Who prefers old Ruger vs. new Ruger revolvers

[Old Stumpy]

i have a 357 magnum blackhawk made in 1973 that had cylinder throats from .356" to .358". i called, they said send it in, and i got a brandy new cylinder with all the holes @ .357" (it even has the last four digits of the serial number stamped on it like a pre-model smith!!!). so, i don't care when the blackhawk was made cause ruger will fix it if i can't fix it first.

The thing is that I never had to send in any Ruger revolvers (or any firearm) to be fixed from "new-in-the-box" made from the 1970s to the 2000s. The quality control was much better and such problems were rare.

Along with the revolvers I owned an SR1911 .45 Auto that looked beautiful which had 3 stupid quality control screw-ups.
1) Uncrowned barrel with a ragged muzzle after 5 shots.
2) Inability to be disassembled due to internal machining burrs preventing slide removal.
3) Sticking magazines caused by too-long grip medallion tails, which had to be ground off. These were obviously repurposed revolver medallions that were not trimmed or that should not have been used at all.

The fact that "Ruger will fix it" is cold comfort when the guns are brand new purchases, and quality control issues on these guns almost seem a 50/50 crap shoot.

 

[murf]

The fact that "Ruger will fix it" is cold comfort when the guns are brand new purchases, and quality control issues on these guns almost seem a 50/50 crap shoot.

sig p365 firing pin, colt's new snake gun, etc. seems like customers are now the beta testers for new firearms. if so, customer service is important.

smith & wesson and taurus are no better than ruger when it comes to new firearm quality. i don't think this is going to change anytime soon in todays market.

murf

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

An Old Model Backhawk .357/9MM Convertible, an OM Super Blackhawk. No New Models for me, I am a traditionalist, my safety is in my head. I have a 6" Stainless Security Six , very accurate.

 

[kidneyboy]

Who prefers older guns than newer?
Old guys. Nothing beats what they had when they were younger.

 

[Old Stumpy]

Who prefers older guns than newer?
Old guys. Nothing beats what they had when they were younger.

I'm am old guy and I prefer guns without manufacturing defects.
Sadly, that frequently excludes newer guns.
The Ruger revolvers that I had when I was younger didn't have any defects.
Made by experienced long term employees and with far better quality control.

 

[CraigC]

Not in my experience. To me, avoiding turds means assessing individual guns, not segregating according to manufacture date.

I'm am old guy and I prefer guns without manufacturing defects.
Sadly, that frequently excludes newer guns.
The Ruger revolvers that I had when I was younger didn't have any defects.
Made by experienced long term employees and with far better quality control.

That may be more of a romantic notion about your own past than an accurate assessment of quality and QC. When I was a kid, Colt SAA's were a crapshoot and most were over-polished, now they're the best they've ever been. I have a 1959 Single Six in my desk drawer that appears to be unfired but the gas ring does not contact the frame. While the cylinder does contact the barrel. That's a serious defect that will be expensive to fix. Had I bought it in person, I would've passed on it but it came from a collector online. I have an Old Model Blackhawk .357 from the `60's that has a lazy loading gate. It has obviously been that way since it was manufactured but it's destined to become a custom job. I have two Dan Wessons from the `70's to `80's at the gunsmith right now that need new cylinders due to manufacturing defects.

Fact of the matter is that Ruger has improved their manufacturing. In 2005 they started reaming chambers one at a time, rather than gang-reaming them all at once. This is resulted in more uniform chambers. I love Old Models but would put any modern New Model flat-top against the old guns any day of the week. The most accurate Ruger I own is about three years old. 5/8" groups at 25yds.

S&W's are a bit different. They have gone downhill.

 

[Meeks36]

The oldest Ruger I have was shipped in 96. It's a super blackhawk 44 mag. And I think by the looks of it. It has only seen 44spl. Almost zero flame cutting. Barrel looks super clean. The Smith I had the flame cutting was scary. Wish I had pic's. It was ruff.

 

[mjsdwash]

I agree. Too much plastic, too much aluminum. They don't even make a good version of the standard model anymore.

 

[Old Stumpy]

That may be more of a romantic notion about your own past than an accurate assessment of quality and QC.

Not at all. Just about every Ruger handgun that I've owned in the last 10 years has had problems of one kind or another. All of these were problems that I never encountered with the Ruger handguns that I bought in the 70s, 80s, 90s. and early 2000s. In fact I never encountered ANY problems with these earlier guns at all.

I'm not talking about perfect chambers or superior accuracy. I'm talking about obvious defects. Screwed up timing on a Ruger New Vaquero, sharp edges on a .44 magnum stainless Super Blackhawk, uncrowned barrel on an SR1911, and a Single Six rear sight assembled with a coil spring sticking out. All were victims of indifferent or non-existent quality control inspection.

I am sure that not all Ruger handguns from the early days were perfect, but the percentage of lemons back then was much, much lower than it is today.

The fact of the matter is that if you bought a Ruger handgun after 2010, you probably have a 50/50 chance of getting one that does not have problems, based on my direct experience.

 

[CraigC]

Are you inspecting these guns before you take them home?

 

[Old Stumpy]

Are you inspecting these guns before you take them home?

No. I walk into the gun shop wearing a blindfold and a using a white cane.
Then I shut my brain off and completely disregard 40+ years of firearms experience.
After that I buy the gun without ever having set eyes on it.....

 

[CraigC]

Some people do that and assume because it's new, it's perfect. I don't.

I had to ask, because those all sound like issues that would've been eliminated in a pre-purchase inspection.

 

[chicharrones]

Cosmetically, I like Rugers with roll marks versus the etched marking they are doing on some guns. I guess roll marks are old school now.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I had to ask, because those all sound like issues that would've been eliminated in a pre-purchase inspection.

Each and every one was inspected carefully. But contrary to what you might think, not all problems are that obvious until you actually have an opportunity to examine them at home.
Gun shops often don't allow you to cock new revolvers lest drag marks appear on a new pristine cylinder, so uncovering faulty timing isn't a possibility. They strap the hammer with a plastic cable tie.
They also don't allow you to field strip new autoloaders lest they get scratched, so internal burrs are not discovered in the shop.
The mashed spring in the rear sight of the Single Six was tiny and only apparent on a very close inspection when it failed to work properly.
The muzzle burrs only appeared after firing the first shots from the SR1911. In the shop it looked fine.
And the sharp edges were subtle on the stainless Super Blackhawk. It's something that you feel before you see.

But, I'm pleased that we both agree that Ruger handguns made in the last 10 years do require very careful inspection to avoid buying a gun with defects.

 

[CraigC]

The only revolvers I encounter with zip ties are Colt SAA's. I check timing on everything else. I can see missing internal burrs, unless they can be felt while working the action or slide. I can see missing the mashed spring but that's an easy fix. Bad crowns and sharp edges are easy.

EVERYTHING requires a thorough inspection. `Tis the nature of any consumer good and it doesn't matter when it was made. I rejected a 30yr old S&W I got off Gunbroker with obvious factory defects that would've required gunsmith intervention. That said, I've bought a lot of Rugers over the years, many of them new production and only had to send one of them back, which is one of only two ever. It was a New Bearcat that I received as a gift, so no pre-purchase inspection.

 

[caz223]

I've got new turds from Ruger, and old ones.
Now, keep in mind they make way more guns in a year now than they did then, so you'll see more.
I think it's about the same percentage.
Most of my favorite rugers now have new model written on the side, but they're mostly 20 years old. Some are newer.
I bought a used one back in the 90's and heard that if you buy a new SBH hammer it goes on a 'new model' blackhawk and winds up being an upgrade.
So I bought a new SBH hammer (In about 2015) and it dropped in a blackhawk with no fitting from 20+ years earlier. And, it was an upgrade.
That's what you get with newer Rugers. Better parts interchangeability.

 

[Kookla]

I've got new turds from Ruger, and old ones.
Now, keep in mind they make way more guns in a year now than they did then, so you'll see more.
I think it's about the same percentage.

I think what you're saying is spot on. They make a lot more guns now than they did before. In 2012 they made over one million guns in a year. It's probably a matter of scale.

 

[Charlie98]

I've probably owned 8 or 9 Ruger revolvers over the past 33 years, starting with a Single-Six in 1987... through about 4 or 5 .45 Colt Blackhawks and Bisleys, a .41 Bisley, and, finally, a .44SPC Flattop.... and they have all done one thing with regularity: Not shoot worth a foop. I'm sure, in hindsight, they all had issues with cylinder throats and/or torque bulges, and the .41 cylinder rattled on the cylinder pin like an old Ford on a dirt road. I'm now down to my last Ruger revolver... a 5.5" (old) Vaquero .45 I use as my knock-around pistol, so it doesn't have to be that accurate, which it is not.

Old vs New? I'll tell you what, if you are OK with lower powered cartridges, those New Model Blackhawks are dandy! The .44SPC I had was such a critter, and it was probably as handy and well-balanced as anything in the herd. It suffered from the dreaded torque bulge, so it went on down the trail, but it wasn't a bad pistol, per se. Granted, it didn't handle the big boomers like my Vaquero does, but it certainly had it's merits.

 

[LOLBELL]

I'm am old guy and I prefer guns without manufacturing defects.
Sadly, that frequently excludes newer guns.
The Ruger revolvers that I had when I was younger didn't have any defects.
Made by experienced long term employees and with far better quality control.

Could aways buy a Freedom Arms. It’ll be perfect, cost you though, bout 4 times what the Ruger does.

 

[stonebuster]

The internet has added to the perception older guns were less problematic.IMO. Now when a new owner has a problem they join a forum and post. It's not a bad thing, but makes it seem more prevalent.

 

[CraigC]

The internet has added to the perception older guns were less problematic.IMO. Now when a new owner has a problem they join a forum and post. It's not a bad thing, but makes it seem more prevalent.

I agree 100%. I don't think there's more problems, we're just more likely to hear about them. Human nature dictates that people are FAR more likely to post a complaint than a praise.