If civilians do not have any viable use for magazines greater than 10 rounds, why then, does law enforcement? If we are limiting civilian arms to practical defensive capabilities, why on earth would we set a different standard for law enforcement? Unless they are really just state sponsored assassination teams in disguise....

Well said Holmes. No compromise is the best policy when it comes to firearms and the more people that understand this the better off we will be.

My experiance with Ruger remains good. I have toured their NH plant and found the attitude, workpace and proceedures to be good.

I got my first Ruger in 1969. It's a #1A that I wore the 7mm Mag bbl out on. Ruger rebarreled it in 06 (my choice) for $150. Yes the new bbl is better than the old one.

In 1970 I got a .45 Colt in the Blackhawk. I made a string of 9 straight kills without a miss. I also used this gun sucessfully for self defense. It's a keeper. For the price I don't know what more you could ask for and I have a number of Colt SAA's.

I have some #1's etc, etc. I have owned an number of Rugers.

Oh come on! Get off of it. I know these people. This is an American company.

Don, I don't see where anyone has been critical of the Ruger employees or even the company itself.

That was refreshing. I put up my best argument, told you guys how I felt, and didnt get called some vile name. Cool. Just for the record, I dont like whats going on, and dont present my opinions such as this one, where they will likely be heard by anti-gun personnel. Anyone, anywhere else believes I'm extremely hard lined on my gun rights, but I'm really not. So its cool you dont agree with me, but we all have our opinions, dont think I'll be helping to take any of your rights away, cause I wouldnt do that. I wont however sweat the small stuff, or what seems small to me. Just remember, there are a lot of people out there that feel like I do, gun owners at that. There are a lot of things that people believe to be wrong in the world, that people would like to see gone all together, and for some that presents a problem, like cigarette smokers, tobbaco users in general, alcohol users etc. Also, the speed limit on highways and gun control can be used in the same sentence, both are meant for public safety. How well either one works is debatable, to you and I it seems a no brainer, but even we disagree. I personally use the same comparisons, like cars being dangerous, cigarettes killing more people each year than guns, the same can probably be said about alcohol. The fact is though, you do as much as you can to eliminate danger, without eliminating the source of the problem in most cases, thats just how things work. Lets hope that continues to hold true for guns. Good discussion!

Robsguns

From your post:

Also, the speed limit on highways and gun control can be used in the same sentence, both are meant for public safety

There are a couple of very big differences between the two.

Firstly, speed limits on roads are unlikely to go to the stage that it is so low that the car is finished.

Unlike guns, the push for lower speed limits does not have the same political agenda behind it.

Also, there are not a whole lot of people out there that want cars banned or restricted in their ownership.

In my experience most gun owners that support gun control to various degrees do so in the belief that it makes the overall case for gun ownership better. I think you have basically said that in one of your postings.

But such compromise has 3 difficult areas for us.

1) The genuine antis are only interested in "no guns"

2) Assault rifls are a good example. If you support restricting these rifles then firstly you acknowlege that guns need to be restricted. Secondly, to support such a law also eliminates you from saying that gun laws don't work.

3) The word "need" is bad news as the majority of guns owned by the majority of gun owners are not needed.

Most sites, including this site, have a bow hunting forum. Thus do you need a gun to hunt? In fact, you don't need to hunt.

Also remember that if a Mini 14 with a 30 shot magazine is dangerous so is a Ruger Number 1.

If want to you see something interesting in the gun debate, it is an AK47 with FMJs and a burst into 4 gallon drums of water as compared to a 460 Wby being used with 500 Hornadies. Then the 460 cartridges are put next to the 7.62 X 39s.

Let me absolutley assure you, that if you supported controls on the AK then an observer would say the 460 should be banned.

Many gun owners also fail to realise that the "genuine antis" are not only aware that gun control does not work, but in fact rely on it to get them to the next stage of their agenda.

Mike

I have only owned one Ruger in my life but I have about worn it out..I redid the shape of the stock, installed a M-70 Safty, did a trigger job, recheckered it, new recoil pad and added a control feed to it..All this 20 years ago and it shot 1/2" then and still does......

the Safari model 77 Ruger is a whale of a lot of gun for the price and by far better than any other factory DGR as far as what you get for the dollar...

------------------
Ray Atkinson

ray@atkinsonhunting.com
atkinsonhunting.com

Glad to see the thread has come back to Rugers.

My first bolt action was a Ruger M77 "roundtop" pushfeed in 30-06. It now resides in a Brown Precision fiberglass stock, but it still shoots 1/2 MOA, just like it did right out of the box. Sometimes you get lucky.

I have found Rugers to be more consistently accurate out of the box than any other factory make. If there are things about them that you don't like, they can be fixed just fine.

Rugers are GREAT! As I have said before, I will say again: I invite anyone who disagrees with this assessment of Rugers to "kiss my ass" as Ted Nugent would say.

Some gunsmiths are just putting on airs if they say a Winchester or Remington is better than a Ruger.

------------------
Happiness is a warm double and a bloody spear, but a 375 or a 416 will do just fine!
RAB

I guess I own more Ruger firearms than any other, excepting S&W revolvers. I have took game, shot targets, and carried them for self defense. I think they are excelent weapons, and would like to own a couple more.

Good luck and good shooting

I have only owned Ruger handguns, and I think quite highly of them. I dont like "gun control legistlation", in fact, this 10round thing has to be one of the silliest pieces of shit to ever be passed by these "silly pieces of shits", I mean, Poloticians.

I never felt underarmed working the streets with a wheelgun, even today my daily carry gun is a .45acp with a 6 round mag, and one up the tube. The whole point of the exercise, of surviveing street encounters, is to hit what you aim at. In that respect nothing has changed in 150 years.

I dont like these 15,16,&17 shot "wonder-9mms". They bore me, Ruger's or any other kind. I just dont see the point in pulling a trigger if you dont plan on hitting what your aiming at.

My nephew is planning on comeing on the job and Im going to take him out and buy him a Ruger 45acp duty weapon, and, I will teach him how to hit his targets with 1 or 2 shots. I think that say's enough about my opinion of Bill Rugers products............10

I'm not sure I'd say there is more "Ruger bashing" than usual. I have a couple M77's and one was great and one has been reworked head to toe! I also have a couple of the .22's and a Mini. I can say that between myself and my family we have had pretty good luck as I'm the only one who's really had to re-work one. I'm not sure but I think we've had or still have around 8 rifles of this make. The most disappointing rifle I've shot was a Rem BDL. It shot as bad as my worst Ruger and I knew of the mixed bag stories about the Rugers. The bedding on the Rugers is usually the culprit, This particular BDL was stolen before the thing ever started shooting straight. As long as we're bashing why are the Winchester barrels so rough? I'm considering fire-lapping and a new break-in.