Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns It really pains me to say this

but Ruger quality control really is in the toilet, at least for their SP-101 revolvers.

Just took possession of my third one this year and it has some of the same problems as the other two.

In June I bought a NIB SP-101 4" with adjustable sights, serial number indicated a DOM of 2017. The barrel was pointed visibly to the right so I had to adjust the rear sight way way left - hanging out of the slide left - to get windage centered, plus the cylinder would slide off of the crane which it's not supposed to do.

Called Ruger and sent it back. They said it was beyond repair and would be scrapped so they sent me another new one which was made in 2020. Same thing - the barrel pointed visibly to the right. I immediately sent it back without firing it and they "fixed' it by twisting the barrel to move the front sight to the left. Sold that unfired with full disclosure to a fellow locally.

Hope springs eternal (or I'm a glutton for punishment) so just this morning I received one of the new Lipsey's 3" adjustable half lug versions. The barrel points to the right - third one in a row. It's not quite as bad as the first two but still noticeable, and the cylinder also slides off of the crane.

That's three in a row across four years of production with barrels not straight with the frame and 2 out of 3 with the cylinder not attached properly.


So I give up. I'm not going to bother sending it back. I bought one in June, it's now October and I just want to shoot it, not wait 2 weeks for a non-fix or 6 weeks for another one with the same problems. If it shoots and hits POA without having to move the rear sight out of its housing then I'll call it good. The chamber throats are very undersized, a .3565" jacketed bullet won't pass through any of them but I can fix that myself.

As the title says, it really pains me to say this since I've been a loyal fan of Ruger revolvers since 1969, but like Smith & Wessons, it looks like any future purchases are going to be older ones from the used market.



P.S. They quit adding the little disassembly pin in the grip although the manual still references it and the slot holder in the grip is still there. They do still have some available and one is on its way so that's a pinpoint of brightness.

We had a couple of SP-101 2005 or so, a 2 1/4" and 3". Both those barrels were on straight. Both shot POA/POI at 25 yards and that short one was dead on the money. The biggest aggravation with those revolvers was sharp edges on the trigger guards and/or trigger, as well as that damn plastic insert that goes in the grip. Once those things were corrected, they were great little revolvers.

I have to wonder if Ruger figured perfect barrel index wasn't quite so important with the adjustable sight model.

Ditto here. Had a 3" fixed sight version back in the late 90's. It was a great little shooter and POI was right on top of the front sight with 158 grain loads. Couldn't really use a lot of different loads however since they would shoot to other points of aim which was why it eventually went down the road - but it was a well put together firearm, zero complaints about that.

Lots more I could say about obviously cutting corners in production and materials since then but I've bashed them enough for one day.

Only SP101 I have ever owned is a 4" .32 H&R with the windage adjustable only rear sight. Don't know how old it is, as I've never checked. It came (used) with a set of aftermarket grips that are sufficiently hand-filling to be pleasant to grip and shoot (I don't like sticky grips or those too short for all 4 fingers). Never had a problem with it.

During the 50+year course of owning handguns of various kinds, I've owned at least 9 Ruger revolvers (two .41 Mag Bisleys, two Security Sixes, a .32 H&R Single Six, a .32 H&R Bisley, a .22 Bisley, a .44 Special Bisley and the SP101. The only problem I ever had with any of them was the rear sight retaining pin on a .41 Bisley backing out when the pistol was fired, which was fixed by sliding it partway out, bending it slightly to put it under a bit of spring tension and reinserting it. Worked like a charm and never gave a lick of trouble after that.

Sorry to hear you're having problems.

I had a fixed sighted version about 8 years ago and it was a great gun.

I had no reason to sell it other than I knew a guy that had to have it.

A normal Ruger is about the same quality as a Taurus.

Being a little hard on Taurus there, aren't you?

Come on guys. I’ve had a Ruger rifle or two that wouldn’t shoot like I wanted, and a Redhawk that the finish left a little to be desired, but every manufacturer has problems at some time or another. I’ve still got probably a dozen Rugers and they ain’t going anywhere. I have had guns from a lot of manufacturers that suffered from lack of good quality control, but I won’t trample on them here. Ruger is a good “Made in America” company that we need to support. I’m sure that Ruger doesn’t follow what is said on the internet, but a lot of their potential customers do.

I own a chit pile of Ruger revolvers from Flat Tops, three screws, to early SP's, 32 H&R's, OM Single Six's and a few semi-autos with zero issues. That said, none are of recent manufacture. Sad state it seems these days. All of my Smith's are without hole without issue.

EdM,
I will have to confess that most of mine are not new guns either. I do have a three or four year old GP100 44 Special (a really nice gun) but the rest are of older manufacture. I sure hope that Ruger has not allowed itself to slip into a position of poor quality.

I can see why it's happening, demand is outpacing supply and they're just playing a numbers game. Some recent posts on the subject talked about how most people either don't know what a well made firearm is or don't care. So they can produce X,000 units for Y cost per unit, or 1.5 * X,000 units for Y-10% cost per unit by cutting corners. They know only a small percentage will be returned.

Problem is, people have long memories. It takes decades to build a reputation and a very short time to ruin it.

Saying that, I understand I'm guilty of two of the things mentioned here. "Don't care" - I did, twice, but they plumb wore me out, now I just want something that shoots. Used to be their CS was top of the line but it seems even there they just want to get'em in and out the door as fast as possible. And posts like this contribute to tarnishing a reputation but on that point I will choose uncomfortable truths over comforting lies every day and twice on Sunday. You have to call'em as you see'em.


Taking this one out tomorrow morning to try a proven "load that works" for .357's and four different .38 Spl loads that have proven to be accurate in other revolvers. If this thing shoots straight I'll definitely be back here to report that.

Tongue in cheek remark here. Ruger has moderately better customer service.

I've got five Ruger firearms, but none purchased very recently. I've got two Mini-14s, a (First Gen) Vaquero .44 Magnum, a Speed Six .357 Magnum, and a 77-22. All well made and reliable. It's sad that they are letting their quality control deteriorate.

The problem with Ruger, and the other full-line manufacturers is the change in the workforce. Guns used to be assembled by trained people who were machinists and fitters, because they had to be. Now, makers are going to the Glock/AR anyone-can-slap-the-parts-together guns. Yet, the old style guns still need some fitting and personal work. The problem is, the people who used to do that are either retiring or decided not to move when the company moved production 600 miles away. So, the "fitting" is now being done by a promoted "parts slapper" and they really don't know what they're doing.
As others have said, many people don't care about quality anymore, just the warranty. I know someone who leases (stupid right there) Chrysler trucks. He's had to get major transmission work done three times, even though he never tows anything. He traded it in on another Chrysler. When asked why, he replied it was all covered under the warranty, so he didn't care. I guess quality is a lost art.

I thought, hoped, Ruger was getting better at QC than they were 4-5 years ago. It doesn't sound like they are.

I've got approx. 10 personal stories of their BS, ones I had to send back, or fix myself, not to mention others I've seen. I'm not buying near as many guns as I used to but Ruger has been gradually falling off my radar for a few years now.

Maybe I'm just lucky but the GP100 in .44 Special that I have is one of the best DA revolvers I've ever owned.

Other newer production guns include the Flattop in .44 Special and a 9.5" Convertible. Simply great revolvers including fit and finish.

Not handguns but any newer production American, 10/22, and 77/22 that I have used, have been lights out shooters.

I've had a number of sorry ones too Gunzo, including a new, thoroughly hosed 45 Blackhawk I sent back only to have it returned with a note saying it was 'in spec'. After three phone calls I got them to agree to take another look at it. I sent it back with a copy of receipt and a note of my own requesting a refund and stating I would refuse any returned parcel from them. They finally mailed a check. That was my last new Ruger in 1998. I'll buy a used one occasionally, always cheap enough I can come out if it necessary.

In all fairness, you can get a dud from any of the Joe Sixpack gun pushers. We have two Mossberg 930s made four years apart. The first was a Security/Field Combo that will go 600-700 flawless field loads between cleanings. The stock was too long for my wife to shoot well so I shortened the stock and gave it to her. I bought another, supposedly better 22" JM Pro last year that was a QC train wreck. I sorted that one out myself and sent Mossberg the laundry list of crap I fixed. To say they were ambivalent would be an understatement.

I'm tired of paying full price for 80% kits with serial numbers.

Several years ago I bought a Bisley .45LC/.45 ACP convertible. Changing cylinders was difficult. It was like the base pin was bent or something. You really had to jiggle the cylinder around before the base pin would full insert, otherwise it would bind and stick while partially inserted. Getting it unstuck was a pain.

I contacted Ruger, and they gave me no grief whatsoever. They fixed it the first time and paid shipping both ways.

I'm not criticizing Ruger or sticking up for them--just sharing my experience.

Since the repair, the gun has functioned perfectly.

Your post caused me to count mine, only three here, 10/22 suppressed, 10.5" tapered barrel 44 mag I bought from my 'Smith, he set it up for hunting with a Bisely grip frame and 'very' light trigger, and an RSM that was a 416 Rigby, I torched the throat, it's now a 505 Gibbs, nothing of new/newer manufacture here.

have owned many Ruger revolvers. Maybe 6 101's over the years. Only one i have now is the 4" sp101 in 22LR Probably from about the same time frame. Its about the most accurate revolver I have seen. Several others that have shot it say the same thing. The edges are a little sharp in a few spots, but being an very well made stainless revolver that is very easily remedied.

Makes me wonder if they're letting the SP101 line slip while paying attention to others. My GP100 bought a year ago is just fine. Yeah, I'd say one of my best.

Good thing I hung onto this old SP101, I guess. As for Taurus - of the two I've had, one needed work. But I was not confident enough in their CS to test their warranty after the litany of reports of abyssimal service and slow delivery. My local gunsmith cleaned that up for a nominal fee. I still don't trust Taurus enough to send something back to them (not that I have any desire now to buy one in the first place).

Flaves mention of the 44 flattop reminded me of the one I have that's great. To Rugers credit, it proves that Ruger knows how to make a proper revolver, & is capable of doing so.

This makes it clear they need to work on consistency & get off of the Monday gun bad, Wednesday gun good, BS.

Seems like all the manufacturers have hits and misses.
I’ve had to send two S&W’s back for barrel alignments, a NIB 629 Classic 5” and a NIB 642.
Bought a NIB Ruger GP100 blued and I think they forgot to blue the inside of the crane or did some heavy file work after it was blued to fit it.. It shoots good so I never sent it back.
Also had to send a NIB Henry 45-70 back, the mag tube rod was almost impossible to remove.

Well, this one's going back to Ruger. I can't even sell it in good conscience to someone the way it is now.

Besides the barrel pointed to the right and the cylinder that comes off,the firing pin is way off center. It hits at the extreme edge of the primer, almost into the brass case. It doesn't shoot worth a damn, either - patterns, not groups - but I won't pile that on top of it too much since this morning was the very first outing and it really needs the chamber throats opened up at least a couple thousandths. I slugged one throat that was right at .356" and none of the other throats will accept that slug without some force so figure they are all very much undersized.

We'll see what Ruger does but with a record of 0 and 2 on these I'm a bit jaded in my expectations right now.

In other news, it has an excellent sight picture and handles and points very well. Trigger pull is a bit heavy at 4 1/4 lbs but breaks very cleanly, no problems there. Overall I really like this little thing except for the fact that, ya know, it's a piece of junk.

I'm sorry to hear about your struggle to find one decently made gun. That sucks.

LCR's are another new'ish Ruger that I have nothing but praise for.

Like I say, maybe I'm just lucky.

Other than a few GP100s that had very sharp corners on the trigger guard, I haven't noticed any with obvious external "mistakes".
That being said, guns nowadays aren't finished anywhere near as finely as they were 50 years ago. Of course, most don't care and even fewer would pay the extra money.

My recently purchased NMBH flattop 44 special bisley is really good. Even better is my AR 556 in 350 Legend I picked up last fall 😁.

Sorry to say the new S&Ws are no better. I bought a new model 629 this past summer that had to go back to the factory after the first time I shot it. The firing pin bushing was recessed and letting the primers back out enough to cause the cylinder to jam. They would have caught that if they had just test fired it once at the factory.

And speaking of Ruger I just bought a new Blackhawk in .45 Colt that shoots 300 grn bullets 12 inches high at 25 yards. The only way I can hit the bullseye is with the rear sight screwed all the way down and 185 grain bullets with a max load of Blue Dot. This one didn’t surprise me. I have a Super BH in .44 mag that has the same issue with heavy bullets. Before I bought this .45 I even started a thread here asking if other people had this issue and they didn’t. I guess it’s a crap shoot.

And now that you mention it none of my 45 Colt Blackhawks would zero with 300 or 325 grain bullets, even with the rear sight screwed all the way down. They were obviously set up for 255 way back and nobody made the change when heavy bullets became popular. Seems like I relieved the bottom of the rear sight body and filed the top of the blade down a little bit to make it work.

Strangely all my 45 Colt Vaqueros were pretty close with 300 grain bullets.

You’re a lucky SOB

I wouldn’t touch a newer production Smith with a 10 foot pole. Although I bet there are plenty of satisfied owners. The ones from 90s and before are typically very, very, good. (Maybe early 2000s are also plenty good)

I've still got more Rugers than I thought. Two 10-22 Takedowns, one of them is my son's. A Bisley Blackhawk .45. A Flattop 50th anniversary 44 Mag. A MkIII full bull .22. I think that's it. No issues with any of this stuff. My last GP-100 was a great gun too. Should've kept it. Had plenty of 357's though.

Buy a Taurus at least it’s honest s-hit for honest s-hit prices. Screw SW and their SH-tty quality

I'm not happy with the construction of my SP101 but geez louise, at least I didn't kill it with a big knife!

I figured Ethan was just using that pig sticker to bend those sights to his will.

Dammit Ethan, I've sworn off new Rugers- and then you go and post a pic of that FlatTop.

I have two Super BlackHawks-in 44 and 45 Colt. Both are well made and accurate.
Double action revolvers are best left to: old Colts and S&W. A 1970s 6 in M-28 357 and two 1920s Colt New Service DAs in 45 Colt.
Anyone in the way of these if it is a grizzly or a domestic terrerist is in deep buffalo chips.

I have purchased two Ruger revolvers in the past year, a Super Redhawk in .480 Ruger, and a Super Blackhawk Bisley, also in .480. Both are well-made, accurate, and so far, trouble-free. That said, it is possible to get a 'lemon' with anything mechanical, which makes it no less annoying and upsetting when it happens.

I have 7 Rugers. Two rifles and the rest hand guns. I've never had a problem with any of them. They are older guns. The newest is a New Vaquaro in .45 Colt purchased about 12 years ago. All have been great. I also have a few pre Hillary hole Smiths. They have also been trouble free. A few years ago they needed to go back to the factory for a slight tune up but that's normal wear and tear. I shoot them alot.Had a Taurus once but it would miss fire once about every 50 rnds. I'll never buy another.

My whole collection is older. I did most of my gun buying in the late 80s and early 90s.

After reading this, kind of makes you wonder what's going to happen with Ruger's Marlin line up. Only two Ruger's I have now are my #1B and '74 .357 BH. Those work My other S/A revolver is a Pietta 1873 in .45 Colt.
Now, that gun works!

You get what you pay for.

Sorta.


Sometimes, with a Taurus, you get a lot for little.



With a Ruger, you pay a good bit more, and just might end up wanting to trade for a Taurus.


Everyone brags about Ruger customer service. How do they know it's good.
And they wont help you if your 45 throats are plugged.
In any of the ones the y screwed up, over 40+ years.
Bet they do a run in the next few months. They will be inconsistent and sized wrong too.

Substantially better CS!!!

I wonder about that myself.

It will/should be a while before we see a Ruglin, but I plan to have popcorn ready. It will likely be interesting.

I have had three blackhawks, a three screw 41 mag, a 44 mag and a flat top .45/.45acp. The cylinders were reamed out before I got it, but that one is the best shooter, for me. All three were bought used.

I’ve been able to recall 17 Rugers I’ve had....most I still have or my kids or brothers have. None have given me any grief. This has included pistols, revolvers, rifles and one shotgun. Rim fires and center fires. Most have given truly superior service over the years.

Just remembered, I did have a problem with a P-90 .45 auto.... a spring broke and I had to replace it. Can't remember which spring, it was a long time ago.

I’ve had Ruger trouble but I still like them once they get sorted out. I’ve had to send back a couple of Mini 14’s, a Vaquero, and a Wrangler twice (technically it was two different guns). The Wrangler was most recent. The first one the hammer beat the base pin out of the gun and would lock the gun up. Ruger replaced it with a new gun in less than a week. The second has so much endshake it sounded like a castanet. They scrapped that gun and sent me a third. I haven’t bothered to take the third one out yet to see what’s wrong with it.

To give credit, Ruger CS was always prompt and courteous. Other than the Wrangler, they fixed them on the first try. If this seems damming with faint praise, I’ve had Smith and Wesson and Kimber both fail to fix problems with multiple return trips to the factory.

I just picked up my Ruger Alaskan 480. Beautiful gun, well put together. It ain't no Freedom Arms 83, but then again, nothing is.

Just got an email from Ruger on this third SP101 sent back for a crooked barrel and the second one with a cylinder that comes off the yoke.

"Good Morning,

I am emailing you in regards to the revolver serial number xxx-xxxxx that was sent in for servicers (sic). The technician has evaluated this firearm and found it to be beyond repair. As a gesture of good will we are offering to replace the firearm with the same model at no charge. Please note if you accept this offer the original firearm will be scrapped and the replacement will have to be shipped to a dealer of your choice. Please contact myself at your earliest opportunity with the decline or acceptance of this offer."

Now, on the face of it this is very nice of them but this is the second one I've sent back that was found to be beyond repair - which makes me wonder how it got out of the factory in the first place but that's another story.

Anyway, they replaced my first SP101 that had a crooked barrel with a brand new one which also had a crooked barrel like the one it replaced. When I sent that one back they did a real bubba fix on it. So this will be my fourth SP101 since June in search of one good one.

I'll graciously accept the offer for this new firearm (and pay my FFL a second time to handle the transaction) but will withhold judgement until it gets here...




And I still agree with the rest of y'all, I've had great luck and been very pleased with Ruger revolvers and firearms in general since 1968. That's why it really does pain me greatly to have to report this.

FYI they will reimburse you for any FFL fees incurred if they replace the gun and it has to go through an FFL.

That's news. They didn't the first time but I guess you have to ask, they sure didn't offer.

But thanks, I'll take it up with them and see what they say.



My FFL charges 100% of the cost of the firearm so this might work out okay....

I appreciate your participation in Ruger quality control. Keep up the good work!

Seriously, I hope your luck improves. And I hope this problem with your SP101's isn't a trend.

what the hell is wrong with the gun industry? trying to crank out too much with a limited staff???

Today's episode of "As the Ruger Turns"...

I talked to a nice lady at Ruger CS yesterday morning to verify that I wanted a new replacement and that they had my receiving FFL dealer's license on file. During our conversation I related the tale of having to send three revolvers back now, including the first replacement they sent me, and since they keep customer info on file she said she could see this on my account service notes. I was polite - no need to yell at her since she didn't build it and she was the one trying to help me - but stressed that this was unacceptable and that they really needed to go over whatever new one they sent me with a fine tooth comb to be sure it was okay.

She said she had notified the manager of this product line of their 0 and 3 record and red flagged the requisition for a new one which she assured me meant that it would be reviewed by management before being sent out.

So far so good. Last time it took about 2-3 weeks to get a new one so we'll see what happens.

Also, they do reimburse you for FFL fees although I had to ask specifically about that, she didn't bring it up on her own. Just send them a receipt from the dealer showing the fee and they will send a check.

I have Rugers and S&W. All the revolvers that I've purchased new have gone back to the factory at least once. One Ruger went back twice. I also have a S&W that went back twice. To their credit, both accepted responsibility and fixed the issue(s).

My holey S&W impresses me the most though. The precision and accuracy are almost unbelievable. I'm very impressed with new S&W. Their quality control is as bad as everyone says. I've experience it repeatedly. Otherwise, the product is amazing. In the past, I would want to thoroughly check it out in person before I bought it. I would bring my tools. The gun would never be right and I would have to decide whether to pass or to buy it and send it back. Local shops have never been willing to help. Even when there is obviously things wrong with the gun, they've never been willing to do anything, not even open the ticket, print the label, pack or drop off the FedEx box. Nothing -- you're on your own. They prove it by keeping inventory of jacked up guns in the first place. Now what I would do is just buy it online, accept the transfer, and plan on sending it back. I would expect the exact same thing for Ruger. It's just the way it works.

Back in the day, I had the shop bring out every model 60as they had (which was four, IIRC) so I could go through them and find "the one". That worked well enough. But try to find a store that will do that now....

I sent this thread via messenger on FB to Ruger.

Well, got a brand new replacement revolver back from Ruger today. And the evidence is conclusive, the people who make the SP101 product line really don't give a flying leap about their QC.

First, they never told me they were sending it. My FFL dealer emailed me out of the blue this afternoon and said he had a Ruger waiting for me.

Ran over, picked it up and ran straight home to examine it.

The Good
- The barrel is on straight(er). You can see it's still coming out of the frame just a teeny tiny bit off to the right but at least it's more straight then the other previous three.
- The chamber throats seem to be okay, at least not way undersized. They are not consistent but few factory throats are, they will all allow a .357" bullet and some allow one .3575". I'm going to get a set of real pin gauges in .0005" increments after the New Year and get exact measurements.
- And that's it for the good.

The Bad
- The cylinder still slides off of the crane. It's absolutely not supposed to do that.
- There are gross machining marks in the forcing cone and at the start of the rifling. Not just scratches but deep circumferential grooves. They test fired some jacketed bullets and even after cleaning you can see the jacket material embedded into those grooves.

The What the Bleep?
- There is an alien life form encrusting the inside of the revolver. Okay, maybe not alien but what in the world is this? It looks like mold at first but it scrapes off readily with a dental pick. I'm pretty sure Ruger uses a lost wax method of casting but could this be old wax? In 52 years of owning Ruger handguns I've never seen anything like this.

This is the 4th substandard Ruger SP101 in a row. Four. In a Row. I can see one bad one slipping through and I can see four bad ones in circulation throughout the country, but four owned by me? My karma just isn't that bad, instead I'd say one could predict a fairly reliable trend here and it does not point to a good place.

Not sure what to do. I'm not going to send it back to Ruger, they've effed up their chances to make things right 4 times now. I do like the model design, I like it a lot, so will probably just clean this one up and shoot it.

I will rip Ruger customer service a new, very large ass hole for this, complete with glossy digital photographs. I pity the nice lady I dealt with but she definitely said this would be reviewed by management before being sent out. Apparently checking for a cylinder that comes off and alien growth inside the revolver is not part of their check list.


This revolver is absolutely brand new. I got it home, disassembled it and found all this.

Front of the fire control unit






Crane assembly





Inside frame



Special custom two piece cylinder/crane assembly

And P.S. I can't stress enough how much it does pain me to report this. For years and years Ruger had some of the best CS in the business. I've had a dozen examples of them going above and beyond for repairs, sending out free parts, etc. I sure hope this debacle is confined to this product line and not representative of their CS over the whole marque.

The EZ Glide Cylinder could prove to be a bonus--have Ruger send you a 9mm cylinder as a settlement for this issue and enjoy your convertible DA revolver!

OK...sorry about your experience. That sucks. You gave them every chance to make it right and they just shamelessly whiff.

Sad...

4 of the last 5 new Ruger revolvers I have purchased have had to go back to the factory for one reason or another. This year it took 11 months to get a Redhawk 45 LC returned..........not in the market for any more......

That is just terrible , gonna cost them some customers for sure !

Was it just *poop* to clean off OR were the metal surfaces pitted, etc.??

As it turns out it was just crud to clean off. It came off fairly easily with some bore cleaner and a toothbrush or pipe cleaner and I don't see any after effects of it.

However....

While cleaning the whole thing I noticed a peculiar sound running a bore brush through the barrel, kind of a zippy noise. Never heard anything like that before. I looked into the breech end with a flashlight and thought, "hmm, that's quite a lot of metal fouling from only 5 test rounds of jacketed bullets." I thought some other things but they don't bear repeating here.

So, I ran the ol' Teslong borescope into it and, well, y'all can see for yourselves. I have never, ever seen a bore like this.

This is right at the breech just after the forcing cone which you can see at the very right of the picture.




This is that same land at the muzzle.



Three more pics of different lands at various points along the bore. The grooves are okay, not the greatest but fairly normal longitudinal striations. But every land, from the forcing cone right up to the crown looks like this. The last of these really shows just how corrugated the entire bore is.









Just for comparison I checked out a 20 year old S&W .38 and an eight year old Ruger Blackhawk .357. They have some fine finishing marks on the lands but are mirror surfaces compared to this SP101.

This is a deal breaker. I don't even want to think about what those little files would do to a cast bullet.

Wow!

What a dumpster fire.

tell them you want your money refunded.

I think I would try to set up a discussion with someone higher up in the organization than the lower level phone answerers and calmly lay out the whole chronology. Also if you casually drop the hint that you're a respected member of the Handgun forum on 24HourCampfire that should put the fear of God in them.

Appreciate everybody's thoughts. Kind of a PITA here but not much to do but keep on keeping on.

I'd been dealing with one person at Ruger both for the last return and this one. A bit more than just a phone answerer but obviously not able to influence much higher up. Earlier in the thread I related a phone conversation with her:

"She said she had notified the manager of this product line of their 0 and 3 record and red flagged the requisition for a new one which she assured me meant that it would be reviewed by management before being sent out."

Last night I sent an email back to her reminding her of this and noted that if indeed a manager or managers reviewed this it sure as hell didn't speak well for their management. I attached some of the more hideous and incriminating pictures from this thread as supporting evidence of this.

I'd try again (try #5 but hey, who's counting? ) but it's obvious they are slapping these together as fast as possible and throwing them out the door. According to the fellows in the gunsmithing forum that crud in the pictures is most likely residue from bluing. I don't know how they make their barrels, reamer or whatever they use but it's very obvious necessary steps were missed or deliberately skipped.

Apparently it's just not worth their time to make one customer happy when they can sell junk faster than they can make it. I told her I've lost all faith in them and any assurances of "management review" were no better than politicians' promises, i.e. totally worthless.

So, I said "I want my money back!" in bold and underlined. She's out until Monday so we'll see what transpires then. I did preface my remarks by thanking her for working with me and doing what she could and that the body of the email was nothing personal but it was painfully obvious that management - at last for this product line - just doesn't give a damn about their products.

Companies do what they do. As long as mine are good, ain’t gonna fret about the others. I’ve had some schitt cars; now that's something to fuss about.

The bottom-line boys may have decided it’s better to let QC slide and fix the duds, and they run things pretty much everywhere.

Wonder if some of that magic ceramic bore-coating stuff might make that thing better? Last resort, of course.

Sounds like a rerun of my 98-99 dealings with them over a brand new and totally goat-f uk ed 45 Blackhawk. At least they didn't try to tell you it is 'In Spec' so maybe they've learned a few tricks since then. Fastest way to get your money back is to ship it in with a copy of the receipt and note saying Refund ONLY- Sender will not accept return shipment.

I'm sorry you got a dud, Jim.

Wow! One of the worst Ruger saga's I've read. But not worse by much. The crap I've personally seen & heard from them has this story easy to believe.

What a damn shame. Ruger was never known for the best fit & finish, but their strength, utility & dependability was their fame. Not sure of any of those anymore.

Good luck on this, Jim.

Revolver manufacturing is a lost art. I've got several revolvers. One is a Colt Police Positive from 1920,...made with 1920 technology machinery.

It would be interesting to see what someone would come up with if they tried to duplicate it today. I bet they would have a difficult time duplicating the fit even with 21st century machining technology.

We've been down the same Ruger Road with the American Rimfire rifles. Of the five I've had 'hands-on', every single one of them had extraction issues, even with a spotless chamber and good clean ammo. I AM pretty happy with the SR 1911 I bought last year, it's been flawless so far, but a 10/22 I recently bought had to have the stock reworked before the magazines would enter or eject. No big deal on that, and it shoots well for a 10/22. I have a Wrangler that shoots nowhere near the sights, though, and it pisses me off whenever I look at it. I think I'm done with newer Rugers, though.

The Smith & Wesson "Classic" are sort of an imitation of old time revolvers using modern methods. I'd like to see how they get the side plates fitted.

I would avoid companies that people say have excellent CS. I prefer those that make stuff that does not need to be serviced when bought new. Jim, do you know the phrase: "fool me once........."

Yep. Th old original one I had was great. Except for those ugly ass cheap grips.

Well, that's just horrible. And speaking as a Ruger stockholder, I'm kinda pissed.

Jim - it's rather obvious that there is at least one middle manager who is doing the time honored middle management thing of screwing up/off and blowing smoke up the chain of command. If this was my experience, I would go straight to the top and point that person to this thread. I now feel incredibly lucky that my latest Ruger (GP100 Match Champion) doesn't have these problems. I have several Rugers that I love, but until I see some kind of positive response to this trend from upper management that I can verify, it's doubtful that I will be buying any new Ruger anything in the foreseeable future, and I will not be advising anyone else to do so either. But to be fair - I think this needs to be lifted up the food chain by completely bypassing the levels that have been involved so far. This looks like just another in many examples I've seen (and some I've been directly involved with) where the top dog is not aware of the BS being pulled by middle management. Of course - it's possible that there's no desire for excellence at the top either, and if that's the case it will be a long time before I consider Ruger to be worth bothering with - but I rather doubt that is the case.

That looks like new state of art barrel design for more frequent cleaning requirement and replacement (larger surface area of grooves assures residue buildup and will be more prone to oxidation) so more new guns/parts can be sold.

Ruger is a brand I just don't buy much. Unless it's a .22 auto, they just don't have much that's interesting to me. I currently own two Rugers, and I'll be selling those soon.

I do like Ruger's 45 Lightweight Commander frame, which has a titanium insert to prevent damage from sharp edged JHP. That pistol tempts me as much as anything they make.

https://ruger.com/products/sr1911CommanderStyle/specSheets/6720.html

I have owned and carried LW commanders for over 30 years now, I have yet to damage a feed ramp. Solution to a theoretical problem mostly.

People see the "wear" on the feed ramp and think it's wearing through the hardened part of the anodizing, when it's really just the color layer, the hardened layer is clear, so it's still there. Type 3 is harder than steel at 50 on the C scale.

I understand the theory, and I have even seen a couple of damaged feed ramps. I have tried to replicate the damage and I have been unable to replicate...those who are doing it, are truly over-achievers.

Their go to response seems to be to simply replace the gun with another one off the line. I am on my third Wrangler with warranty replacement. Admittedly a Wrangler is at the low end of the price scale, but they seem to just toss the warranty gun out rather than trying to fix it.

I've seen it on Colts and it ain't like you. can polish it out.

The sensible answer to the question is G30/S/SF.

It seems to me that most of Ruger's efforts are being directed to the polymer framed autoloader market,..which makes sense. They're what everybody wants and Ruger has decided to manufacture some that work very well but don't empty your bank account.

The LCP series was a big hit for them and the Security 9 is getting very popular.

The only Rugers I've bought in recent years is an LCP and a Security 9. I've not found any problems with either of them.

I've beaten the LCP up pretty good and it just keeps running.

Years ago Ruger introduced their Security Six revolvers to compete with S&W K frames and sold a lot of them.

They're doing the same thing by challenging Glock with their Security 9.

Ruger isn't a particularly innovative company. But they're very good at identifying a popular market segment and introducing firearms that compete with them at a significantly lower price.

I think the Security 9 is going to be one of their biggest successes.

Polymer handguns are EASILY the most profitable market in firearms today; and has been for at least 25 years now. The profit margins are VERY thick on polymer guns, typically over 100%. Those profits are thinning as times goes on and more makers get into the game...but even if they cut the profit margin by 50%, those guns would still be the most profitable.

When you're forging and milling, it takes time and expensive equipment. It also produces expensive consumables in the production process in the form of milling bits, polishing pads, and cutting fluid. Polymer guns are 85% injection molded, stamped; that's cheap to make. Molding and stamping are also extremely precise methods of manufacturing, so the guns tend to have less issues and fewer returns.

Yeah. I noticed that a while ago. Compared to a revolver, a polymer framed autoloader is very easy to manufacture.

The hardest part to it is making the mold for the frames. The slides are mostly straight line milling that a CNC machining center can knock out like shelling peas.

The polymer revolvers are probably Ruger's margin champions.

Ruger and Taurus are waging (and winning) a price war against the smaller makers of polymer pistols.

At present, Glock seems largely insulated from pricing pressure due to brand cachet and (discounted) L.E. and military sales.

I took a look see at a .22 SP-101 a few months ago. Everything looked good until I tried the double action, must have been 18 lbs at least.

Conversely I had a very early .22 LR full lug 4” barrel with the windage only adjustable rear sight that was a really nice revolver. I think I paid $199.00 for it on sale at a local shop.

I had a Charter Bulldog with a barrel like that, looked like threads.
Sent it back UNFIRED . . . .
Got it back, would not consistently fire the rounds in the chambers . . .
Sent it back . . .
Got it back
Still will not fire consistently then jammed . . .
hammer block safety broke off . . .
Sent it back . . .
Got it back still will not fire 5 rounds every time . . .
Seems like I sent it back again . . .
Got it back, STILL will not always fire 5 rounds, thought they will all fire after continuing to pull the trigger most of the time

Have THROWN it to the back of the safe several time including last months trial.
May all of charters employees that touched this gun suffer the invasion of lice.

Once in a while bad guns get out and should be destroyed and a new one issued, though that solution does not seem to have worked in your case.

Hopefully this saga is nearing its end.

Sent the latest revolver back last week, that's 4 out of 4 that had to be sent back in case anyone's lost count.

Got an email this morning from the lady I'd been dealing with all this time that Ruger will honor my request for a full refund. I'd emailed her a copy of the gunbroker invoice when I sent the revolver back. It's supposed to take 2-3 weeks for the check to get through their accounting department so perhaps it will get here the first or second week of February.

Looking at current prices I could have sold it locally for easily $100 more than I paid for it but just couldn't bring myself to foist it off on someone like that.

Glad to see you doing the right thing.

This is really disappointing. I don't think I can buy another Ruger any time soon - certainly not any Ruger revolver, sight unseen. Pisses me off, 'cause I'm a stockholder.

Good for you Jim, for getting that dud out of circulation. I'm sorry we had the same experience, 22 years apart.

Thanks to all for letting me cry on your collective shoulders.

Still have some good Rugers, I love my left handed Hawkeyes and an older GP100 and Blackhawk. Might keep an eye out for a good pre-2000 SP101 3" with the fixed sights. I had one back then and it was accurate and POI was right on top of the front sight at 15 yards for any 158 grain bullet. Trouble is nowadays lots of folks have the same idea and the older ones are selling for as much as the new ones.