The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Jim March · December 6, 2012, 03:03 AM

I don't own one but have handled several in both calibers. I am generally impressed.

I know of only one problem: one early "batch" (whatever number that is) of the 38 variant seems to have slipped out with a bad heat-treat on the frame. This caused severe flame cutting on the topstrap above the barrel.

Ruger took care of all the affected guns 100% on their own dime.

I know of no fundamental flaws with the design in either caliber.

If I was buying one I'd go with the 357, because there's a number of very good "low powered 357 for light, short barreled gun" ammo types available now. Some are little more than warm 38+Ps but even the mildest give you ballistics as if you had a 5" barrel 38Spl and were shooting 38+P in it.

December 6, 2012, 03:03 AM	#6
Jim March Senior Member Join Date: February 14, 1999 Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA Posts: 7,417	I don't own one but have handled several in both calibers. I am generally impressed. I know of only one problem: one early "batch" (whatever number that is) of the 38 variant seems to have slipped out with a bad heat-treat on the frame. This caused severe flame cutting on the topstrap above the barrel. Ruger took care of all the affected guns 100% on their own dime. I know of no fundamental flaws with the design in either caliber. If I was buying one I'd go with the 357, because there's a number of very good "low powered 357 for light, short barreled gun" ammo types available now. Some are little more than warm 38+Ps but even the mildest give you ballistics as if you had a 5" barrel 38Spl and were shooting 38+P in it. __________________ Jim March