Ruger American Bolt Actions

[AL45]

Are these decent guns? Or is Ruger trying to enter the "cheap gun for poor people and tightwads" market? I fit into both categories, but I don't want junk.

[livingintx]

I have one in 243 Winchester and very happy with it. The common theme I hear is that they shouldn't shoot as good as they do out of the box.

[Rembrandt]

Originally Posted by AL45

Are these decent guns? Or is Ruger trying to enter the "cheap gun for poor people and tightwads" market? I fit into both categories, but I don't want junk.

How do expect to get quality without paying for it?

[AL45]

Rembrandt, define quality. I'm looking for a reliable gun that will shoot at least a 1-1.5 inch group at 100 yards. Hopefully, if taken care of, it will out last me. Does this gun fit in this category?

[jmr40]

They are a cheap budget rifle, not junk. But probably the best value right now in that category. I have 2, one is a compact in 223, the other a standard rifle in 308. They shoot quite well with some simple and free modifications. All I did was spend 10 minutes on each of them with some sandpaper and files to give the stock a generous free float. Some lighten the adjustable trigger, but mine was fine out of the box.

Lots of folks try stock replacement, trigger replacement, or other tricks to stiffen the stock in hopes they will shoot better. By the time you do that you have $600-$700 invested in them and they are still a cheap budget rifle that won't shoot any better. If you're going to invest $600-$700 in a rifle there are better choices.

I have several much better quality rifles that I'd have more faith in on a cross country hunt that I spent money on. But these shoot just as well and I'd have no problems using them for typical hunting around home where I'd not cry if they let me down on a meat hunt.

For me, they are beaters and truck guns. I don't worry about throwing one on the ATV or keeping it in the truck. For someone that is a casual hunter/shooter wanting the most gun for the dollar and not concerned with aesthetics or long term value, they get my vote.

[Rembrandt]

Irrelevant what my definition of quality is......"one mans junk is another mans treasure". Its a matter of what you are willing to give up in features and benefits to meet your price limit. Your definition of junk and mine are probably different.

For me features, benefits, quality of machining and engineering, appearance, and investment value come first.......price doesn't matter if it meets those expectations. Not everyone buys like that, just how I do it.

[stagpanther]

They are a cheap budget rifle, not junk. But probably the best value right now in that category. I have 2, one is a compact in 223, the other a standard rifle in 308. They shoot quite well with some simple and free modifications. All I did was spend 10 minutes on each of them with some sandpaper and files to give the stock a generous free float. Some lighten the adjustable trigger, but mine was fine out of the box.

Lots of folks try stock replacement, trigger replacement, or other tricks to stiffen the stock in hopes they will shoot better. By the time you do that you have $600-$700 invested in them and they are still a cheap budget rifle that won't shoot any better. If you're going to invest $600-$700 in a rifle there are better choices.

I have several much better quality rifles that I'd have more faith in on a cross country hunt that I spent money on. But these shoot just as well and I'd have no problems using them for typical hunting around home where I'd not cry if they let me down on a meat hunt.

For me, they are beaters and truck guns. I don't worry about throwing one on the ATV or keeping it in the truck. For someone that is a casual hunter/shooter wanting the most gun for the dollar and not concerned with aesthetics or long term value, they get my vote.

I have a thing for plastic budget rifles--I can almost always make them shoot sub MOA--sometimes .5 or less with just a little trigger work, epoxy and sandpaper. I have an American in 270 and out of the box it was ho-hum--but I expect that from a flexi-stock prior to working it over a bit. But it is over-all an innovative gun for the budget category--one which I believe ups the ante and will result in even better offerings in the future from competitors. We win! I'm a hardcore savage guy when it comes to rifles--but IMO the American is one of the best values in it's price class (the only reason I even tried it is because I'm a fan of Ruger wheel guns).

HSM 130 VLD; I don't mind junk that can do this

[Banger357]

In my opinion they're comparable to a Savage. Good, reliable gun for your money. I'd say the American does feel a little cheap in your hands- doesn't feel as quality as a heavier composite stock or a hogue or something. But in terms of functionality, reliability, and accuracy it's a great gun. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if it suited my needs to recommend one to a friend.

[9x19]

I've been very happy with my 5.56 Ranch model. Great trigger, tang safety, excellent shooter too.

[sevt_chevelle]

I have one in 30-06, with Remington 150gr core-lot ammo I get 1-1.5 moa at 100 yards bone stock straight from the box. There is no doubt once I start dialing in my hand loads this will be a sub-moa rifle.

I bought this rifle for deer hunting with the thought of if it got nicked or scratched it wouldn't bother me. If you take care of the gun it should outlast you and by no means is it considered junk.

[reynolds357]

The stocks are trash. The barreled action is excellent.

[Pathfinder45]

I've heard there have been issues with flimsy magazines that had to be redesigned. Apparently, Ruger doesn't think enough of the rifle to offer a walnut or laminated wood option on the stock.

[SARuger]

I have 4, .17HMR, .223, .243 and 30-06.

They might be budget guns but they are not junk! I paid $329 each on sale at my LGS($259 for the .17hmr)

So what if you don't like the stocks! Order a Boyds for another $100 or so and your still well under $500 for a nice looking and nice shooting bolt gun.

I have the Savage 11 in .243, and I have the RAR in .243, the Ruger will out shoot it, same scopes on both rifles and from a Lead Sled.

No quality issues and the mags are fine.

I'm very happy with the RAR, I wouldn't mind owning a couple more. Maybe one in .308 and one in .270

[Economist]

I have one in .270 Win. All I use it for is target shooting, but it has been 100% reliable for the two years I have had it, and shoots between 1.5 and 2 MOA with no modifications whatsoever.

[9x19]

I've heard there have been issues with flimsy magazines that had to be redesigned. Apparently, Ruger doesn't think enough of the rifle to offer a walnut or laminated wood option on the stock.

No issues with the 3 magazines I have for my 5.56

I think Ruger likes the rifle quite a bit, since they keep offering up more versions, perhaps they just don't think enough of the consumers who want a walnut or laminated option.

[jmr40]

I've heard there have been issues with flimsy magazines that had to be redesigned. Apparently, Ruger doesn't think enough of the rifle to offer a walnut or laminated wood option on the stock.

Some of the first rifles made in 223 would not feed the last round out of the magazine. Ruger replaced them at no cost. The feed lips were a little close, it has since been determined that a little file work to openup the feed lips makes them work 100%. Not really a redesign.

"Flimsey" we'll just have to wait and see. I do see the magazine as the part that gives me the least confidence. But they have been making them for a couple of years now and the only issue I'm aware of was the minor feeding issue with 223 mags that is easily corrected.

Ruger offers their Hawkeye with walnut and laminated stock options. They COULD offer the American with the option. But it would be pretty silly to not just buy the Hawkeye if you want walnut, the cost would be about the same. That is the same reason I think buying an aftermarket stock is a waste of money. The American uses a unuque bedding system that works very well. The fact that the stock is cheap and flimsey has zero effect on accuracy. Most shoot just as well as guns costing 3X more.

Like it or not, this is the future of firearms. I like quality as much as anyone, and have a safe full of much better rifles made the traditional way. But that is not what most consumers are buying. Companies who continue to only make high end quality rifles are going broke. Ruger is making a fortune selling these.

[FrankenMauser]

Normally, in threads like this, reynolds357, and I, each share our opinions and have some sort of ideological disagreement. But, in this case....

The stocks are trash. The barreled action is excellent.

He said it like it is. I completely agree.

I would like to add, though: The magazine bugs the crap out of me. Super cheap, flimsy, it rattles when empty, the cheesy plastic feed lips WILL wear out, and the latch does not inspire confidence of any kind.


And I wanted to hit one point from jmr40:
...

The American uses a unuque bedding system that works very well. The fact that the stock is cheap and flimsey has zero effect on accuracy. Most shoot just as well as guns costing 3X more.
...

The cheap and flimsy stock does effect accuracy on the rifles where the cheap plastic is warped so badly that it is pressing against the barrel; or when the shooter torques the stock over into the barrel.

[stagpanther]

Here's what I do to all my savage and ruger plasti-stocks:

1) marinetex fill the channels in the forgrip area.
2) dremel back the barrel channel slightly
3) remove butt pad and fill with envirotex. (I sometimes add my own homemade recoil absorber if it's a real pounding caliber)

Costs about $15.00 to $20 in materials and I seriously doubt you'll get significantly better results with a conventional wood stock. Paint and bash away in the woods---always easy to repaint--much easier than sanding and re-varnishing wood anyway.

[SARuger]

100% "Made in America"

I forgot to add that! I love these rifles

[9x19]

I've been so pleased with my 5.56 Ranch that I ordered a .300 Blackout to try. Strictly supersonic ammo in mind - ordered some of that was well - should be here this week... not real sure how useful the little .30 will be, but I'll never know unless I give it a try.

[stagpanther]

300 black-out? Turn back while there's still time! LOL

[Orion6]

Some folks miss the point of the budget rifles - they are not meant to have walnut stocks and polished bluing. What they are, though, is good solid American made rifles.

All the budget guns out there - the Ruger American, Savage Axis, Remington 783 are great, affordable rifles for hunting and range shooting.

I have the Axis for my daughter and the 783 for myself. I don't like the mags on the American but from everything I've heard, they are good guns.

[stagpanther]

Can an American shoot? http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/1000...ican-predator/

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

The old adages apply:_"You get what you pay for."_In this case you can take that Ruger Sows ear and hopefully make it into a Silk purse later with the addition of a new & better stock_ aftermarket trigger_ bedding_smoothing its action if so inclined. But no matter how much time & currency you spend to make that American model a better rifle. Its still a Sows ear do to its (model) read on its barrel scroll engraving.

MA: Save your money. Look at higher grade models.(Sako, Kimber, Model 70s & alike) Buy well. Than be happy knowing "you indeed bought the Best."

[jmr40]

The cheap and flimsy stock does effect accuracy on the rifles where the cheap plastic is warped so badly that it is pressing against the barrel; or when the shooter torques the stock over into the barrel.

But the stock doesn't touch either the action or barrel. That is the point and why it doesn't matter how cheap or flimsey the stock is. They simply shoot. It is a new way of manufacturing rifles that some can't seem to grasp. They are still trying to solve problems the way they would with a gun made 100 years ago. I have 6 rifles set in stocks that cost 2X what the American costs as well as several more in factory walnut. I can put enough pressure on all of them to make them touch the barrel, but under "normal" use it doesn't happen with any of them, including the American. This is simply a non-issue that some want to be critical of.

First lets define real quality.

No rifle in the history of firearms has cut more corners in order to be produced more cheaply than the entire line of Remington 700's. In fact when first introduced they were highly criticized for being cheap junk. They introduced a receiver made from a steel tube instead of being machined. The recoil lug is a washer. They use stamped sheet metal for an extractor. They braze the bolt handles onto the bolt and every single rifle made between 1946-2012 left the factory with a defective trigger. But because they put a cheap stick of shiny wood on them, polish the metal and stick a $900 price tag on them they are called quality.

The American uses a stiffer action. The bolt is thicker, stiffer and the bolt handle is attached so it won't fall off. The trigger and safety are better designs. The extractor is much better designed as is the bedding system. They are at least equal in accuracy, but because it has a plastic stock, dull finish and a $350 price tag some call it junk.

Maybe we need to re-evaluate our priorities.