Quote:
|
As fine a handgun as Ruger makes they just don't have the history that Colt, Smith and Wesson, or even High Stander has.
|
Now I see the angle you are trying to work with this statement, but I can't simply let it slide by without comment.
A quick google search reveals that the current OWNER of the High Standard trade name says that they began making pistols in 1932, so I can only assume that you mean Ruger can't match the history simply because Ruger didn't ship it's first firearm until 1949, so High Standard has 17 years of "history" that can be held over Ruger's head.
In the real world, Ruger's easily got mountains of history and many truckloads of firearms to dwarf any imprint High Standard might have
ever left on this planet. Not to mention the simple fact that it's not a gun "name" that has changed hands a half-dozen times with a short catalog of precious few distinct items, the main one being an obvious near copy of an established product on the market.
With all due respect to the number of fine handguns that High Standard built in their day and the competitions that have been won with them, to suggest that High Standard has more "history" than does the Sturm, Ruger & Company is somewhere short of (or
well beyond) ludicrous.
These are my opinions and some may not agree. But like the small and dedicated following that High Standard firearms has... those who would not agree would be dwarfed and microscopic in comparison to the footprint that Sturm, Ruger & Company and Bill Ruger has put on the world history of firearms and the stamp that the same firm has put on the history of manufacturing in the United States of America. (cue patriotic music here)
To suggest otherwise is comical. In my opinion of course. (and in reality, too.
)
I'd love to own a High Standard one day. I really do. I imagine that I will. In the mean time, I'll enjoy my Ruger Mark II with it's heavy barrel, and my circa-1928 Colt Woodsman.