They listened and brought out a 77 in 9,3X62. They announced it, but they couldn't get it to shelves until they could scrounge up some proof loads first. By that time the Bloom was off the Rose.

Dealers were averse to ordering these metrics, because few knew much more than 308s and magnums.

By the time people were asking dealers for the 9,3X63 rifles, and dealers were trying to order them, Ruger spooked and gave up on the 9,3X62. There was also a bit of propensity to misfire, seemingly inherent in the 9,3X62. And, I'm sure Ruger was worried CZ had flooded that niche market by now.

Bingo...no more being made suddenly...no more fast slender properly designed affordable medium bore Africa rifles that had rifle loonies grinning.

NOW, they brought out a No.1 in 9,3X62!! No more bolt guns are being made in this great round, and they already were producing the 9,3X74R in No.1s. It is perplexing that they went this direction with a round so perfect for a standard length magazine rifle, and not anything special in a single shot.

Ruger is becoming bi-polar.

Not really. They only make a few thousand No. 1's a year, so make most of those in new chamberings, knowing No. 1 loonies will buy them all.

Probably some guys who bought 9.3x74R's will also buy 9.3x62's! Certainly brass and ammo availability is better for the rimless round, partly because cases can always be made from .30-06's.

John,

You know how much I respect your opinion, but to drop a great bolt gun round, then put it in a single shot only doesn't seem logical.

I realize that all these things we like are small potatoes in Ruger's scheme of things, and I can't argue with their success. I am also grateful they DID produce the African in 9,3X63, even if for a very limited run.

From the outside, looking in it would seem that a standard Hawkeye in 9,3X62 wouldn't cost them much to add to that line. They already have the reamers, know how/where to get barrels, have the action and stocks that need no alteration

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe it would sell well enough for a relatively slight cost to justify adding to the lineup. Fortunately for the gun manufacturers I am not the typical target market, however.

There's a lot more cost than just cutting the chamber for a different round. For them to make a couple hundred rifles in what you believe is the perfect round and 90%+ of hunters have never heard of doesn't really make economical sense.

It sure did for CZ. And, why now in a No.1 series Ruger?

Not sure where this is going, but my interest in the 9.3's started by reading some of JB's earlier work on his CZ 550 9.3x62. I promptly ordered one of the same. Then Ruger had to do the No.1S in 9.3x74 - had to have one of those too (thinking JB might have influenced that as well). When Ruger came out with the African in 375 Ruger, I told myself if they ever did one in 9.3x62, I'd have one. Then they did - I resisted for a while... When I found one, I promised myself I'd sell the CZ to justify it - couldn't do it. Now I find myself thinking of rechambering the African to 9.3x64

I can say that Ruger gambling on non mainstream chamberings has cost me some $ (and JB's reporting positively on same might be a factor), but all in a good way

We need to get into the same therapy group.

Exactly.

Ruger is a business. When Bill ran the company he often made guesses based on his gut feelings as a shooting loony, and was right more often than he was wrong. But he was wrong sometimes, and since he passed away it's become a much larger and more profitable company.

This thread is beginning to remind me a lot of the stories I hear from EVERY manufacturer of firearms, ammo, reloading equipment, components, etc. They're constantly told by individuals that they should chamber X cartridge, make Y bullet or Z ammo. Most just nod politely and say, "We'll take it under consideration."

But I do know a few individuals who, in such venues as the SHOT Show, reply, "And how many customers can you guarantee will buy it?"

The usual reply is, "Me and my brother-in-law, for sure."

Whereupon the company guy says, "Go find another 10,000 brothers-in-law and we'll talk." Depending on the day, the reply may not be that polite.

Companies that mass-produce rifles, ammo, bullets, etc. by their very definition aren't much into making custom rifles, ammo, bullets. etc. They're not going to tool up to produce a few dozen rifles that the guy and his brother-in-law could "produce" themselves if they were willing to pay $500 for a rebarrel job.

I have found John' s writings on 9.3x62 to be enlightening. I did not realize how closely the 250 gr matches the 338WM 250gr. If one was loading the 338WM with only the 250' one could easily roll the 9.3 and have the ability to shoot heavier bullets.

If one is shooting lighter bullets in 338,then the 338 is still the way to go? If not, then I think is would go with the 9.3.

Would like to see a real through ballistical analysis/comparison one day.

Nor did the Ruger short 338 or 300, but they tried those, too. Their 480 was a rousing success.

It shows they can be as wrong as we are.

Wouldn't it be novel if they had guns like the 9,3X63 African ready to ship by the time they announced them to the public, instead of their role out that rivaled Obamacare's?

I love Sturm,Ruger Inc. and have for most of my life. They have brought innovation and great toys to my toy-box for a long time, and I wish them continued prosperity. The move from bolt rifle to a single shot in this round has me puzzled.

IMO the RCM never made any sense when the WSMs and SAUMs already existed. And don't give this well the equal WM in short barrels. Gobblygook!

Just a vanity project and because they were upset that they had to pay Jamison if they continued to chamber WSMs.

Not saying they're not good cartridges, just too late and in a crowded marketplace.

I had thought that the 480 had a substantial share of the over 44mag crowd that couldn't afford or didn't want a 475 Linebaugh or 454 Casull.

Still think that if I went over 44mag I'd search out a super Redhawk.

Actually that 480 was and is a much better cartridge than it's sales suggest, certainly better in several respects than the 460 and 500 that appealed to the testosterone sales crowd, and therefore overshadowed it in sales. Any gun loony understands that reason often plays a distant second fiddle to the desire for something that burns gunpowder. I suspect that Ruger may be realizing this reality. That doesn't mean that the 9.3x62 was a bad idea, just that they might want to avoid getting burned again.

I can't fault you on the RCMs! A lot of companies will "introduce" a model and then see what the demand and orders actually are before they decide if they're going to make them or not. Kimber announced a 84L in 35 Whelen, I ordered one as soon as they announced it, two years later I was informed that there were not enough orders and they decided not to make them.

Ruger has always done this type of thing. Numerous products have been announced and never see the light of day. They also have a bad habit of poor marketing and not giving time for a market to develop. The 480 is probable the most sensible big bore handgun cartridge ever developed. Yet they chamber the SRH for it. Instead of the SBH which is what the dedicated big bore handgun nuts want it chambered in. Lots of interest for the alaskan version of the SRH yet Ruger made them in extremely small numbers. How can you say sales are not strong enough if your not getting the product on the market. Last time Ruger said the 480 alaskans where to be produced I had several dealers hunting for one for me. All the distributors had waiting lists for the gun.

What really upsets me with Ruger is they are selling a ton of easily produced high profit margin plastic guns as of late. Now I am not saying they should lose money. But why can't they offer a few low profit margin guns that fill the small niche markets. The bottom line would still be extremely healthy and they would have a wider customer base familiar with their products that would consider buying a Ruger in the future. Seems like a product has to set sales records for Ruger to produce it recently.

Here's some real Ruger logic for you.

Introduce a new, low dollar, bolt gun line that markets under $400 and add to it an improved trigger, better bedding, free floating and a serious recoil pad while still churning out your standard bolt gun at an always high but annually much higher MSRP with the same design 'features' your grandad enjoyed.

Ruger is asking its 77 fans, can you say "Duhhh"?

1B

I guess I see this a little differently. Over the years, Ruger has produced short runs of specialty calibers and configurations for niche markets, while keeping continual production of mainline products. These short runs have allowed folks access to guns that other companies don't produce. It may look random, but I doubt it is.
My wife's been in Sales Service for 30 years and I've been in sales off and on for most of the last ten years. We spend a good bit of time with friends who are in sales and marketing. I would guess that there are marketing folks at Ruger who have a list of short runs and marketing data for them, including expected sales figures. Heck, they probably know what our ages are and what color socks we wear. I would also think that these short production runs will be just a few guns short of market demand. It's the way most other successful companies do business.
Bfly

It's not random.

All major firearms companies look constantly at various trends, then try to produce guns to fit those trends. That doesn't mean they're always right--in either direction.

One example is the .300 WSM. For several years various wildcats and proprietary short/beltness cartridges had grown in popularity, so obviously demand was there. How much demand was the real question, and boy were the Winchester people fooled: In the .300 WSM's first year, rifle and ammo sales were EIGHT times their marketing predictions.

At the other extreme, of course, is the WSSM's, which didn't come anywhere near their projections.

One trend I've noticed over the years is most of the successful introductions are cartridges like the .300 WSM, where there's already some demand due to wildcats. Other examples would be the .22-250, .243, .25-06, 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 Winchester Magnum. There was already plenty of demand of those cartridges (or something very similar) before Remington and Winchester "introduced" them. And there was already some demand for a bolt-action .22 centerfire to fill the gap between the .22 Hornet and .220 Swift before the .222 Remington appeared.

The least successful introductions are cartridges dreamed up by firearms companies themselves, with zero indication of any desire from the shooting public. Good examples are the .225 Winchester, .256 Winchester "Magnum," and the 6.5 Remington Magnum. Oh, and most of the "modern: cartridges designed for traditional lever-action rifles that are supposed improvements over the .30-30 Winchester and .35 Remington, including the .307 and .356 Winchesters and the .308 and .338 Marlins.

But they keep trying, partly because of occasional big successes like the 7mm Remington Magnum and .300 WSM. Unfortunately, there appears to have been only enough demand for short-fat-beltless magnums for one real success, which is why the other WSM's, the SAUM's and RCM's haven't done nearly as well.

But even the non-successes provide some hunters with an uncommon rifle they can claim is the best ever, even if maybe 68 other people truly believe it. I know hunters who firmly the .225 Winchester and 6.5 Remington Magnum are the very best rounds in their respective calibers, and aren't afraid to tell the world exactly why.

I'm also sure the gun companies are quite happy to know there are a bunch of high school teachers, insurance adjusters, lawyers, diesel mechanics, computer programmers and ranchers who could do a much better job of predicting what guns the American public will buy than their own people. The next time a marketing guy comes up with an idea like the .225 Winchester and 6.5mm Remington Magnum they can just fire him and place an ad in the Campfire Classifieds. They'll have their pick of 1000 experts.

I was under the impression the .270 WSM was doing about as well in sales as the .300 WSM. Am I mistaken?

Of all the firearms manufacturers, I think Ruger and Smith should be the last ones to be bashed for not making anything. Those two companies seem to do more for gun queers than any other. And they actually make good schit to boot.



Travis

As a southpaw I can't bash Ruger one little bit. They've given us the LH Hawkeye in more calibers than just about all the other gun makers combined except Savage. .204, .223, .22-250, .243, .25-06, .270., 7mm-08, 7mm RM, .308, .30-06, .300 WM, their RCMs plus the .375 Ruger.

And while they quit cataloging them, they've continued to make short runs of LH stainless rifles in .270, .30-06, .308, .223 and .300 WM.

In the meantime Remington dropped their short action LH rifles and Winchester and Kimber refuse to make them at all.

Knowing full well that LH rifles are a small niche and even a lot of southpaws buy right hand rifles (*$%@ traitors!!!) I've sent the Ruger CEO a couple of emails thanking him for keeping us in their thoughts, prayers and production schedule.

I like Ruger. They are pretty good about keeping the looneys happy, especially in comparison to some other companies.

But I don't see how a poll of what shooters want would hurt. Put a poll of several potential choices up on their website and see what happens. Instead they listen to an executive who decided a muzzle brake is necessary for shooting icebergs.

I can't stand left handed people, but I agree. Ruger does a good job of spreading the wealth. My brother was born backward also, and has remained a Ruger guy for just that reason.


Travis

I'll mirror what JB said, but will use Browning as my example. For darnnear 20 years I suggested, asked, and begged Browning to chamber the 250 Savage in their wonderful Micro Hunter rifle. They already make it in .243, so there'd be no physical impairments to making it in .250 Savage. And it would make a simply delightful deer rifle for the smaller-statured (or geezers like me.) Nope.

They claimed there'd be no demand. I countered with the sales record of Savage's limited-production runs of that chambering - all of which flew off the shelves. "That's was probably the whole market," said the Browning whizkids.

You must remember the ads for the XGI.

Marketing people who are out of touch with the reality of what the consumer wants is not a trait inherent to gun companies. Just look at pickup manufacturers....

Amen to that one!

Billy,

One potential problem with a public poll on new products is a few people over-loading it to what they want.

One thing I failed to mention in my earlier post is the reason many firearms companies have introduced new products few people wanted was that for years the engineering, production and marketing branches were totally separated. As a result, some stuff was designed by engineers who didn't consult production about how it might be mass-produced. A good example is the short-lived Speer Deep-Shok bullet, which was intended as a very affordable semi-premium bullet. It was a simple design (essentially what the Core-Lokt supposedly is, but isn't: a cup-and-core with the jacket thicker around the middle), but they couldn't figure out how to make it cheaply.

Often marketing departments were suddenly presented with products they couldn't sell, because what an engineer thinks is nifty might not meet any public demand. Examples of this are almost endless.

Ruger started to integrate those three facets of firearms manufacturing not long ago, one reason they're selling a lot guns and are highly profitable--despite all the whining from individuals that Ruger won't make exactly the custom rifle the want for $650.

My FIL, who is left handed but shoots right handed, says that everyone is born left handed and they only change if they sin. To that I say, "What about Bill Clinton"?

Does anyone else see the irony in a group of self-described "Loonies" taking manufacturers to task for being illogical?

There's more to predicting what people will buy than taking a poll. Polling will get you an answer as to what people want, but not what people will actually pay for.

Polling gave us the Edsel. Big, powerful, expensive - and introduced during a recession.

Yep, ask Remington.

Public: I wanna .35 Whelen! I wanna .35 Whelen! I wanna .35 Whelen!!!

Remington: Okay, here ya go. Bolt rifle and a pump rifle.

Public: (sound of crickets chirping)

Well, I happen to own one of 45 Stainless Steel T/C Ventures chambered for 6.5x284 made for a gun distributor. T/C also made 25 of the same gun in Blued steel.

Ruger makes limited run guns all the time for distributors like Davidsons, so it makes me wonder why any gun maker does what they do.

Which was a stupid move from a marketing stand point.

Sometimes there is the question of whether sales are driving marketing, or the opposite. If Ruger only makes a muzzle braked version of the 375 Ruger, when they sell a few does it mean the 375 is a success, or the muzzle brake? Or perhaps an article came out in a major magazine proclaiming the 375 Ruger's awesomeness, yet nobody really wants the muzzle brake, it's just the only option available. Marketing is a tricky game....

For instance, it was mentioned how a few cartridges are made in small runs from time to time to make the looneys happy. If one were to market these rifles to the masses, i.e. a campaign proclaiming the connection to the past by using the same cartridge as granddad used, it might sell some more weird rounds.
Perhaps an advertisement with a young fellow going hunting with his granddad as a boy, who proclaims the 250 Savage the greatest thing ever. He then loses his rifles in a house fire. Fast forward twenty years, and the now grown boy sees a new Ruger 250 Savage like used as a boy with his granddad on the shelf of the LGS. A smile crosses his face as he handles the rifle, while his young son then races up to his arms, passing on the tradition.

The crickets chirping isn't because of public apathy, it's because remington couldn't market Vodka to a russian alcoholic.

They consistantly screw the pooch when it comes to marketing and product development and then blame the public. They're idiots many times over. SAUM? 30AR? etronix ignition? 22" barrels of model 7s?, loading the 260rem with 140gr bullets at 2400fps?, bringing out the 7mm-06 oops, 7mm express oopps again, 280remington, 6mm remington with 1-12 twist that wouldn't shoot deer weight bullets, but market it as a "duel" purpose gun?

The company could figure out ahead of time a few options to vote on, and go from there.

It's just another technique that might help to sell some rifles. The poll might be a failure, but then again it might be a huge success - I would personally think positively of a company who directly asked their customers what they wanted, even if they didn't build the choice I had voted for.

Yeah, Remington should have schit-canned their marketing department years ago. Hopefully they integrated their departments, because there has been a serious disconnect with Remington.

I'd like to thank Ruger for producing niche cartridge rifles. Not criticize them for not chambering every niche cartridge into multiple different guns that would sit on dealer shelves for years due to limited demand. The 9.3x62 Mauser is terrific, but with CZ-USA selling them, is there much market for Ruger? I think not... But Ruger still produced those gorgeous Model 77 Africans, and now some #1 Single Shot rifles. I say thank Ruger, not complain!

Sure do and I still want one dammit!!

IIRC Ruger had such a poll on their website. They were asking what features we'd like to see on the Hawkeye rifles and then gave a list of 7 or 8 possibilities.

I told Browning if they ever made their low wall in .260, I'd buy one. Now, I'm quite certain I wasn't the reason they actually produced it, but you can bet as soon as I found out about it, I jumped on one. I could probably get close to 3x as much for it now as I paid for it. About as perfect a rifle/cartridge match as there ever was�

John

I recall an "Ask the President" deal where you could email in ideas, but don't recall a poll.

IIRC, many people emailed about wanting the silly bright bluing brought back, instead of the current useful matte finish. I wanted an extended safety for the Hawkeye.

I think the brand new Hawkeyes have the bright blue finish now instead of the matte.

I understand everything you're saying, John, but I still believe Ruger tripped on their dauber the way the 9,3X62 was introduced, then not delivered. You would think a manufacturer would think to get proof rounds lined up Before final production.

I also believe some of the market for the 9,3, albeit limited, wandered off to CZ out of frustration. Ruger's ducks were paddling all over puddles and not in a row.

I still thank them for this great 77 African 9,3X62 in my safe!

I can think of a few cartridges Ruger found room for over the not too distant past: 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 257 Roberts, 6.5 Swede, the HH, the Rigbone, the 405, the 450/400, 45 Colt, 45/70 and a few others.

The 9.3x62 perhaps wouldn't have set the world on fire, but it wouldn't be the first time that company did something worthwhile.

It seems their only true in house creation that won't go do-do is the 204.

About 35 or so years ago, Ruger announced a 12 gauge over-under which I dearly wanted. I waited for about 2 years and it still hadn't appeared, so I bought a Browning Citori Super Light in 12 gauge.

During the 2 year wait, the Browning's price went up considerably, but I bought it and have been very satisfied.

Ruger's reputation for announcing new products and delivering them is abysmal.

dmsbandit,

Ruger not only makes limited runs for Davidson's but Lipsey's--but the distributors pay for them, and thus take the financial risk.

The same thing is sometimes done with rifle scopes. For years quite a few people urged Leupold to bring back their 3x, but it didn't happen until SWFA said they'd buy a small run. Eventually Leupold agreed, and also offered the 3x as custom shop option. Despite all the people who said they'd buy an improved 3x, with click adjustments and multi-coated optics, sales haven't justified making it a standard item.

Once in a while a limited run proves popular enough for a company to make it a regular item, but not often.

What I saw was emails from Ruger over the last few years polling their customer's about potential variations for several guns, the last one being the LCR revolver. I distinctly remember saying hurray when their last survey asked for feedback on an LCR with an exposed hammer. But then maybe those emails only go to folks who sign on to Ruger's email list, and/or those who send routine messages via Ruger's 'Ask the President' webpage (I qualify on both counts).

Yeah, Ruger was real bad on delivering in the old days, but I believe that's changed drastically for the better since old Bill died. I can't think of any of their new models that haven't shown up at my local dealers within a very short time of their press announcements with the most recent ones being the LCR-X and the GP100 Match Champion.

Which is at least partly due to what I mentioned above, Ruger's recent emphasis on coordinating the engineering, production and marketing departments.

The most successful companies adapt and change. There are a bunch of examples of firms that didn't and died, including the original Redfield company. When I first started big game hunting in the 1960's, Redfields were considered one of the two best brands of American hunting scopes. A quarter-century later the company went out of business. The name has been sold several times since, most recently to the other company considered a top brand in the 60's, Leupold--a company that did adapt and change.

When in my 20's I hunted a lot with a much older guy who thought I was nuts for buying a .270 Winchester, because he'd owned one and couldn't find ammo. That was in the 1930's, about 35 years before I bought my .270. He also refused to buy Ford pickups because one broke down on him during a blizzard in the 1920's.

The word is full of people who'll tell you all Ruger No. 1's are inaccurate, all Fords break down constantly, all Japanese cars as cheap POS's, and all European optics are far superior to anything else--even though a lot of today's Euro-optics not only use glass from other parts of the world, but are MADE in other parts of the world.

I've read some astonishing things on this thread, including the implication that Ruger is nuts for offering a cheaper rifle to compete with their own good-selling bolt action. But the most successful and adaptable companies today, whether they make guns, vehicles or televisions, offer products for a wide variety of budgets, not just ONE product that doesn't change for decades.

John, I believe I remember reading (possibly something you wrote) that Ruger had changed to a manufacturing setup which allowed quick change between setups, allowing special runs without a lot of wasted time or expense.

The 9.3x62 was done in by the tremendous versatility of the 30-06!

Billy,

They have done that, and also have acquired an enormous number of sophisticated CNC machines in the past several years.

In fact all the successful factories I've visited in the past decade, whether large or small, have spent considerable time and money figuring out how to improve efficiency, not just by using CNC machines but by spending less time and energy simply moving parts along the line, as well as both parts and complete products within the factory. At the same time the products are generally of better quality, whether firearms, optics or bullets.

One of the things I've found most astonishing is the basic quality the new generation of "cheap" rifles. I bought a new Ruger 77 .30-06 on sale just before the hunting season of 1983 for a little over $300. Inflation has changed prices considerably since then, but Ruger Americans were on sale locally for basically the same price this past fall. No, they don't have walnut stocks, but Americans shoot at least as well and usually better than the 77's of 30 years ago, partly because Ruger makes some of the best barrels on American factory rifles. The Americans also weigh considerably less than a 1983 77, and have truly adjustable triggers and SOFT recoil pads.

I'm about to buy another, probably a .243.

I've owned 2 RAR's in 243 and they were both extremely accurate. Same goes for the 223. I'm awaiting the stainless version due out next month to outfit the kids. They need a couple compacts and I'll pick up a full size model for my fun.

One thing seldom mentioned about Ruger rifles is their throating....243 in particular. I've always been able to designate the jump without the mag box limiting my options.

You are probably correct and I'm just misremembering it. I do recall checking off the things I'd prefer to see and sending it to them, but forget if it was a poll on their website or an email.

In either case, though, I thought it was good of Ruger to reach out and ask us.

IIRC the final death knell for Redfield was that the EPA ordered them to clean up some ponds on their site that were polluted? Is that correct John? Or is my memory faulty. The cleanup costs were in the millions. Rather than cleanup, Redfield filed for bankruptcy.

Yep, I ordered an XGI.

Luv2safari - " There was also a bit of propensity to misfire, ".

Would you care to expand on that thought for me? I've two (2) 9.3x62mm's - a Ruger 77 African and a CZ550 American. They both went bang every time I squeezed the trigger. No FTF issues either...I must have have missed that class on misfires sometime in the past few years. Thanks, Homesteader.

John,

Maybe you missed my point which is:

Ruger is not offering the improvements built into the cheaper American series for their higher dollar, front-line, bolt guns. In essence, Ruger penalizes you for paying more for an item!

I actually commend Ruger for making a very decent entry level rifle that offers some who cannot afford the ever rising cost of getting into hunting/shooting while still making a profit. Stiffing their current customer base is the issue I intended to raise.

1B

Yes. What is that? Head space?

That's what I've noticed as well. Companies are adapting to a changing market and are smarter/more efficient with their production lines. Ruger took a bit longer to get there than Savage or Rem, but it's really working to their advantage.

Here's part of an article I wrote in 2008. It was written tongue in cheek, but reflected the changing nature of off the shelf hunting rifles. Shooters were suggesting that companies "cheaped out", using substandard parts, inexpensive off shore labor and slipshod manufacturing short cuts. Oddly, budget rifles shoot fairly well these daze. If your grandfather shot a Savage Axis or Ruger American, he may have tossed his Winchester Model 70.

---
from Internet Rifle Accuracy
- 2008, Stephen Redgwell

...Despite manufacturing short cuts, poor quality control and the increased use of polymers, groups have continued to shrink. Strange isn't it? Regardless of the complaints from hunters and shooters about crappy, flexible stocks, heavy, lawyer proof triggers and so-so stock/action fit, I keep reading about out of the box accuracy being better than ever before. I read this stuff on hunting and shooting forums...on the Internets.

Some might say that you can't have it both ways. Someone must be telling fibs 'cause you cannot have poorly made, butt ugly, ill fitting rifles that shoot better groups than competition rifles!

Some might also say that at the rate we're going, we should be bug holing with econo-guns by the end of the decade. It sure looks that way. It also seems that we'll be doing it with 10 lb trigger pulls, using assemblies made from pot metal parts, housed in ugly, limp and shoddily made plastic stocks. All this will be attached to less metallic versions of traditional rifle actions, assembled by numpties, using poorly constructed, off shore parts. Wow!
---

Many people don't like to admit it, but std rifles are shooting better. I will go out on a limb and say that they are a better value too. They just aren't the pretty, deeply blued, wood stocked pieces of the past. People have to remember that wood stocks used to be the norm, but not anymore. Synthetic stocks are cheaper and easier to make. They are also less affected by the weather. If you spent time in the service, you'll appreciate that plastic stocks get the job done in any climate. They just aren't as warm and cuddly as the rifles of old.

Adjustable triggers are easier to manufacture and are the norm these days - like air conditioning or power windows in a vehicle. They used to be expensive options, but come standard in most cars now.

To borrow from Bob Dylan, a 50 year old song he wrote describes things best.

excerpt from The Times They Are a-Changin'
- 1963, Bob Dylan

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'
---

The times, they still are a-changin'...

AB2506,

Redfield was sinking rapidly long before the EPA ruling, thanks to Leupold's dominance of the industry.

In the 1960's Redfield and Leupold were considered the top-quality hunting scopes in America, but the competition didn't last long. I knew one of the guys who was a higher-up a Redfield long before the EPA deal, who said, "One day we looked up and Leupold was so far ahead we couldn't even see their dust." That's why Don Burris left to form his own company. Declaring bankruptcy was the only way to salvage anything out of what was essentially a lost cause.

Have owned/fired a few Rugers over the past 40 years and found fault with none of them. 1022s, M77 tang safetys and Minis.

But they do seem to attract lots of negative attention? Can still recall guys fussing about the then-new M77s, back in the early 70s: "Cast receivers? They'll blow up on ya", that sort of thing. I loved the M77 because I also love M98s, the rifle I grew up with as a child.

Will say one thing about Ruger's current logic: Their American 22 rimfire is the cat's ass.

I own well over a dozen rifles in 22LR and the Ruger American is now my favorite. Prefer it over my CZ 455. Great price, functional design, good bit of practical ingenuity in the entire deal (like using the 1022 mag) and the little sumbitch likes just about every sort of ammo I have on hand.

And yeah, I was once a blued steel/walnut curmudgeon that wouldn't own a synthetic stocked abomination at any price. Emphasis on "was".

I've found that most people that bad mouth the M77's are idiots.


Travis

1B,

You mean the American is a "better" rifle than the 77 Hawkeye because of the steel bedding blocks and three locking lugs? I would say it's different, but not necessarily better.

The American is a great bargain, but I've now had experience with several. The adjustable trigger's lower end is usually about 3-1/2 pounds, only occasionally three or slightly less. The synthetic stock isn't as stiff as the one on the Hawkeye, and the forend channel often requires some rasp work for the barrel to free-float, as it's supposed to. The tang safety's handy, but doesn't lock the bolt down.

There are still MANY hunters who buy Hawkeyes, because they want 3-position safeties that lock the bolt down, controlled-round feeding, and a trigger that can be touched up easily to a crisp and safe 2-pound pull. Oh, and integral scope-mount bases and free rings, a fixed magazine box with a hinged steel floorplate, and the option of a walnut stock. My experience with a bunch of Hawkeyes is they shoot just as well as the Americans, because after all they feature the same excellent hammer-forged barrels.

What Ruger did with the American was offer hunters a choice, not a superior rifle for half the money--just as Leupold offers scopes for every budget. Just because the Redfield Revolution is great scope for the money doesn't mean people have quit buying VX-3's.

Boy isn't that the truth...

Old Bob really came up with a timeless statement there - even recognizing its truth, some of us dinosaurs still aren't comfortable straying too far from the tar pits.

Yes, I think many of us are suffering from old guy's disease. "Things weren't like that in my day!" or words to that effect.

Nothing remains unchanged.

I for one don"t think there is much wrong with Ruger and the way it's run. In June of 2011 I bought $5000 of RGR at $20 and change and now it's trading at $70 or so. There's enough profit for a right nice hunting trip.

You can thank Zero for most of that profit and run up.

And all the firearms companies in America are grateful for his "support."

However, a lot of Ruger's expansion took place during the Bush administration.

The genius of the American Rifle is that they can probably make five of them in the time it takes to make one M77. Over the last few years, anything they put on the shelves, expensive or cheap would have sold at a record pace, but by putting a cheap and easy to produce rifle out there, they've been able to keep up with demand and take advantage of the demand.

You can see it at Wal-Mart. The American Rifle is already the most common rifle on the shelf. In just a short time, Ruger has not only gained its foothold in that segment of the market, but begun to dominate it.

Amen.

I wonder what they're talking about in the Savage Arms boardroom?

I don't know, but from what I can see around here Ruger is seriously stealing their thunder. In my opinion, savage really screwed up when they ditched the Stevens 200 for the Savage Axis. The Axis is just ugly. The Stevens 200 was much more traditional and better looking. Now, Ruger comes in with a pretty good looking rifle and knocks them on their arses.

Exactly.

If you wanted to build a rifle, and were on a budget, the Stevens 200 was a wonderful platform. The price point was spot on. The barrel, bolt and trigger were dead simple to modify. Stocks were available. The Stevens 200 reminded me of high school - back in the days when you could rebuild cars and stuff in the driveway.

Perhaps the Ruger American is the next sport utility rifle. Fun to shoot, fix up and get dirty. The aftermarket parts builders must be working hard to satisfy the Ruger American owners.

There was a you tube video floating around where a fellow filled the hollow stock of his American with something. I think it might be worth a try before replacing the original.

We should start a poll on when the first inevitable outcome will occur:

Someone buys a $350 Ruger American and then puts a $500 McMillan stock on it.

go buy one and play with it a bit, tell me it isn't as good a quality as any 700 ADL out there.

If you mean me and not just to the forum in general, I already have and wrote a very glowing report on it. It's one of my favorite rifles even though it's a right hander literally surrounded by left hand bolt actions.

God help us if these two are what we consider good looking rifles.



Travis

I really really want to buy me a Forbes rifle, but man, I'm kind of tight. And a Ruger American rifle is maybe half a pound heavier and probably shoots just as good, if not better for 20% of the cost? It is kind of hard to justify the added expense.

If it ain't wood and blue, it all kind of looks the same anyway...except for the Savage Axis. That thing looks like...well, I don't know what it looks like but it is ugly.

As long as you can also change the barrel, bed it, replace the trigger and true the action.

You might as well put a Swarovski on top of it as well.

I was thinking about a Nightforce scope. That would make it "Practically Tactical".

jim- not picking on you, agreeing with you.

Over here its the Axis that still has the bulk of the lower end market, don't get enough Americans to allow that 'domination' to occur. Speaking with the local gunshop owner, on review they are slightly down in profitability, but working 4 times as hard to maintain it. Less shooters/hunters are buying the quality end of the firearm spectrum, preferring to purchase lower priced items and keep money in their pockets.
Cheers...
Con

At 57 I'm lost in the past I guess. I love wood and blue! I like to admire the rifle I'm using when I stop for lunch, in camp or at home. I even still like my hammers and axes to have wood handles.

A hunting firearm has always been more than just a tool or a means to an end for me. If all my hunting was in the Pacific Northwest and it rained on me all day, every day that I hunted, I would own a stainless and plastic rifle. But I don't, so I don't. So no American or Axis for me.

To me there has never, and will never be a good looking plastic stocked rifle. Utilitarian? Absolutely! Shoot lights out? Sure!

But just because Rosie O'Donnell has all the same equipment a Connie Britton or Catherine Bell has, I know who I would choose to spend time with. Not that Ms. Britton or Bell would ever spend any time with me.

Somebody probably already has fancy stocks and scopes on order for some of these $300 rifles. Probably the same guys who spend $1000+ upgrading 10/22s and Mark III pistols, instead of buying Anschutz rifles and S&W 41s. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw a Stevens 200 with a pretty decent Boyd's checkered wood stock on it the other day.

I dunno....I just got back from the LGS and looked at a Ruger American, and a Hawkeye.

Not much doubt which one I'd pick.

I can understand the "cheap accuracy" attraction, but still wouldn't buy an American. But they must be selling a lot of them because they had a lot of them there. Not my cup of tea.

I would rather a CRF rifle, with a open trigger, one piece bolt, three position safety, not because a push feed wouldn't work, I just choose to like that feature set so I own quite a few MKII's and hawkeyes. That said I can see some use for a rifle that that's cheap and works well. I have my eyes open for a all weather RAR in 223 and there is a good chance I will pick one up when they become available.

I will say that the number of RARs at local gunshops and the number they seem to be selling over the last few months is impressive. I wouldn't be surprised to find that in the last quarter its among the top selling centerfires of any model.

My guess is that its due to a number of factors, first they seem to be producing enough that shops have 20+ on the racks and the price is right. They feel pretty good to me (for a plastic stocked POS that is). I wouldn't be surprised if the wholesale price is such that they are profitable for the shops to sell.

One more factor is that they are in a range where they can be pretty much an impulse buy. There are a lot more folks that can drop $300 on whim, than can drop $1200.

My main concern with buying one of these cheap rifles is that something will break or fail in the field. Nothing worse.

Imagine knocking over your trophy, and needing a second shot to finish the job and something like the extractor breaks and you can't chamber a second round?

There are other cheap options that provide much more rugged reliability. The Zastava M70 bolt action synthetics are available here for up to 75 dollars less than the Ruger American in places and about the same money as an Axis. Those things can't be broken in my experience, and they shoot about as good as anything out of the box.

not here though. ruger is $340 and the zastava- if we can find one- is over $450

You're not lost in the past. You're just waiting for the right shade of polymer to come along. No worries.



Absolutely. I've got a fancy stock on a Stevens. It was a 223, now it's a 6x45.



We know. You'll just love the American.



The stock is likely stronger than the wooden stocked rifles you own. The other parts have been thoroughly tested by the R and D folks. They're solid. (Except the Remingtons...)

---

There are so many pluses to the American, Axis and XL7. They are affordable, accurate, and bring new shooters into the sport. No one says that you have to buy one, but you should feel happy for those that do. Can you remember your first rifle?

The world is full of anti-gunners. Be happy that hunting and shooting does not have to cost a small fortune to enjoy. Not everyone can afford a Leupold or a Kimber. They'll shoot as well or better than the expensive rifles. And you know what? Not everyone likes wood, or high dollar price tags on something they consider a tool.

Don't think of these rifles as econo-tubes. Think of them as Sport Utility Rifles (SURs) There, you were here for the birth of some new slang. You can take them anywhere. Beat them up. Modify them. Paint them. In short, treat them like a Jeep.

I've played with a couple. As I said on another thread, I think I'll get me one in the morning.

bobnob:I don't think it ever occurs to some rifle buyers that this sort of thing could ever happen...

The most they'd think about is would the factory warranty cover it? .....which may be helpful after the fact,but not worth much at the time.

One nice thing about something like that happening with a cheap rifle....I could fling it into the nearest river and not give it a second thought.

You're absolutely right about being concerned with the factory warranty, but in the event of failure, it's not much good at the time. That happened to me. I had a Leupold go south on a hunt over 600 miles from home. Luckily, I brought another rifle.

You guys must hate Dodge trucks too...

To the Two Bobs (inNH and nob17):

So far the Americans may not have been around long enough to see how they'll hold up over the long haul. But I have shot the snot out of the .308 I own, and have been on a couple of big shoots where 10-12 shooters used Americans to not only do "accuracy" shooting but rapid-fire, with the bolt being slammed back and forth and brass flying everywhere.

No rifle break-downs so far, but then again I'm somebody who's fired over 100,000 rounds through Remington 700's under all sorts of conditions from -20 Fahrenheit and snowing to 100+ in dust--and haven't had an extractor break or a bolt handle come off yet. Maybe I'm lucky, but apparently something about me is REALLY hard on scopes....

I'm betting even the cheap Ruger will please the once a year deer hunter right down to the ground after all that's likely Rugers target group. But, they are not for me.

And no doubt it especially pleases the deer hunters with kids.

i really like mine. took a closer look after JB spoke so highly of his.

Inexpensive does not always mean poorly made.

For years, when talking about Savage or Stevens rifles, I've seen or heard people say things like "it's an entry level rifle" or "a budget rifle". It's "only good for a 15 yr. old". "They're okay to learn on." etc.

Most of those people wouldn't know a good punch if they got smacked in the head with one.

Some of you should be crabbing about the prices you're paying for a so called "good rifle". You're spending additional money, so it's got to shoot better, right?

Hmmm, people spend twice the money on a Remington 700, and then spend more money replacing the trigger, or having their gunsmith rework it. Some real loons even swap out the new OEM barrel and/or re-bed the stock.

Fewer rifles have wooden stocks, and OEM plastic stocks are the norm these days. They're cheaper to produce, but I don't always see lower prices for plasti-rifles.

For the prices they're charging for a new Rem 700, Model 77 or Model 70, I'd expect perfection right out of the box. No tweaking. Nothing. Just attach a scope and start shooting 0.5 inch groups.

I mentioned it earlier, but I'm a fan of the Ruger American Rifle. It's a lot of gun for the money. I also have kids that are getting into hunting. My oldest daughter (10) has been at it for a couple years. I can't wait to get them on the prairie dog fields in Montana with their 223 compacts. They'll have lots of trigger time here too.

The Ruger American Rimfire is also a great option for the kids. The interchangeable comb really helps with younger shooters as well. The higher comb lets them get behind the scope in a very comfortable fashion. Ruger deserves kudos for the thought of appeasing shooters of smaller stature.

While some bash the inexpensive versions offered by Ruger, I praise them.

Steve,

why are you talking about a Tikka in this thread?

I don't know.

I remember my first Tikka. The stock was solid. The trigger broke like glass. No need to bed the barrel. And those barrels! The Scandinavian barrel cobblers make them so well. Some get screwed onto Sakos. Some onto Tikkas.

Jiminy Jillickers! Or is that Yumpin" Yiminy!"

never tells a Finnish is a scandinavian lol ...

but the barrels of Tikka are coming from Sako factory so there is nothing wrong .... older tikkas had less plastic on them ... T3 is the entry level for Sako line ...

Plastic is the new metal. It's also the new wood.

Plastics are easier to grow and don't take up as much space on the planet as trees. They plant monomers, but because monomers will stick to almost anything, they grow like weeds. I think that's what my prof. said. I'm not sure. All I really remember is the fumes.

Forgot to mention that I found out last week that Ruger's now offering an American package with a mounted 3-9x40 Redfield Revolution scope. Suggested retail on Ruger's site is $679, so real-world price will be somewhere in the $500 to $550 range.

I understand that's a capable scope. It sounds like a good deal. Here's the pic from the site.



and here's the link. http://www.ruger.com/products/americanRifleRedfield/models.html

In my case, I've got a 4 power Weaver sitting here. That should work.

Yeah, the Redfields are pretty good. It's too bad there isn't a 4x!

Is your 4x Weaver one of the El Paso scopes, or more recent?

No, it's recent production. I got a screaming good deal at a gun show. NIB $100.

Good snag!

Finnlander

All that said I might be talked into a RAR compact in 223 Rem with the 1-8 twist. With 70g Speers or the Nosler Bonded bullets it could be a good intro for my two boys into pigs and goats in the next couple of years. They are still too little for bigger rifles for a few years yet.

John you have always managed to bust a lot of scopes... I think that will happen to anyone who shoots a lot.

In the rifle breakdown category that is not something I would worry about with the Ruger American because IME about everything Ruger makes is just tough, and durable,and built to last.

I'm making fun of it because it's a funky rifle but I have no doubt the thing will work and shoot well, so for the money I understand the appeal.....make a great Wyoming or Montana truck gun.

John I am probably being a snob. Like I said above, I might yet grab one.

Its just that I have this unrealistic (yet completely reasonable in my mind) expectation that if I buy a rifle it will give me at least 25 years of trouble free service.

Its a product of growing up shooting late 19th century Mausers, Lithgow made SMLEs (sporterised and otherwise) and other rugged but otherwise basic and common firearms, that never ever broke.

Never mind that they had two stage, heavy triggers, clunky actions and awkward scope mounting arrangements!

Fear not, I will make it into the 21st century!


I do still have those nagging doubts about the long term viability of some of these new rifles but the best thing might well be to check it out and see how it goes.

Anyway thanks.

- Bob

Those Ruger Flattops in .44 Special were definitely a home run.



Travis

I can't tell you how much insight I've gained over the years reading PARAGRAPH after PARAGRAPH on bullets/scopes/guns etc that BobinNH has no experience with.

It's been a real pleasure

We've got some gun savvy guys at Lipseys to thank for taking the chance. One of the guys responsible is a member here.

5:00 o'clock comes early in TN, huh?

You could retire on what I've blown on rifles, scopes and bullets,and hunts....

But who cares, right? I mean looking back you have had SSSOOO much to offer. LMAO!

So many posts Scott, and so little substance from you...like.......nothing. Not ever


Go have another drink on the back porch...

I've got the same in a 7-08 with a new 6x Weaver. I bought it when my daughter decided to hunt and took it out to shoot it once. Light, well balanced rifle that functioned well and shot the two or three loads I tried into 3/4". My daughter informed me she is not a rifle hunter but a bow hunter so it has sat in the safe since. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be afraid to go on a serious back country hunt with the rifle. I imagine Ruger will do well with the Redfield scope and rifle package.

I foresee the stainless version being Ruger's best selling centerfire rifle.

You and me both buddy...I think they will sell like hotcakes if they keep prices low enough. When they hit the streets, I'll be checking them out and may end up buying one just for chits and giggles...

The rifle with a Redfield seems a good idea. I have never been comfortable with no-name or blister pack scopes. But I would feel pretty confidant recommending the RAR/Redfield combo to a new hunter.

I've a few on order with the LGS. $386 on the stainless. They currently sell the blued version for $331.

First RAR I ever laid eyes on, was won over a year and a half ago by a woman at a sportsmen's gathering I was at. Picked it up, handled it a bit and pronounced it fugly, but probably serviceable. Didn't like it enough to buy any of the raffle tickets, tho.

Her boyfriend later reported that he'd mounted a scope, took it to the range with ammo loaded for his own 308 and was amazed at how accurate the American was.

He didn't like the trigger at first, got used to it and now thinks it's great. Don't know if she's ever gotten to hunt with it yet, or not? Think he copped it for hisself.

It's better off with him. Three years ago she somehow lost the follower from her M70 during bear season.

BobinNH is one of just a handful of guys that really makes the Campfire worth reading. JB is another. If all it consisted of was you and Boxer practicing namecalling and cussing I would have found a different site long already.

Travis,

I had the flattop .44 Special in mind when mentioning special Lipsey's runs that became regular items!

Their other special runs have usually sold out quickly too.

JB is the primary reason I started lurking on this site and joined. I still enjoy his readings and shared knowledge here and in print.

Bob is a different story. I envision someone who practices law, long in the tooth and has been up the mountain a few times. He's defensive, long winded and objects strongly when others don't share his opinion.

Just my take. As in life, we're all not expected to agree and share common opinions.

Good on you to stand up for Bobin. He's an asset to the forum as far as I'm concerned. I have enjoyed the heck out of his writings and appreciate his experience as well. Top notch guy as far as I'm concerned!!

sas: Been more than a few....at least I have manged to extend myself beyond my home state "a few times"

I have a lot of respect for other's opinions, if I think they know what they are talking about. Some here qualify,some don't.

You don't.

Neither,BTW,does Steelhead.

If I disagree with something, I will say "why"...if you can't handle that, you have an ignore button. Suggest you use it

It's funny because folks howled about those for so long, so when they came out I grabbed one immediately. Guess everybody else did too.

One of the (if not THE) most accurate revolvers I've ever owned by the way.




Travis

For real? Who is he? He deserves a heartfelt GFY.



Travis

You're another one I should have included in that list BSA, I feel your an asset around here too!

Tea sucks. In America we drink coffee. Because this is America.

As far as those Americans are concerned, I'm going to guess that Ruger will end up selling about 5 bajillion of the ones chambered in 22LR.


Travis

JFC. Why don't you buy them a drink while you're at it?



Travis

I'd buy you a drink if you weren't such a butt hole.


And shot a .17...

Logistics prevent it.

No skin off my back Bob. I'm a big boy.

My apologies are for talking this thread off track.

17's suck. Pass the 22 mag please and make it an American

Have to take you to task there. I like my .17 HMR so much that I sold my .22 mag.

Shouldn't we take this to the Optics forum if we are gonna have a nonsensical pizzing match like this?

Ingwe,

Do you still have that 9 twist Ruger African in .223?



Travis

YEP. I agree.....Now what does nonsensical mean...

Yes. Do you need one?

Backpedaling Bob???

I don't really know. Im gonna gave to google it�.I was just trying to dazzle..

African rockchucks can be dangerous little phuggers...Just sayin..

It has the right kind of sights for closing with wounded dangerous chucks in the thick stuff�.

BobinNH adds a lot to the forum- He is knowlegeable, articulate and is capable of reasoned discussion- An attribute in short supply here

+1 Fred.

Yes. But I prefer to buy things when people are desperate.



Travis

Ruger no longer lists that African in .223 People will be desperate to buyit!

I am only desperate to retire, get some time off, come up there, shoot some gophs, buy you a beer, and let you buy me that pizza you're always talking about.

The door is always open, friendo. Bring the African with you. I doubt I could resist in a FTF.



Travis

I love it when the flesh is weak�.

Here's my Top 10 List of things I love about the Campfire:

1) When somebody posts, "I prefer the XYZ," and that's all. No reasons, experiences, etc.

2) "I prefer the XYZ, so sold my ABC." Again, no reason given--and no glimmer that for somebody else's purposes the ABC might work better.

3) "You idiots are FOS and I know everything, idiots." This often appears most frequently around cocktail hour, though apparently cocktail hour not only varies according to time zone, but individual interpretations of when it should begin. A dependable variation is, "My way is not just the best way but the only way, idiots."

4) "Price check on a minty pre-'64 whatever."

5) "WTF did anybody manufacture THAT for? Idiots."

6) "I've used the same rifle and load since 1879 and it hasn't failed to kill a deer yet, so WTF do you need a [magnum, 3-9x, Barnes TSX, synthetic stock] for?"

7) "I haven't used anything but XYZ bullets since they came out and anybody that doesn't is an idiot."

8) "Anybody who uses anything less than a ABC scope on an expensive hunt is an idiot."

9) "Anybody who doesn't strictly hunt DIY on public land is an idiot."

10) "GFY"

Glad I got what I got when the gettin was good. Absolutely no desire to own a Savage or a Savage look alike Ruger or Marlin...

If the disposable rifles are the thing to own now, how about topping them off with the throw away Chinese scopes that match?

NC Star, Barska, Simmons,

Was the Weaver 4X mentioned earlier not a Chinese made scope?

Think I'd rather shop the used rack if the wolf was at the door than buy one of the new cheapies.

JB: My favorite is " Which should I buy, a Tikka or a Winchester?" and the first six replies are:

Buy a Ruger/Savage/Remington/whatever brand the OP didn't mention�.

BobinNH is welcome at my fire anytime and he can bring a 7mm Mashburn, but not a .270.

Also "What do you suggest? I've already made up my mind, and won't listen to advice, but will ask anyway."

As well as "I'm thinking of buying this rifle, is it any good? I secretly alright bought it, but want to justify my purchase".

Or my other favorite, invariably posted by somebody with a less than 10 post count..

" Where is YOUR favorite place to hunt Muleys/Elk/etc.."

John, that list would have fit in very nicely in the "What is your definition of a True American?" thread.

"If you could only own one gun" threads of 40 pages.

I actually read someone excoriate someone else for using a Havalon instead of sharpening their own knife with a whetstone or some such nonsense.

If bragging is or denouncing is a sign of insecurity...

That's a pretty comprehensive list but I'll be bold enough to add a sub category.

Q: I've narrowed down my choice to A or B. That's it, I've looked at everything there is and want only A or B. Which have you used and what were your experiences with those?

A: You should get C.

I denounce your opinions and may shortly brag about having denounced them. If I can first find my Teddy Bear and brace myself.

Those are my favorites.


Travis

I'm not in your top 10 favorite things on this website? WTF?


Travis

Those were "things".

He'll likely list his top 10 favorite characters at some later date? Or not at all, lest he ruffle a feather or two?

Travis,

No. 10 is code for "Deflave."

Sincerely yours (and GFY),

Eventually you will qualify to be one of us.

That is the affirmation I needed.

Thanks and GFY.


Travis

When WBR, Sr., ran things, Ruger Firearms was both a business and a passion. Since his death, it is just a spreadsheet profit margin business.

Or at least it seems so to me.

I'm not hot for the look or feel of the Ruger American, preferring the Marlin X guns which look and feel more "traditional" to me. Plus, being the tinkerer that I am, better than half of my X guns have been rebarreled via Savage 110 specs factory and/or after-market barrels; 22-250, 250-3000, 257 Roberts, 260, 7mm-08, and 7x57. That said, a stainless 22 Magnum RAR would probably prompt me to buy with the wholesale prices running around $235.

Jeff

After-thought, if you really want to know Ruger firearms, visit Rody's GS in Guild, NH, on Friday evening and listen to the shop talk by the guys who work at Pine Tree Casting.

My favorite threads are the guys posing with an average whitetail doe, shot with a .300WSM and a 168 TSX.

Or the guy wanting to know of the 168 TSX is enough for his alabama whitetails...

I'm sure glad this thread took off in the right direction. Right after this wordy preamble, I'll tell you about the Ruger American I bought.

(Cue a young Bill Anderson singing "Po' Folks", as introduced by a young Ralph Emery. )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy55KjpTEmM

Growing up, we didn't have a lot of money. My daddy worked in a tire plant, and he couldn't afford much. That's probably why I have a weird sense of humour. Second hand tire fumes.

I got my first rifle at a gun show - used. My first car was a 1963 VW Bug. I fixed it up in the driveway. Me and my buddies repaired a lot of stuff in the garage, or the driveway. Etc. Etc. Amen.

After high school, I joined the service. I made more money than ever before. At any rate, I continued to repair broken machinery and help my friends do the same.

As I got older, despite raising a family, having bills and stuff, I found that I could afford to buy new things. When I got back from Europe, I bought a Ford pick up and a Parker Hale 1200 30-06. Neat!

A few years later, I discovered that while it was cool to have a new Ford and a new 30-06, I missed spending time with my buddies getting old clunkers to run or tinkering with beat up rifles in my workshop. I also realized that spending big bucks on pricey equipment wasn't always the smart, or fun thing to do.

(Wordy preamble over.)

I have a mix of expensive and not so expensive rifles. I enjoy SURs (Sport Utility Rifles) because I can fix them up, paint, play with or replace the barrels, triggers, optics, stocks, etc.

Today, I dropped by The Gun Centre (Some Canadians may know that it used to be Lovett's) to buy that American. It was already sold, so I ordered one online from Epps. The rifle is in stock, so I'll drop by tomorrow and pick it up.

I've got some Burris rings sitting here, and a Weaver fixed 4 that I mentioned yesterday. I'll also get that free cheek pad that Ruger is offering. The rifle might be homely, but so were my VW Bugs - and I owned three. If it shoots, it will stay. If not, I'll move it on down the road.

Life is too short to shoot pretty rifles. Or gold plated rifles. Or Remingtons.

Old Whispering Bill Anderson.... Looked like a St. Patrick's day clown back in the day, didn't he?

+1

He sure did.

When I was stationed on the east coast, there used to be a program that the local TV station showed every morning at 5:30. It was 1950s vintage, black and white, and filmed in Nashville. For some reason, the credits never ran at the end, so I have no idea what the show was called.

Half the posters on here do this 100% of the time. The other half varies...

I'll try to dig through my old posts and find him. I remember giving him a hug at the time. He clearly needs to be a well paid advisor for Ruger.

I found him. His real name is Jason, and his username is JEC. He hasn't posted here in a couple years though.

Probably too sensitive and someone prickly done ran him off? I've seen it happen.

So youd throw an American in the nearest river if something malfunctioned, would you do the same with an Echols Legend???

If you learn to say "GFY", you'll be welcome at my campfire anytime. Wait, did I just infer something about that guy from Have-her, MT? Oh, well; I suppose....

What would you do with a rifle that malfunctioned on a hunt?

Doesn't matter how much a rifle costs...if it malfunctions it's a POS.

...and, based on what I have seen so far, the Ruger American, like their other rifles, is well thought out in design and execution. Having had a rifle drop its bolt handle in the simple process of cycling the bolt, things like a through-shroud bolt handle seem like a really well-though out concept, (among other things.) It can be taken apart, but it looks to me like it can't fail and come apart. I haven't had a chance to see the weakness of the American design, but they appear to have what it takes to give a run to a whole bunch of other more expensive rifles. (And Ruger must be feeling pretty comfortable with the target results of their 77s overall, to be able to market a less expensive design that is winning the hearts of ordinary shooters who poke holes in paper.)

Klik: That could be.Their stuff has always been pretty rugged. No secrets there.

I just have no interest in one.

I actually dislike them them more for being as good as they seem to be when I already have high regard for the 77 design. I bought one for one son at Christmas since he really needs more time behind the trigger to discern whether shooting/hunting are his cup of tea, and the 77s have really become better liked by their maker. I wasn't very crazy about the concept that they embraced until I studied their parts diagram and owner's manual , and also handled a couple of them. There is plenty to like and the market deserves to have something good and affordable (that isn't roll-marked with Savage or Marlin ).

Don't disagree.

My big concern with the Ruger Americans is that if I buy one, I'll like it. Then I'll need another and another.
Bfly

I'd like to know how Ruger decided we wanted/needed all those 16" 77s they catalog. A 16" .300 WSM???

Unless they've secretly acquired Beltone.

The guy from Lipsey's who used to post here is named Jason Cloessner.

Jason probably got so many Campfire ideas for new special runs that his head started hurting.

Why did he let them drop the ultralites then?

I'd probably get it fixed!But thats just me. I dont worry about things like bolt handles falling off ,safeties freezing up or scopes failing. schitt is going to happen once in a while know matter what!!!


I'd hunt an American any day!

Guess I'm a snob,don't want one or even be seen with one in my hands.

IMHO those are the classiest 77s ever, especially the all steel Hawkeyes. I had a Mk1 .308 for a while. Letting it go was one in a long list of stupid gun decisions I've made.

+1�would rather be seen with a homemade cobble job.

He posts over on the Ruger Forum. Gathering ideas as well.

I gotta find this guy. I have a great idea for him.


Travis

Because they balanced like schit.

I'd like to have an American in 6.5 Creedmoore

Not if you rebarrel with a heavier/longer barrel!

Exactly like the Remington 7s with 18.5" and 20" barrels.

That said, some people are more sensitive, or maybe "in tune", to their firearms' balance than others and for those who aren't cognizant, balance may not even be a component of the package that they recognize or consider.

I've long felt that the long action 77 RSIs balance noticeably better than their short action brothers, while others see no recognizable difference.

Jeff

I'd like to have a $350 6.5 Creedmoor too, where do I sign the wait list?

Jeff

Why would I rebarrel for balance when I could just buy a standard contour rifle off the shelf, and never have the issue to begin with?

Also, it's not a matter of being sensitive to balance. It's how well the rifle will hang offhand, which is to say really poorly with a heavy actioned, wood stocked, short pencil thin barreled rifle.

Because you like the black tip on the 77 RL stock?

I do and have bought 77 RL stocks to replace perfectly good 77 R stocks. Have also bought 77 RSI stocks in which to install 77 R or Hawkeye barreled actions. This is how I got my 77 RSI 6.5x55 parts gun.

Jeff

Mid-point of the mag box/floorplate seems to suit me....

Understandable.

The stock replacement idea sounds like the best route to go. I've thought about a "Faux RSI".



I'm more a front action screw to front face of action balance point kinda guy.

Yes, you are a snob. You're also not their target market. The American is for the younger or first time hunter, and its also for someone who needs a utilitarian rifle. Ruger probably could care less about your opinion of the American.

Bingo. Someone finally got it.

Know one ever claimed they were aimed for the Bobsnobs!!! LOL!!!


I have know problem killing schitt with a utilitarian grade rifle

I bet you don't...for sure, you are their target market...along with the kids.

But you do have problems saying anything intelligent;or structuring a sentence.And your grammar is terrible.... That's always been apparent.

Do you kill a lot of schitt? LOL!

I bet that's all you "kill"....with anything.

The Marlin XL7 received a similiar reaction from the shooting public, but after checking the rifle over and witnessed how they shot, many of us purchased some to get our young shooters a rifle that was reliable, accurate and not a hand-me-down.

My son and I bought a bunch standard and youth rifles for $259.00 plus tax. I saved the ad because some did not believe the deal.

I now have the Ruger American home. Apparently, I got the last 308 they had in the store. Now, rather than just messing with my buddy's rifle, I can tinker with this one.

I haven't put the scope on yet, but will be after posting this. I'll take off the mounts, clean the threads up and reinstall them. I've got Burris low mount rings that should work with the Weaver.

I took it out of the box when it arrived home and gauged the trigger. It broke at 4 lb and was crisp. After the rifle's been cleaned up and shot, I test it again. If it stays the same, I'll be happy. No need to mess with this one.

Converted to Americanische dinars, this rifle, complete with Burris rings and a Weaver 4x38mm scope, comes in a $556. Based on what I know of my friend's Americans, this will be a fun, knock around rifle. If it's accurate - 1.5 inches ou moins @100 yd, it will be fine. It has to shoot my homemade 200 grain bullets to earn a spot on the bench however. That's my litmus test.

Contrarian that I am, I wish that they would offer them with iron sights and in some "odd" chamberings. Outside of the 94 Winchester, I never have shot centerfire bolt rifles with iron sights (that made it sound like I was calling the 94 a bolt rifle, but I'll trust everyone to know what I am trying to say) and would like the chance to do so at a reasonable cost. Likewise, I would appreciate the opportunity to mess around with some "odd" chamberings in a bolt rifle at a reasonable price. I realize that neither of these desires place me in a category at which the Americans are aimed.

I know what you're saying, but very, very few people use them nowadaze, so most companies don't bother. Even if they still did, the OEM iron sights are usually sheit. Good ones - hunting or target - are a specialty item like scopes.

I really want to see the American in .204 Ruger. I don't know how realistic that is though.

I'm pretty sure you'll be seeing the American in other chamberings, but right now they're apparently selling all they can make. I also wouldn't be surprised to see an iron-sighted big game model, since the .22's have irons.

One of the things I'm happy about is the faster twists in some chamberings, especially the 1-8 .223. The 1-9 in .243 isn't bad either, though the long-range boys won't be totally happy, I doubt many of them are buying Americans anyway.

I'd say its possible. The cartridge does carry the Ruger name. I can see them marketing a predator combo with the two.

John,

Before the announcement of the American, I remember the questionnaire on their website. They asked about features and you were to rate them between 1 and 10. They did have a question pertaining to iron sights.

Sights would work with the height of the comb as well. Maybe in the future?

I'm excited about the new twists as well. I do like the fact that Ruger listens and even publishes questionnaires on their website. They continue to try to give the shooting public what they ask for.

You leaned the same way I did, and we agree 100%. I guess we can't ask that the "American" be chambered in the European 9,3X62, but they could be a frontrunner in 9,3MM rifles if they brought to market a short action 9,3mmBS. JB already has loads worked out. Remington could neck up some 350 RM brass, and we're out the door with a new moose/elk cheap rifle!!

I want a 22-250, never owned one, and now think I might have found what I need in the American.

smoker,

I'd like to see iron sights, also, but they seem to add too much to the cost of a price-point rifle.

I'd like to see a factory rifle come with a freakin' rear peep. Savage is the only company doing this. They started on their Cub that morphed into the Rascal so I know at least some people understand the benefits.

The Ruger Takedown with a simple Williams rear peep would have been bad-[bleep]'-ass.


Travis

I'm guessing (based on some experience) that the reason is most shooters have no clue about the advantages of an aperture sight, or even how to use one.

Not too long ago, right here on the Campfire I read a post by a guy who tried a peep on some rifle, and got really bad results until he suddenly had the inspiration to look through it instead of at it!

Bobin, didnt mean to get you all horned up with my bad grammar


LOL!!!!


I take it as a compliment when you say

"I bet you don't...for sure, you are their target market...along with the kids."

I'm sure you mean cause I actually use my gear as its intended.
With all the responses on this thread and JBs comment about Ruger not being able to keep up with demand there must be a lot of kids buying these Americans

Yeah, but wouldn't that mean they're not looking at the front sight to begin with? Sonsabitches...

How the [bleep] can anybody not love the rear peep?


Travis

Dunno, but life itself is a big puzzle for many people.

I'm also puzzled at people who claim they can't use open sights because the rear sight is too blurry. All you have to do is put the front sight in the bright slot in the blur and squeeze the trigger.

True. But try as I might, I can't find any benefit to opens.

I hate them. Always have. And put a kid behind some A2 sights? They're [bleep]' lovin' it. Just more naturaler in my opinion.


Travis

Have open sights on my .416 Rigby, but rasped the comb down to where putting the front sight on a softball-sized target works out to 50 yards. And most stuff shot with a .416 Rigby is a lot bigger than a softball, including many rocks. (One of my friends says my .416 is the best "rock rifle" he's ever fired.)

Use 'em on handguns too, and have 'em as back-ups on several scoped rifles, and they're sighted-in too.

But generally prefer peeps.

Trapdoor butt-plates were made to store a QD auxiliary peep sight.

Marshall Stanton at Beartooth Bullets wrote a useful article on the Marlin 336 and suggested trimming the rear of a Weaver 63B alloy 1-piece base so that a QD peep sight could be used in a pinch by looking through the trough of the base.

Jeff

Jeff,

I've used auxiliary aperture sights on a number of rifles, and have several set up for the purpose--including the Frank Pachmayr custom Springfield, which came with a Lyman 48 in addition to the scope. Both NECG and XS offer apertures that fit easily and repeatably on various bases.

Unfortunately, many rifles where an auxiliary aperture sight kick too much for a trapdoor butt-plate. Or at least they do for me.

Do have a German leather scope-and-sight case which works fine for the purpose, and slips easily into a daypack. One end of the case opens up so the scope can slip in, and the other end has a much shallower compartment for the auxiliary aperture sight.

I grew up shooting peeps, mostly on a Winchester 69, and still have them on a variety of rifles, but the only peep specific rifles that I use are a pair of Remington pump guns, a 25 in 32-20 and a 141 in 35. Both have the same pre-WW2 vintage Lymans installed in after-market d&t holes on the left side of the receivers. I also have them on a first model Newton and a variety of Savage 1920s.

Jeff

Cool rifles!

Among the peep-sighted rifles I regularly shoot are a Sauer/Daly hammer drilling in 12x12/.30-30 and a Thieme-Schlegelmilich 93x74R side-by side double rifle with flip-up tang apertures.

Also have a "Little Sharps" .38-55 and an H&R Officers Model .45-70 Trapdoor with tang apertures, but haven't shot them much yet.

I have one of the H&R Officers Model 1873s, SN 782x, but haven't shot it for about forty years, still in the Styrofoam box on a shelf in the gun room. IIRC, there isn't any windage adjustment in the vernier peep.

Jeff

I too am baffled by the lack of love for peep sights. Several of my rifles have Talley QD setups, just so I have the option of using a talley peep. They definitely have a place in the arsenal. They're also the way to go for lever actions in my opinion. I like express sights okay as well. Except for handguns, I pretty much think regular open sights suck.

I repeatedly asked ruger for a stainless hawkeye in 9.3x62, as well as an adjustable sighted bearcat. Tired of waiting for logic to take over in Southport CT, I had a model 70 stainless converted, and Dave Clements took care of the bearcat for me. Wonderful times we live in now, where one way or another you can get what you want.

I love the one on my lever gun:

I am a fan of peeps as well. My Browning M71, Win 94's, Marlin 1895 and stainless Ruger RSI where them but my two favorites are this 1935 vintage Rem M34P and my 8x57 Erfurt Mauser.

I just sold a marlin 1894 32-20 with tang sight. Many people that were interested in the rifle did not know what the tang sight was or how to use it. How can anyone be interested in a lever 32-20 and not know what a tang sight is?

I'd like to see Ruger produce a consistently accurate centerfire rifle. I believe they could. I was told they had with the newest M77s so I bought one. I loved the rifle but it just wasn't very accurate. After a couple of months of working with it, I traded it off.

Hunters and shooters are heavily influenced by what they read. Before the Internets, it was the monthlies. If you have any old Field and Streams or other mags from the 1950s or 1960s, skim through the deer hunting articles. Paraphrased, "Give up your irons and put a scope on your rifle." The logic was that you could see an ear or eyeball easier by glassing the bushes. The suggestion stuck.

Few companies bother with iron sights anymore. Even levers that traditionally were iron sighted beasties have been drilled and tapped for years. The v notch iron sights that are still put on at the factory are sheit. I don't think anyone offers apertures. It's an aftermarket purchase.

I still find it odd to see someone with good eyes carrying a lever with a scope on top. Seven or eight years ago, I was moose hunting in NW and saw a Model 94 with a 4-12 on it. If you absolutely need a scope, try a 2.5 or 4 power. Something compact.

No question that aperture sights are the best of breed, but the majority of shooters would have to learn how to use them.

Your gunsmith can install aperture sights on virtually any rifle. Just pony up the cash and get them put on.

That's like buying a top of the line car that is not reliable and has fewer new features than the lowest end model.

You might not have loved the American had you chosen it, but you would probably still have it -- and three hundred or so $s to boot -- because it surpasses expectations.

1B

Apparently Ruger dropped the .25-06 from its lineup entirely. I was just on their site and couldn't find it listed.

Although I haven't put one together yet, I decided that the hot setup for backup sights, especially for a rifle with no irons, is one of the little electronic reflex sights like the Burris Fastfire. They will mount on a Weaver base, front or rear on a bolt gun, are light enough to throw in a pack, are fast, and best of all, an old fat guy whose eyes are "in transition", can use them without glasses. I have one on a .357 Bisley, and although a little bulky for a handgun, it really makes it easy to hit with.

For people with less than perfect vision, red dots are a good option. They are compact, but most importantly, you can keep both eyes open. There's no parallax problem.

I ran with a Millet Red Dot for a few years on an original, ported Guide Gun. I have a Bushnell red dot on one of my 30-30s. They are a viable alternative to a scope or iron sights.

This red dot is on my H&R 444 single shot. I did it as a joke, but will shoot it until the red dot fails. There's a Leupold in one of my lockers that will take over. (probably soon)

If Lipseys or Davidsons did a limited run of factory Rugers equipped with these, I bet they'd fly off the shelves.




Travis

Details?

Never tried one that was mounted forward and on the barrel. But I recently picked up a SA-22 and replaced the rear with a Skinner.

Wicked fast and accurate. Can't wait to try it on gophers.




Travis

It's just a Williams brand peep. I think they're $35.00? Mounts using the existing holes in the receiver. Slick Rick.



Travis

Here's another shot of it.

I'm gonna have a tritium built for the front. Then I'm going to have the ultimate ummm...survival 22LR...

Nice. Have you thought about a TruGlo fiber-optic front?

http://www.opticsplanet.com/truglo-ruger-10-22-rifle-sight.html

I hate fiber optic sights. I have no idea why.



Travis

You'll like them when your eyes get older.

Don't assume someone who closes his communications with "GFY" won't GHFU at an early age. (But I agree with the aging eyes/fiber optic sights deal, and that coming from a previously confirmed "plastic sights" hater.)



BTW, I have no idea what the fuss is about peepers; they just plain work easily and well.

I've found that with open fiber sights, my fuzzy old eyes can align the center of the fiber dots pretty well, without glasses, that is. But with a peep and a fiber front, it's not so hot, for some reason. With either setup, the problem of lining up the front sight and the target remains.

Guess that means I should wear glasses, dammit.

I did peeps in ROTC at MSU on the rifle team. After that, a good peep set was the only iron I would ever consider, and leaves me wondering if the Allies won in part because the Axis had such crummy sights.

I don't know what all the short forms are.

But I do know aperture sights. People who have less than perfect vision will find they work quite well, and definitely will extend their time with irons. U and V notch sights are terrible, unless your name is Uwe or Vladymir.

I tried brass and white FS, but the post disappeared in the dark. The white wasn't much better. I can get my sight on stuff moving around in the trees with the green fibre. It's a great contrast.

In fact, I've been making my targets this colour for close to 15 years. fluorescent green is easy to see in low light and hazy conditions.



For those who have difficulties with apertures, red dots are a great option. I would run with the apertures first, but a small red dot keeps you in the game.

My biggest problem is I've had central serous retinopathy in my right eye. It has since cleared up, but it left my retina a bit distorted. When I look at straight lines I see curves. Similar to this graph but not quite as bad:


Using open and aperture sights has gotten a little harder to go along with aging eyes. I recently sold several rifles with peep and tang sights as I just can't use them as well as I used to.

Red dots work well. Scopes do too but the reticle is still twisted. Sucks getting old.

Not sure how saying "God forgives you" will lower his chances for combing grey hair, but who knows?

I don't age.

GFY.


Travis

Nice Henry.


Travis

How much are you asking???

What, those aren't straight lines?? Maybe I better go and get my eyes checked

GFY

"nice" and Henry don't go together IMO......and that's all that matters.

But you got the nice part right!

Does this mean we're dating?

Laughin'. Finally, we agree on something besides my .17 Rem being the best.



Travis

I can only answer that question if you:

1.) Take your shirt off

2.) Buy me a drink

3.) Take your shirt off



Travis

No way dude. That's a keeper.


Travis