New composite frame ruger revolver - Page 5

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Many people ( myself included ) have shunned S&W because of the internal lock and concerns that it may disable the revolver at the worst time... it's the main reason that I have purchased SP 101s instead of a S&W offering.

But those concerns are pretty much unfounded statistically. That is like not swimming because of a fear of being eaten by a Kraken.

In fact, if you search the web you will find more claims of SP101's failing due to poorly produced barrels than you will Smith's failing because of locks. Add in the fact that this particular Ruger is completely untested and I would not choose it over a Smith.

dipper · January 13, 2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

But those concerns are pretty much unfounded statistically.

True, but they have failed and even if it is a very small possibility that it COULD fail, I just don't think it's worth the chance---just my opinion.

OK, what the heck is a Kraken?

18DAI · January 13, 2009, 03:20 PM

I've never even read on the internet, of Ruger SP101's with a failed barrel??

Got a link?

I have seen a bunch of NC DOC S&W IL model 64's with their barrels blown off. A reporter did a big story on it in the Winston Salem journal IIRC.

I have personally witnessed two S&W IL revolvers fail, and lock up tight at the range.

I'll buy one of these Rugers. The two new GP100's I purchased in the last two years are sweet.

Besides even if the wind up revolvers were as reliable as the old S&W pre locks, they are STILL UGLY !!

Regards 18DAI.

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 03:22 PM

Quote:

True, but they have failed and even if it is a very small possibility that it COULD fail, I just don't think it's worth the chance---just my opinion.

Then you definitely would not want a Ruger because they can fail too...or a Colt...or a Springer...etc.

Quote:

OK, what the heck is a Kraken?

2ndamd · January 13, 2009, 03:27 PM

PBP said: I

Quote:

will take the reliable, but cosmetically blemished, Smith over an unproven new design

I know you would.
This is not meant to be a criticism of you. I have been on these forums long enough to know what you like. I disagree with you sometimes. No big deal.

I will never own a Smith with an internal lock. I don't need others to validate my choice. The choice is mine alone. But, if populace rules in the forum world? Then, there are many others who have decided on this choice as well.

I know you would take a Hillary Hole over a new polymer from Ruger. I would opt for the Ruger.

Opinions vary. Choice is a good thing. Don't ya think?

See you on the boards.

2ndamd · January 13, 2009, 03:29 PM

I have never seen or heard of a SP101 failing. The barrel issues were just turned too tight. this caused the gun to shoot to the left or right. It certainly never failed like the S&W IL failures. No Kracken needed. The IL failures are real and documented. Look at the S&W forum for documentation.

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

I know you would take a Hillary Hole over a new polymer from Ruger. I would opt for the Ruger.

Even though their last two polymer guns have been subject to recall? You will still rather trust another untested polymer gun from them over a proven platform for SD?

2ndamd · January 13, 2009, 03:32 PM

Yea. I would. I don't want to argue opinions with you. I know you're a good guy. We just don't see eye-to-eye on a few issues. No big deal.

18DAI · January 13, 2009, 03:42 PM

Yes, Ruger recalled their defective handguns. I applaud them for that.

Contrast that to S&W still denying that they are even aware of a single internal lock failure. BS flag on that.

Sorry to further derail the thread. Regards 18DAI.

Sarvisian · January 13, 2009, 03:52 PM

I'll buy one (or two) and as soon as I feel it's a solid performer I'll trust it, just like any gun I buy. Just because a design is proven doesn't mean the individual sample is, I put 500 to 1000 rounds through any gun before it is allowed to do defensive duty.

ricsmty · January 13, 2009, 04:01 PM

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

csmsss · January 13, 2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

Yes - it's an enormous chasm from whence lies and deceit burst forth:

rantingredneck · January 13, 2009, 04:41 PM

I hope it doesn't have an infernal lock. The LCP didn't. Maybe this one won't either.......

We can hope....

The more I look at it the more I want one. Would make a nice pocket carry "new york reload" for my SP101 (that is way too heavy/large to pocket carry, but works so well IWB for me..

..)

I wonder if Ruger used the same grip dimension as an existing design (their own or S&W) to get CT grips to fit it so quickly? Possible? Looks significantly smaller than the SP101 grip stud so I imagine it's borrowed from Smith and Wesson if it's an existing CTC model.

Then again that pic could be a mockup and the CTC grips may not actually be available yet. I guess we'll see soon when the official announcement comes.

RE: Smith and Wesson IL lock failures:

A local fellow here, who is active on carolinashootersforum.com has had a recent S&W IL model spontaneously lock under recoil at the range twice. It's been back to Smith both times for repair of the IL. It is now exhibiting flame cutting and he's sent pics to Smith. They want it back for repair for the third time.

They ain't what they used to be........

As someone who had to send my LCP in for repair under the recall, I appreciate Ruger stepping forward with a fix vs. denial that a problem exists.

oneounceload · January 13, 2009, 04:42 PM

Jusr disable the IL and you'll have no worries

hoytinak · January 13, 2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneounceload

Jusr disable the IL and you'll have no worries

But you still have that ugly hole. :barf: But as Playboy said, the looks of your carry gun should be your last concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricsmty

Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

The key hole for the internal lock.

oneounceload · January 13, 2009, 05:32 PM

maybe so, but it will function just fine....

I wouldn't touch this new Ruger for at least a year - not with their current record on quality issues

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

But you still have that ugly hole. But as Playboy said, the looks of your carry gun should be your last concern.

I do believe you can disable the lock without removing it. All you have to do is file off the piece in the inside that catches the the inner workings.

rjrivero · January 13, 2009, 07:15 PM

I like the look. The cylinder flutes are mean looking. It's kinda got that "Batman Industrial" kind of look.

ricsmty · January 13, 2009, 07:29 PM

My Taurus 85 has a lock like the S&W only it's at the base of the trigger. Hasen't been a problem so far. <500 rounds.

Sarge · January 13, 2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Yes - it's an enormous chasm from whence lies and deceit burst forth:
(Hillary Pic)

You know, for the first time in my life I feel genuinely sorry for Bill

B.N.Real · January 13, 2009, 09:47 PM

Eh,who knows,maybe Ruger has something here.

Superlight weight,low cost and maybe,just maybe no defects.

This might be the future of all revolvers.

Playboypenguin · January 13, 2009, 09:50 PM

Quote:

This might be the future of all revolvers.

Polymer the future of revolvers???? :barf::barf:

I am giving you exactely 2 minutes to take that back! That kind of talk might be acceptable over on the Glock boards, but not around these parts it isn't.

I am seriously thinking of reporting that post as inappropriate.

hoytinak · January 13, 2009, 09:53 PM

Yeah next thing you know Glock will be coming out with the "perfect" revolver.

Sorry.....someone had to say it.

B.N.Real · January 13, 2009, 10:19 PM

Easy there PBP.

Just a WILD guess there.

Ain't nuthin' better than a good old steel revolver.

Unless it's a NEW Steel Revolver.

Rack them chambers,it's like MUSIC!

Still,in your pocket,a superlightweight powerhouse revolver has it's place.

I hope Ruger beat the dogsnot out of this gun in trials before it ever reaches the market.

It will be compared with the Scandium Smith's without a doubt and those have been very reliable as far as I have read.

Wuchak · January 14, 2009, 12:14 AM

The recalls that Ruger has done recently were not for "major" issues. The guns were not unsafe to shoot or faulty. They happen to discharge if dropped onto a hard surface at exactly the right angle. Not every time they are dropped even, just at that certain angle. Most other manufacturers wouldn't bother doing a recall, especially on guns so recently released so they could avoid tainting them. Ruger, being Ruger, decided that any chance of a problem was too big and did a recall. Back in the early 1990's when departments were looking at Glocks guess what the discovered? That's right, when dropped they would discharge. Only it wasn't at just a certain angle. It was bad enough that it cause many departments to pass over them. I don't recall Glock doing a recall. I don't remember a big announcement of any redesign to correct this in later versions. And I don't see Glock being slammed for not fixing them or for having a faulty design. A major problem and design flaw would be making a handgun for a high pressure round with a chamber that doesn't fully support the cartridge allowing numerous cases where the gun blows apart. Now that's a major problem. Still no recall from Glock on that one either. As others have pointed out there is still no admission from S&W that there is a serious problem of the locks self engaging in the lightweight revolvers. I guess someone has to get killed because their gun locks up in a gunfight before S&W will do something. If it was Ruger after the 2nd report of the problem they would have done a recall and fixed it.

January 13, 2009, 03:20 PM	#103
18DAI Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2005 Location: NC Posts: 2,156	I've never even read on the internet, of Ruger SP101's with a failed barrel?? Got a link? I have seen a bunch of NC DOC S&W IL model 64's with their barrels blown off. A reporter did a big story on it in the Winston Salem journal IIRC. I have personally witnessed two S&W IL revolvers fail, and lock up tight at the range. I'll buy one of these Rugers. The two new GP100's I purchased in the last two years are sweet. Besides even if the wind up revolvers were as reliable as the old S&W pre locks, they are STILL UGLY !! Regards 18DAI. __________________ S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Everything you need in a revolver, and nothing you don't.

January 13, 2009, 03:29 PM	#106
2ndamd Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: Brownsville thru El Paso Posts: 636	I have never seen or heard of a SP101 failing. The barrel issues were just turned too tight. this caused the gun to shoot to the left or right. It certainly never failed like the S&W IL failures. No Kracken needed. The IL failures are real and documented. Look at the S&W forum for documentation. __________________ Museum of South Texas History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoSggAWEK4g

January 13, 2009, 03:32 PM	#108
2ndamd Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2005 Location: Brownsville thru El Paso Posts: 636	Yea. I would. I don't want to argue opinions with you. I know you're a good guy. We just don't see eye-to-eye on a few issues. No big deal. __________________ Museum of South Texas History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoSggAWEK4g

January 13, 2009, 03:42 PM	#109
18DAI Senior Member Join Date: September 30, 2005 Location: NC Posts: 2,156	Yes, Ruger recalled their defective handguns. I applaud them for that. Contrast that to S&W still denying that they are even aware of a single internal lock failure. BS flag on that. Sorry to further derail the thread. Regards 18DAI. __________________ S&W Model 19 Combat Magnum. Everything you need in a revolver, and nothing you don't.

January 13, 2009, 04:41 PM	#113
rantingredneck Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2007 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4,728	I hope it doesn't have an infernal lock. The LCP didn't. Maybe this one won't either....... We can hope.... The more I look at it the more I want one. Would make a nice pocket carry "new york reload" for my SP101 (that is way too heavy/large to pocket carry, but works so well IWB for me....) I wonder if Ruger used the same grip dimension as an existing design (their own or S&W) to get CT grips to fit it so quickly? Possible? Looks significantly smaller than the SP101 grip stud so I imagine it's borrowed from Smith and Wesson if it's an existing CTC model. Then again that pic could be a mockup and the CTC grips may not actually be available yet. I guess we'll see soon when the official announcement comes. RE: Smith and Wesson IL lock failures: A local fellow here, who is active on carolinashootersforum.com has had a recent S&W IL model spontaneously lock under recoil at the range twice. It's been back to Smith both times for repair of the IL. It is now exhibiting flame cutting and he's sent pics to Smith. They want it back for repair for the third time. They ain't what they used to be........ As someone who had to send my LCP in for repair under the recall, I appreciate Ruger stepping forward with a fix vs. denial that a problem exists. __________________ NRA Member NC Hunter's Education Instructor PCCA Member (What's PCCA you ask? <- Check the link)

January 13, 2009, 03:52 PM	#110
Sarvisian Member Join Date: December 30, 2007 Posts: 99	I'll buy one (or two) and as soon as I feel it's a solid performer I'll trust it, just like any gun I buy. Just because a design is proven doesn't mean the individual sample is, I put 500 to 1000 rounds through any gun before it is allowed to do defensive duty.

January 13, 2009, 04:01 PM	#111
ricsmty Junior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Location: missouri ozarks Posts: 2	Can someone explain Hilary Hole?

January 13, 2009, 04:42 PM	#114
oneounceload Junior member Join Date: April 18, 2008 Location: N. Central Florida Posts: 8,518	Jusr disable the IL and you'll have no worries

January 13, 2009, 05:32 PM	#116
oneounceload Junior member Join Date: April 18, 2008 Location: N. Central Florida Posts: 8,518	maybe so, but it will function just fine.... I wouldn't touch this new Ruger for at least a year - not with their current record on quality issues

January 13, 2009, 07:15 PM	#118
rjrivero Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: NW Ohio Posts: 1,399	Back to the "Mystery Ruger" I like the look. The cylinder flutes are mean looking. It's kinda got that "Batman Industrial" kind of look.

January 13, 2009, 07:29 PM	#119
ricsmty Junior Member Join Date: November 20, 2008 Location: missouri ozarks Posts: 2	My Taurus 85 has a lock like the S&W only it's at the base of the trigger. Hasen't been a problem so far. <500 rounds.

January 13, 2009, 09:47 PM	#121
B.N.Real Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2008 Posts: 4,092	Eh,who knows,maybe Ruger has something here. Superlight weight,low cost and maybe,just maybe no defects. This might be the future of all revolvers.

January 13, 2009, 09:53 PM	#123
hoytinak Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 5,721	Yeah next thing you know Glock will be coming out with the "perfect" revolver. Sorry.....someone had to say it.

January 13, 2009, 10:19 PM	#124
B.N.Real Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2008 Posts: 4,092	Easy there PBP. Just a WILD guess there. Ain't nuthin' better than a good old steel revolver. Unless it's a NEW Steel Revolver. Rack them chambers,it's like MUSIC! Still,in your pocket,a superlightweight powerhouse revolver has it's place. I hope Ruger beat the dogsnot out of this gun in trials before it ever reaches the market. It will be compared with the Scandium Smith's without a doubt and those have been very reliable as far as I have read.

January 14, 2009, 12:14 AM	#125
Wuchak Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2007 Location: Shawnee, KS Posts: 1,093	The recalls that Ruger has done recently were not for "major" issues. The guns were not unsafe to shoot or faulty. They happen to discharge if dropped onto a hard surface at exactly the right angle. Not every time they are dropped even, just at that certain angle. Most other manufacturers wouldn't bother doing a recall, especially on guns so recently released so they could avoid tainting them. Ruger, being Ruger, decided that any chance of a problem was too big and did a recall. Back in the early 1990's when departments were looking at Glocks guess what the discovered? That's right, when dropped they would discharge. Only it wasn't at just a certain angle. It was bad enough that it cause many departments to pass over them. I don't recall Glock doing a recall. I don't remember a big announcement of any redesign to correct this in later versions. And I don't see Glock being slammed for not fixing them or for having a faulty design. A major problem and design flaw would be making a handgun for a high pressure round with a chamber that doesn't fully support the cartridge allowing numerous cases where the gun blows apart. Now that's a major problem. Still no recall from Glock on that one either. As others have pointed out there is still no admission from S&W that there is a serious problem of the locks self engaging in the lightweight revolvers. I guess someone has to get killed because their gun locks up in a gunfight before S&W will do something. If it was Ruger after the 2nd report of the problem they would have done a recall and fixed it.