about harmonics. Which is a total non-issue. Look, I think you mean well but I've been eyeballs-deep in this since the 1980's. In all my years of study, in all my conversations with the finest gunsmiths in the land and tens of thousands of dollars spent, some on building the most accurate revolver possible, I have NEVER heard the subject of harmonics come up in the context of revolvers. Never. Not once.


chicharrones said:
Too much theorizing instead of shooting.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Wranglers remind me too much of the piece's of junk German Rohm .22 revolvers I bought for my Brother and myself. Actually fairly accurate, and more than fairly the worst guns I ever bought. They didn't last 300 rounds, either of them. Lesson learned. There are inexpensive guns and there are cheap guns. Know the difference!.
 
Terry G said:
Wranglers remind me too much of the piece's of junk German Rohm .22 revolvers I bought for my Brother and myself. Actually fairly accurate, and more than fairly the worst guns I ever bought. They didn't last 300 rounds, either of them. Lesson learned. There are inexpensive guns and there are cheap guns. Know the difference!.
Click to expand...
Might suggest getting your eyes checked. The RG is cheap, no way around it. The Wrangler is inexpensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blkhrt13
  • Locked
Rough rider
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
tubeshooter
T
Brubz
Ruger Super Wrangler
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
SDGlock23
SDGlock23
Brubz
Wrangler v Rough Rider at the Range
Replies
8
Views
801
Brubz
Brubz
Gtscotty
  • Locked
New Ruger Wrangler.... I'm confused
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Replies
437
Views
74K
Mal H
Mal H
Craig_AR
  • Locked
"Buntline" Rough Rider
Replies
7
Views
499
Barbaroja
Barbaroja
Back
Top