PDA

View Full Version : Ruger P95 is a real sleeper


mvdemarco
November 25, 2000, 06:48 PM
I took one of my P95's to the range today(notice I said "one of")and let me tell you something,the P95 can compete with any of the high dollar pistols and maybe even show a few of them up! And they will cost you half as much. That's why I had to buy another one! Today I fired 100 rds of 124 gr. American Eagle and 50 rds of the excellant Georgia Arms 124 gr. plus-P Gold Dots all with above average accuracy and NO stoppages or malfunctions of any kind. For those of you who are pondering a new pistol and are short on cash, I highly recommend this pistol! Sorry about all the ranting, I just love a bargain!

Mike

Badger Arms
November 25, 2000, 07:14 PM
Mike. No argument here. I own a P-94. The P-95's I've seen are quite well made. I do have a few criticisms. One is that there is a complete lack of checkering on the frontstrap. Sweaty or wet hands make for a very difficult hold. I put Hogue one piece wrap-around finger groove rubber grips on mine.

http://www.getgrip.com/images/softrubber/semiauto/fingautos.jpg

If I ever get one, I'd certainly throw a Handall grip on mine for the added control. I've heard that you can checker the plastic like wood, but haven't seen it done yet.

http://www.getgrip.com/images/handall/handall3.jpg

blackamos
November 26, 2000, 01:02 PM
Good gun but a crap trigger!

Point Blank
November 26, 2000, 01:11 PM
Yes,the P95 ROCKS!!! I like shooting mine more than my P97.It is very accurate too.Now....if i could find a buyer for my P89,i too would immediatly go and get another 95.

Quantum Singularity
November 26, 2000, 01:29 PM
The P95 usually has a good trigger...those who report it having a "crap" trigger either shot a lemon or are listening to to many rumors...

blackamos
November 26, 2000, 02:57 PM
I shot three of them and IMO they have creepy, crapy triggers, My Glocks have less creep!

Quantum Singularity
November 26, 2000, 03:20 PM
What year were those 3 P95s made?

I have shot many recent P95s (1998-2000) models and IMO the triggers are good on the P95 and excellent on (my P97).

I also have owned Glocks (and still have 2 of them), and IMO there triggers are not particularly good-- though I still love the other aspects of my Glocks.

denfoote
November 26, 2000, 05:21 PM
Blackamos,
My P95 had the best out of box trigger of all my guns. Including my Glocks. It is really smooth!!!:) No wonder it has the "Best Buy" rating from Gun Test magazine!!!:D

Quantum Singularity
November 26, 2000, 06:01 PM

Quantum Singularity
November 26, 2000, 06:05 PM
Denfoote, I agree with you. I own a P97 and its DA trigger is very smooth and light and the SA trigger is outstanding (light and crisp).

The P95s I have shot have all had a good trigger (not quite as good as the P97 though). I am willing to bet Blackamos shot early P95s (they weren't as refined the first couple years of production).

Back to my P97...the double action trigger is the best of all my guns (including Sig Sauers, Glocks, and S&W revolvers). The single action trigger is the best of all my semi-autos, but one revolver (686 plus) beats the P97 in single action. Still, I have to classify my P97s single action trigger as outstanding. I expect the majority of P95s (and 97s) out there are going to have trigger pulls more like Denfootes and mine--I have yet to come across a recently made P95 with a less than satisfactory trigger.

tatters
November 26, 2000, 07:47 PM
MV-- I agree wholeheartedly. I had a P-95, but I bought it for carry, which ended up not working for me. Too big in my case. I can say, though, it fired everything I put in it, and I ran a bunch of rounds through.
I may buy another one sometime.

weegee
November 26, 2000, 11:03 PM
Here's one more vote for the P95 and its 'crappy trigger'.

The (recent production) P95 I own has a better trigger than my Beretta 92FS--both double and single action. I LOVE the Beretta but the P95 has sure made a believer out of me. (I'm also one of those poor unfortunates who thinks the Ruger is good-looking, so take my opinion with a grain of salt).

I've recommended this pistol highly to friends...best,weegee.

Will Beararms
November 26, 2000, 11:09 PM
The real sleeper is the P97. Relatively thinner with an outstanding trigger and great accuracy due to the new lock-up system.

Rivrrat
November 27, 2000, 01:17 AM
Another vote for P95's. I bought my stainless DC used. It looked like it'd been bouncing around in someones console or glove compartment for a while. It was dirty and full of crud in all the wrong places, but the shop I bought it at has an indoor range and since the manager owed me for a screwed up rifle he sold me he let me test drive it AND made me a deal I couldn't refuse. That mucked up gun shot nice tight groups, and it cleaned up really well. All in all it was a great purchase. (but on a side note I like my P94/.40 better)

Redleg
November 27, 2000, 01:20 AM
I'm also one of those poor unfortunates who thinks the Ruger is good-looking...

IMO, the polymer Ruger's are better looking by far than any Glock, CZ or Sig on the market, so I guess I too, am a "poor unfortunate". I want one of each, a P95 and P97. I'm not a huge fan of 9mm's but I would like one or two in my collection for comparison purposes and the 95 will definitely be there.

denfoote
November 27, 2000, 04:50 AM
Taters,
That is too bad, because I used to think that too. Then I discovered that the right holster makes or breaks the carry. My P95 sat in the safe for a long time until I got a Bianchi 7/7L pancake holster. This rig is wonderful!!!:) It was a B!TCH to break in though. Fully boned, double stiched premium cow hide, with thumb break. You can choose between straight pull, or FBI cant just by switching belt holes. This holster is what made carrying my P95 possible!!:D

glockdoc
November 27, 2000, 12:16 PM
I sold my P95 because I didn't like the trigger. Too long for my tastes in both double and single action Yep, just too long. In double action the trigger was a little rough. In single action it was so light and long it was weird - mushy, springy. I suppose it is much a matter of taste, but I didn't like the trigger. Basically a good gun though.

justice4all
November 29, 2000, 02:04 AM
I just wish Ruger would make something that is smaller and easier to conceal.

Dave R
November 29, 2000, 11:54 AM
I heard that a number of LEO agencies issue Ruger P-95's? Is that just gun-shop hype or can ayone confirm?

JMack
November 29, 2000, 04:41 PM
I will start by saying that the P-95 is a great value, you do get a good gun for the money.

To compare a P-95 to a Glock or a Sig Sauer at least in my opinion is insane. What I did realise with my P-95 is that yes the gun fired every single time I pulled the trigger and for the $325 I paid for it I couldnt ask for much more.

To me the trigger like stated above did have a little too much creep in it for my likeings, the grip felt like a brick in my hands and I could never understand for the life of me what they were thinking when they made that grip, it is pretty much a big, fat, smooth peice of plastic that when sweat hits it your hand slides all over the place. Again, for the money it is a value.

The gun did not feel very quality to me also, that was a personal thing the fitting was very loose in my opinion and the slide resembled a block of aluminum not steel. The P-95 has come to be known in the shooting community as a great value if you are down on your $, who could argue with that?

But if you honestly sit back and think about it, if you had the chance to pick any gun out of the case for free with no strings attached. You look and see that P-95 sitting there next to various Sigs, Glocks, HKs and Berettas I hardly think that you are going to say "I want the P-95"

Bottom line, is it a great value? Yes. Is it a Sig, Glock, HK or Beretta? Absolutely not.

I owned one and liked it but I do realise the difference between a great value and a great gun.

~Jason

The Plainsman
November 29, 2000, 06:38 PM
JMack;

I respectfully take issue with your assessment of the P95 as it compares with the Sig's, Beretta's, etc. Although I've not owned a Glock or a Sig or a Beretta, I've fired them all enough to know the differences. I've discovered that any given gun can be a real "gem" or a piece of junk with the crappy trigger and all. I've also discovered that most folks want the "biggest bang for their buck" (no pun intended), when it comes to buying guns or anything else. Unless you want to count "snob appeal", the higher dollar pistols as a group, have nothing that the P95 doesn't have, including a decent trigger, etc. Stick a Hogue grip on the P95 and it won't slide anywhere.

I wouldn't presume to say that money is no object when I buy a gun, but I CAN afford the Glock's and the Sig's, etc. I still choose the P95. And... I agree with weegee - I even like their looks. ;)

Quantum Singularity
November 29, 2000, 09:03 PM
"Bottom line, is it a great value? Yes. Is it a Sig, Glock, HK or Beretta? Absolutely not."

----------------------------------------------------------
No its NOT a Sig, HK, Glock, or Beretta. Does that make it worse?

(IMO), a Ruger P95/P97 will outshoot BOTH Berettas and Glocks. I own two Glocks -- used to own three-- (a very good gun design IMO), and the Ruger P97 outshoots the 9mm Glocks, and matches the Glock 21 equally. I also own two Sigs (which I consider to be excellent guns) and the Ruger will shoot equal to both my P228 and P239 all day. The P97s ergonomics are just as good as my P228s (in my hands). My P97s trigger pulls are excellent. The trigger pull is actually smoother/lighter than my Sigs in DA and in SA it is light and crisp.

I Don't own any Berettas or HKs for a reason. HKs feel like a brick (from an ergonomic standpoint), and Berettas don't group well at all for me. I also don't like the long/heavy trigger pull of Berettas either...

To conclude: So, what brand is my favorite (which gun do I pick given an unlimited budget)? Given the choice I'll take a Sig...mostly for the great finish and classy look. That said-- in terms of performance (accuracy/trigger/comfort)-- I really feel my Ruger P97 outperforms my Sigs and Glocks. IMO, there is no "best" brand...what works for one person may not necessarily work for others!

mvdemarco
November 29, 2000, 10:42 PM
I own sigs, glocks, berettas, and walthers too. And for the money that have spent on those guns, I can honestly say that they are NOT twice the gun as the ruger. Unlike the price. I'll come right out and admit that owning the "elite" pistols carries some prestige in the shooting community, but in my opinion, the P95 performs just as well as a bunch of my "elite" pistols.

Mike

JMack
November 30, 2000, 08:25 AM
Its pbvious that everybody is going to have their preferances, you can easily tell what mine are by my above post.

I owned a P-95 and like I said, the gun was a great value for the money but that is where it ended for me. For the life of me I could not get that gun to group at all and I think that I am somewhat of a decent shot with most pistols that I own.

Some guns are going to fit peoples hands better than others ragardless of price. Please dont get the wrong impression of me by thinking that I chose the big $ guns just because of their reputation in the gun community. When I pick up an HK, Sig or Beretta and shoot it I get something that I dont when I would shoot the P-95. Sigs are my first love and I have yet to find a gun that has the feel, balance and quality of a Sig. If you think that the P-95 is a good looking gun, all the power to ya, I have been laughed at for liking the looks of my Glocks. Certain guns do certain things for me, My primary carry gun is a Glock 27 and sometimes a P-239. When I buy a gun it needs to fill a role, I cant afford to buy one just for the hell of it and I should either be able to carry the gun easily and to be honest every pistol I own will fill this role. The P-95 was not a concealable weapon by any meens, I am sure if you change your whole clothing line and buy a hundred different holsters you might pull it off but by then you would have bought the gun three times over again.

My honest opinion would be to save the $325-$350 and get yourself something more practical, there is a big difference in the quality of the guns mentioned above and for anybody that does not see that just by holding one next to the other is missing something.

This was all just my opinion. this is proborably the first time I have ever heard of a Ruger semi-auto out shooting or even on par with a Sig Sauer or Glock.

SOme of the above comes down to what gun shoots best in your hand and thats understandable.

~Jason

MikeM
November 30, 2000, 01:18 PM
Couldn't let this one go by without commenting.

I've owned a P95 for about a year, have run probably 1000 rounds through it without a hitch. I've just recently gotten a Sig 229 in 9mm and while these guns are close in size, they are very different for me to shoot:

weight: both fairly light witht the P95 a bit lighter.

Trigger: The P95 feels lighter in DA and smoother but it is longer and has more creep.

Both point very well and feel balanced.

I prefer the stock sights on the 229; the stock sight on the P95 seemed small so I schanged to and Hiviz front/Ashley rear.

Mags: Ruger std. caps run $30--used; 228 promags (13 rds) run $15-20;Meccar 10 rounders ($15) work great.

Accuracy: I've been accurate with both but I can't shoot both interchangably. Shot the P95 at an indoor IDPA event last night and I really slapped at the trigger on double taps. Because of the difference in triggers I would be inclined to use the 229 in IDPA. All things considered, I probably am more consistant with the 229.

Besides, the P95 is my wife's gun now; it's easy for her to handle, shoots accurately with it, very soft recoil and she can rack the slide easily without spending time at the gym.

Overall, I agree the P95 is a great value and would recommend it to anyone. Having said that, I think the 229 is a better gun; whether or not it's worth the $350 premium is another question.

Mrcrowley1967
September 25, 2006, 07:23 PM
Price a new P95 9mm with two 15 rnd mags a lock case its $348.00 . Price a glock 9mm or sig or even a springfield xd there in the $600.00 range I think a trigger is not worth $295.00 if you ask me . My wife fired my p95 today put 300 rnds through her not a problem .She want's one bad she was dead on at 20 yards nice cluster throught heart and allmost a smile face on the head (oh did I mention she hasnt fired a gun in ten years) and the gun only has a total of maybe 1000 rnds in her. I am very pleased with my purchase's.

FirstFreedom
September 25, 2006, 07:58 PM
Badger Arms, what is the bottom right pistol in the first pic you posted? Tanfoglio of some kind?

Rugers are real sleepers, all right. You think you got a smokin deal cuz the gun shoots well, and then one day you find out that the company used your money to help pass gun bans.

juliet charley
September 25, 2006, 08:47 PM
My honest opinion would be to save the $325-$350 and get yourself something more practical, there is a big difference in the quality of the guns mentioned above and for anybody that does not see that just by holding one next to the other is missing something.
Quality--as in well made?

Go to a range that has lots of rentals. They'll tell Rugers outlast SIGs by significant margin (and with less small parts breakage).

Trip20
September 25, 2006, 09:34 PM
In two months this thread will celebrate it's 6th birthday. :)

2ndamd
September 26, 2006, 09:40 AM
I think this last post hit the nail on the head. Except one thing. The NEW P95's have a stippled grip and the triggers are better than the previous design.

I am like many here, in that I have owned Glocks, SIGs, H&K (issued), Kimbers, Beretta's and many more brands.
I have to say that the P228 and P229 were tighter guns than the P95. But, honestly I can not say they were better. Both SIGs broke down or rusted.....the Ruger did not.
But what I can honestly say is this:
The P95 is, BY FAR, the best handgun for the money on the firearms market today!

The new design gives you the stippled grip and a smoother trigger. Now is the P95's trigger that same smoothness that a Beretta has? Ah...NO. It's not close to the Beretta......But, it is very close to the SIG. Watch out SIG. The word is getting out that Rugers are getting better and better and they continue to be less than half your price!!!!!

I will conclude with this:
If I was in the gun shop and could pick out any gun I wanted for free?
I could pick a SIG p226.
sell it
and buy TWO Ruger P95's.

But since they are not FREE. I will stick to buying Rugers. (Oh, I forgot. I do not even own one of these any more but, they are at the top of my list.)

JR47
September 26, 2006, 10:40 AM
Rugers are real sleepers, all right. You think you got a smokin deal cuz the gun shoots well, and then one day you find out that the company used your money to help pass gun bans.

While the thread has passed it's sixth anniversary, comments like this were wrong nearly 20 years ago. Ruger, as a Corporation, has never made any deals with the government, signed any agreements, nor voluntarily ceased to supply high capacity magazines to any capable pistols. That would be Smith & Wesson, and they're out of that, as well. Get over yourself.

The P95 obviously works well for any number of people. Including some that can afford much more expensive weapons.

My honest opinion would be to save the $325-$350 and get yourself something more practical

Not exactly sure what that means. Practicality is the ability to use an object for it's intended purpose. Are you saying that the Ruger can't be used as a pistol? It's as practical as anything out there. Comparing a polymer-framed pistol to a steel-framed pistol puts the advantage to the steel-frame. There is much more work involved in machining the steel frame. It is something that all of us have been exposed to as "quality", for as long as we've been shooting. The polymer-frame isn't going to feel as solid, nor appear as "finished". The poly frame Sigs are noticably less finished than their steel counterparts. HK pistols have unusual ergonomics, and, for me, require a different hold and sight picture.

Money isn't everything. If you can shoot groups at 25 yds. with the Ruger that are comparable to those you shoot using other brands, then the Ruger is going to be as good in defense of your life as a Sig-Neuhausen. If you find that the only pistol that you can shoot accurately is a Fully Engraved, Gold-plated, Sig P226, then get one.:)

BUSTER51
September 26, 2006, 06:05 PM
RUGER :barf:

novaDAK
September 26, 2006, 08:06 PM
RUGER :barf:
YOU :barf:



j/k ;)

Qwiks draw
September 26, 2006, 11:13 PM
Gotta expect trolls. Have two Ruger P95s. If the grip seems a little slippery at times, just cut a strip of friction tape to fit the grip and paste it on the front of the grip. Cheap and replaceable. A lot of competitors use this method around here in the Dairy State. Let the troll get a .1 second head start and blast that sucker. Or give him to the count of ten to get his dirty,filthy,stinking carcass off our property and commence shooting at the two count. :D The military misses a outstanding design and wouldn't have to worry about durability or magazine function problems. They need to purchase more than the 5000 already alloted. Those went to USA units. Not the Iraqies.

FirstFreedom
September 27, 2006, 08:57 AM
While the thread has passed it's sixth anniversary, comments like this were wrong nearly 20 years ago.

Comments like mine were not applicable until the summer/fall of 1994. Since that time and now they are dead on correct!

Ruger, as a Corporation, has never made any deals with the government, signed any agreements, nor voluntarily ceased to supply high capacity magazines to any capable pistols.

Who said that Ruger signed any deals with the government, etc.? I said they (Ruger the corporation) help pass gun bans. They most certainly did, and have never expressed the slightest remorse or apology or otherwise attempted to undo the damage done. It was only the 10 year sunset clause that saved us from SAAMI's and Ruger's support for Clintons gun bans; nothing that Ruger did.

That would be Smith & Wesson, and they're out of that, as well.

Yes, S&W sure did sign a deal with the devil. They should be boycotted as well. But what S&W did was somewhere around 1/100th as detrimental to our freedoms as what Ruger the company did. Do you even KNOW what Ruger the company did? We're not talking about S&W here.

Get over yourself.

First, learn some more about the subject, and then get over yourself. Ruger the company URGED CONGRESS to adopt a magazine capacity limit as part of a compromise deal to try to take the heat off and in the process help their pistols sell, which were getting killed in the marketplace by the higher capacity Glocks. They chose short-term profitability at the expense of citizen's civil rights. Easy call for them, strictly elitist businessmen who are not true shooters, collectors, & patriots; Easy call for us to make them pay the price. Well, should be an easy call, but people aren't informed on the issue, or they try to rationalize what Ruger did somehow.

And please please don't express ignorance by trying the standard next bogus argument that Bill Sr. is dead. He was acting IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT/CEO of Ruger the company when he did what he did. He was NOT acting in his individual capacity. Therefore, the actions taken by company's representatives were acts of the COMPANY, an entity which lives on today, and whose current execs have laughed and are doubtlessly STILL laughing at YOU and others who buy their guns, all the way to the bank, since they successfully duped you - they can't believe that gun owners nary batted an eye, even though they actually wrote letters to congresscritters intimating that Clinton's gun bans were backed by the gun industry. In fact, the current management between 1994 and now has never once even so much as issued a public letter or statement, to the effect that "we don't agree with what our CEO did in 1994" - that would take all of a couple days and little expense to promote; yet they remain 100% unapologetic. We should conclude from this 100% unapologetic attitude that they will be more than happy to once again sell us out completely the next time a gun ban comes down the pike, and the heat is on because of some MPS (mass public shooting). Why would they change their tactics and management attitude if we don't make them pay the price?

juliet charley
September 27, 2006, 12:18 PM
Bill Ruger (as a private citizen) proposed a compromise (limiting mag capacity to fifteen rounds) in effort to avoid the more draconian measures being considered at the time.

The S&W agreement had to potential (had the other firearms manufacturers gone along with it as well) to do far more damage to the Second Amendment than the fifteen round limit.

But while we're on a roll:

Walther supported Hitler and manufactured weapons used kill Americans in WW2.

Sauer (SIGArms) supported Hitler and manufactured weapons used kill Americans in WW2.

Austria (Glock) freely joined and fully supported Hitler in WW2.

Kahr supports the Unification Church (Moonies).

Nobody is particularly clean--and if we really, truly chose to be politically correct (instead of making exceptions for our favourite brands), all any of us would buy would be Freedom Arms (unless they have dirty laundry too).

FirstFreedom
September 27, 2006, 12:26 PM
Bill Ruger (as a private citizen)

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!

No he did not.

You are incorrect.

He was acting in his capacity as CEO/President of the company. What part of that don't you understand?

And you give me no choice but to be harsh like that when I *JUST* spelled it out for you in my post above:

And please please don't express ignorance by trying the standard next bogus argument that Bill Sr. is dead. He was acting IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT/CEO of Ruger the company when he did what he did. He was NOT acting in his individual capacity. Therefore, the actions taken by company's representatives were acts of the COMPANY, an entity which lives on today,


This was on company letterhead. See the allcaps in the quote. Then you come along and say the opposite, with ZERO evidence to support it, in a feeble attempt to prop up the most traitorious gun company in history with respect to our gun rights.

Why do you insist on spreading LIES to support ruger, JC? I was pretty sure you had a good measure of integrity? Particularly when you have a potentially valid argument in the other points you make (no one is clean / where do you draw the line, etc.). You are only undermining your position and credibility when you refuse to concede the obvious provable points in the argument.

juliet charley
September 27, 2006, 12:54 PM
[QUOTE]He was acting in his capacity as CEO/President of the company. [QUOTE]
I have no doubt you believe that (fanatically). :) I do know that you and I would be hard-pressed to prove either way whether Bill Ruger was voicing his own convictions or officially representing the position of Ruger, its officers, its board and all its shareholders.

Nobody, including Ruger, is particularly clean--and if we really, truly chose to be politically correct (instead of making exceptions for our favourite brands), all any of us would buy would be Freedom Arms (unless they have dirty laundry too).

I'm not defending Ruger. I think Bill Ruger made a mistake, realized it and went out of his way to attempt to make amends for his mistake.

I do believe you are well outside the bounds of polite conversation at this point, and whether Bill Ruger was speaking for Bill Ruger and /or Sturm, Ruger, Inc., it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the P95 is a very good, quality handgun at a very good price.

BUSTER51
September 27, 2006, 01:08 PM
juliet charly, why don't you ask someone we all trust and is respected by the gun comunity at large and who was there and got a phone call from William B Ruger ?I refer to mr Knox . check it out see-- William B Ruger's dirty little secret.:eek: Your boy sold us out to protect his margin's.Ruger=:barf:

BUSTER51
September 27, 2006, 01:22 PM
nova Dak, what pistol compitition's has Ruger finished first place in ?have you ever heard anyone say my dream pistol is a ruger ,or I would rather have a Ruger firearm even if the price was the same . Ruger has no respect for the Constitution and I have no respct for them .Ruger=:barf: nova Dak=:barf:

BUSTER51
September 27, 2006, 01:45 PM
www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html check it out

RevolverLover
September 27, 2006, 01:51 PM
have you ever heard anyone say my dream pistol is a ruger

My dream pistol is a Ruger Redhawk in .357 :D

BUSTER51
September 27, 2006, 02:02 PM
Realy, you need to look at Freedom Arms and dream in liveing color instead of black and white .:D

FirstFreedom
September 27, 2006, 02:19 PM
I do know that you and I would be hard-pressed to prove either way whether Bill Ruger was voicing his own convictions or officially representing the position of Ruger, its officers, its board and all its shareholders.

It's not something that NEEDS to be proved to JC's satisfaction, I don't think, because it's already proven several times over and common knowledge, that when the CEO of a company writes a letter to Congress on the LETTERHEAD of the company, it most clearly was and is in his capacity as the head of the company, which means it WAS a COMPANY act, not an individual act. Are you trying to claim it was NOT on company letterhead, in his letter that urged congress to pass a gun ban? Or what are you saying? Because I believe the actual letter can be found on the net, on company letterhead. Or it "used-to-could". So not only would I not be hard-pressed to prove it, proving it is unnecessary, because it's pretty much common knowledge by those who have studied it. YOU'RE the one alleging that something which is commonly known is untrue, so the onus is on YOU to disprove that it was anything other than the CEO acting on the company's behalf, when the company urged congress to pass that gun ban. So until you present such evidence, then you're incorrect on that issue.

Nobody, including Ruger, is particularly clean--and if we really, truly chose to be politically correct (instead of making exceptions for our favourite brands), all any of us would buy would be Freedom Arms (unless they have dirty laundry too).

OF COURSE you have a point there (potentially). But we cannot even get to the point of being able to intellectually-honestly address that point, because MY very important point is that YOU, is that by attempting to deceive others (in my view) about the other point of whether Bill did this in an individual capacity or in a capacity as the CEO of the company, and thus is was the company's action (which is a VERY VERY important point), you completely shatter any credibility you have to make your other potentially valid points. Why can't you just concede the obvious points so that anyone will take your other points seriously? Why should we believe anything you say when you fail to concede an obvious untruth on the issue of what capacity he was acting in? Which is incredibly important because it instantly shoots down the red herring of "so what, he's dead", which averts the real issues.

I'm not defending Ruger.

I believe that clearly, you are.

I think Bill Ruger made a mistake, realized it and went out of his way to attempt to make amends for his mistake.

Say what!? Name one thing he OR his company ever did to attempt to make amends for the COMPANY's mistake? One thing. Did they ever write a follow up letter to congress critters asking for a repeal of the ban? Did they actively campaign for repeal of the ban? Remember it came close to a repeal round about 00-02 time frame. Did they give the repeal effort that little extra push it needed to get passed, by lobbying efforts? Did they issue a letter of apology to the public? Hard difficult would it be to do that - just say they're sorry??? Yet they refuse, because their attitude towards gun rights has never changed with the change of management when Sr. died - the management philosophy is evidently exactly the same. Screw the gun owners over if it helps you get a leg up on the competition. Did they give every gun owner in america a check to atone for their dirty deeds? Just what praytell, did they do, other than laugh all the way to the bank at us sucker gun owners who bought their products despite urging congress to pass a gun ban for their own short term profit gain?

I do believe you are well outside the bounds of polite conversation at this point

Well, I'm sorry if I got too agitated, but as I already once mentioned above, I believe that you brought this upon yourself, by recklessly throwing around that allegation ("as a private citizen" were your words), when I had JUST explained to you how they opposite was true, and you brought nothing to support that contrary allegation.

and whether Bill Ruger was speaking for Bill Ruger and /or Sturm, Ruger, Inc., it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the P95 is a very good, quality handgun at a very good price.

Of COURSE it doesn't!!!!!!! But what in the name of all that is holy does THAT quote itself have to do with whether buying ruger guns amounts to a bait and switch, when you discover that your gun money will be used to BAN YOUR GUNS? If Chuck Schumer starts a wrench company making outstanding wrenches, are you gonna buy his wrenches and support him, too?

My assertion was brought up by the topic within the thread. The topic is VALUE. My assertion is that they are in fact a poor value, in the LONG run, because when you compare what you GET (a fantastic gun at a good price, granted), with what you give up (lost gun rights next time they sell us out), it ain't worth it, and thus it aint' a good value, at least in my opinion. These components, though very different in nature, are inextricably tied together, because the concept of value includes all upsides and downsides to the purchase. One needs to be aware of EVERYTHING they're really getting when the get a ruger of any kind. Great gun, yes. Heavily outweighed by the negative consequences, particularly in light of the MANY great pistol values out there.

http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/papabill.html


I'm sorry - I blew up a bit above. Went a little overboard. But I'm still right, I do believe. :p

mjrodney
September 27, 2006, 02:21 PM
It would be interesting to learn how many current Anti-Rugerians (or Anti-S&W) were amongst the 43% who originally voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, our Pres who later led the assault on high cap mags. :barf:

Or alternatively, how many were amongst the 19% that voted for the election diluting Ross Perot, who is also a proponent of strict gun control. :barf:

That's 6 out of 10 voters, folks.

62% of the vote.

(I'm not talking about you, of course.......) ;)

Since nearly one out of two households in the US own a gun, statistics would have to say that some of those 62% are the Anti-(InsertBrandHere)'s we see here today.

I think it's about time we forget these Bill Ruger arguments, and instead of writing ABOUT someone, instead write TO someone, like your elected officials, the UN and the other Take-My-Gun-Away-And-Save-The-World type groups.

It's just as easy to email as it is to post.

BTW, did I tell you I like the P95? Good gun, a real sleeper! :D

FirstFreedom
September 27, 2006, 02:34 PM
Sure is a sleeper, as I pointed out. Why would you want to forget what happened, which allows the enemy to sneak up on you, and stick it to you again next time, just like they did in 1994? If there are no repurcussions to their actions, then why would they change their actions and attitudes, now or ever? It may be 5, 10, or 20 years from now next time the heat is on and a ban is on the line. You can rest assured that Ruger will be right there urging "compromise" once again, since it has no incentive to do otherwise. Unlike S&W, which actually learned its lesson I believe, as it was hit hard for awhile with the boycott.

I never voted for the stain Clinton. So what's your point? Remember Newt Gingrich himself voted for the ban, although he at that time was not in control of the house - he was the minority leader - the republican takeover was later that fall.

And the do something else theory is a false dichotomy. We should vote. We should write. We should ALSO (not instead of) boycott ANY company, gun or otherwise, that works hard to infringe our 2A rights. But it's particularly egregious when it is indeed a gun company that does so, and as Ruger did.

mjrodney
September 27, 2006, 03:04 PM
"Ya be a hard man, Magee......"

John Wayne

2ndamd
September 27, 2006, 06:22 PM
So, to promote gun rights your going to boycott a gun manufactuer?

I have been worked up about some things in my life (ie illegal immigration, Bill Clinton the impeached, and many other issues). But, Ruger supporting the magazine limit at 15rounds is not one of the most Blood pressure raising issues I have encountered.

It does seem to have raised your ire though :)

Can't we all just get along :D

bobhwry
September 27, 2006, 07:03 PM
FirstFreedom,
!994 was a dark time for gun rights. Manufacturers were being slammed from every direction and their very survival was in doubt. Some chose political compromise in order to stay viable until the the enviroment changed for the better. Some manufacturers lurked in the background letting the big guys take the heat.
I for one respect the decisions that S&W and Ruger made at the time because it probably warded off more Draconian measures that were being considered at the time. You can't possibly understand what they were faced with at the time!!
So if you get confronted by a BG with a gun and he says your wallet or your life ,do you say shoot me or hand over your walet so you can live another day. Your principles are great but not realistic in todays world.

novaDAK
September 27, 2006, 09:17 PM
nova Dak, what pistol compitition's has Ruger finished first place in ?have you ever heard anyone say my dream pistol is a ruger ,or I would rather have a Ruger firearm even if the price was the same . Ruger has no respect for the Constitution and I have no respct for them .Ruger= nova Dak=
Well, I wouldn't knock the Ruger P90, because I've seen them first-hand outshoot many high-end 1911's. I'm not hacking on you, just your blind hacking on Ruger. Ruger makes fine firearms, and sells them at great prices. All my Rugers perform just as well as things costing twice as much.
:barf: :barf: people who :barf: on novaDAK :barf: :barf:

:p

JR47
September 28, 2006, 04:52 AM
It's not something that NEEDS to be proved to JC's satisfaction, I don't think, because it's already proven several times over and common knowledge, that when the CEO of a company writes a letter to Congress on the LETTERHEAD of the company, it most clearly was and is in his capacity as the head of the company, which means it WAS a COMPANY act, not an individual act. Are you trying to claim it was NOT on company letterhead, i

Well, I read the entire article that you referenced, and NOWHERE does it say anything about Corporate Letterhead. Did you, perhaps, notice the date? March of 1989?

The idea of blaming an entire corporation for the actions of it's CEO is worse than ludicrous. Your common sense knowledge just plain isn't knowledge, or common sense. Instead, you've made unsupported statements, and added in a little personal bias.

I'm sure that you managed to read that SAAMI and the NSSF also advocated the same thing. While Dean's opinion that Ruger owned SAAMI is a bit out there, it is still a bit of a reach to think that S&W, Mossberg, Browning, Weatherby, Marlin, Federal, Omark, Winchester Ammunition, Thompson Center, Hornady, Hercules, and Remington Arms were all "owned by Ruger". It's also pretty obvious that your loathing doesn't extend to those companies supporting the plan besides Ruger.

I lived through those times. They were pretty dark. What happened, happened. If you actually know as much as you think you do, why aren't you advocating a ban on these other companies who were on record as supporting the proposed restrictions?

Say what!? Name one thing he OR his company ever did to attempt to make amends for the COMPANY's mistake? One thing. Did they ever write a follow up letter to congress critters asking for a repeal of the ban? Did they actively campaign for repeal of the ban? Remember it came close to a repeal round about 00-02 time frame. Did they give the repeal effort that little extra push it needed to get passed, by lobbying efforts? Did they issue a letter of apology to the public? Hard difficult would it be to do that - just say they're sorry??? Yet they refuse, because their attitude towards gun rights has never changed with the change of management when Sr. died - the management philosophy is evidently exactly the same. Screw the gun owners over if it helps you get a leg up on the competition. Did they give every gun owner in america a check to atone for their dirty deeds? Just what praytell, did they do, other than laugh all the way to the bank at us sucker gun owners who bought their products despite urging congress to pass a gun ban for their own short term profit gain?

Not, THAT has to be the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Has S&W done this? Well, no.......but it's Ruger that you don't like. How about the members of SAAMI? How do YOU know any of this? Have you spoken to Ruger's management? Or is it just that you THINK this is what they are doing, or should do? Have any problem getting high-caps for a Ruger? No. Ruger DIDN'T get a leg up on the competition. Did it? If, as you say, the management hasn't changed, and it's still the same as those who proposed the limit, why are they manufacturing, and selling 15 round mags with pistols? Wouldn't they still be making 10 round mags. The P95 was designed after the Ban, yet it was always designed for high caps.

My assertion was brought up by the topic within the thread. The topic is VALUE. My assertion is that they are in fact a poor value, in the LONG run, because when you compare what you GET (a fantastic gun at a good price, granted), with what you give up (lost gun rights next time they sell us out), it ain't worth it, and thus it aint' a good value, at least in my opinion. These components, though very different in nature, are inextricably tied together, because the concept of value includes all upsides and downsides to the purchase. One needs to be aware of EVERYTHING they're really getting when the get a ruger of any kind. Great gun, yes. Heavily outweighed by the negative consequences, particularly in light of the MANY great pistol values out there.



That, sir, is your opinion. It isn't born out by facts. You have a very narrow concept, which you carry to extremes. There is nothing in evidence that supports your thesis. If for no other reason than the fact that you pick and choose who to hold responsible for actions that took place five years after a suggestion was made. Should you be this voluble in other threads, which you are not, involving the multiples of companies that also supported the proposal, you might be believable. However, you're not, and that calls the entire premise into question. Ruger is gone, his son is gone, and the overwhelming majority of his "Braintrust" are gone. Heck, even the overwhelming majority of the management of 1994 is gone. Continuing to blame a Corporation that is so different today than it was in 1989, without proof, is pretty lame.:barf: :barf:

juliet charley
September 28, 2006, 06:40 AM
Let's put this in perspective.

In 1989, when there was a serious movement to ban all autoloading weapons, Bill Ruger (along with: Smith & Wesson, Browning Arms, Remington Arms, Thompson/Center, Weatherby, Marlin, Mossberg, Winchester Ammunition, Federal Cartridge and Hercules) proposed a fifteen (15) round limit on magazine capacity.

Five years later in 1994, under Bill Clinton's reign (a diffrent president and a different Congress), a ten (10) round limit on magazine capacity (with an automatic ten year expiration) becomes federal law.

In 2006, FirstFreedom has allied himself with the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chuckie Schumer, Handgun Control, etc. in hoping to put America's largest supplier of handguns to American citizens out of business.

Makes you think, doesn't it?
At least I hope it does.

BUSTER51
September 28, 2006, 01:19 PM
The best thing about Rugers is the day you wake up and sell them for something better.The worst thing about Ruger's is how little a used one will bring when you try and sell one. one man's trash is another's treasure,thank god for Ruger lovers if not for them we would never be able to unload our mistakes .:eek:You can lead a horse to water ,but you can't make him drink.

juliet charley
September 28, 2006, 02:08 PM
You can lead a horse to water ,but you can't make him drink.
Are you using yourself as the example here, ol' hoss? :p

RevolverLover
September 28, 2006, 02:30 PM
The best thing about Rugers is the day you wake up and sell them for something better

And what in your opinion is better?

BUSTER51
September 28, 2006, 03:00 PM
I a'm afraid we will never agree on this ,so I say enjoy your Ruger's and leave it at that.I have an extensive collection (in excess of 300 firearms)and only 1 Ruger a 10 22 .the only reason I still have it is my son gave it back to me after he moved and found it in his attic and now it sits in my garage .i will sell it at the next gun show . just so you know i have had 3 mini14's,2 super black hawks ,1 Redlable 12 gage,2 m77's and the 1022 .I tryed them and was not satisfyed with any of them .so all politics aside I just never found a keeper that had the Ruger brand on it .:cool:

High Planes Drifter
September 28, 2006, 03:16 PM
The first gun I ever bought was a P95. My Dad has it now. It'll feed round nose ammo all day long; but it won't feed hollowpoints reliably. Maybe I got a lemon, I dont know. My Dad knows about it and only carries ball ammo in it. Locally, for a hundered and fifty bucks more, one could buy themselves a Glock. Looking back, I kind of wish I had.

brett30030
September 28, 2006, 04:45 PM
Talk about hijacking a post. Why don't you two start your own post or get a room:mad:

Remember arguing on the internet is like participating in the special olympics, even if you win your still retarded (No offense to the mentally or physically handicapped).

BUSTER51
September 28, 2006, 06:10 PM
Is that what they do in Decater Georgia? that would explain why they call it "The new South" :eek:

Mosin44az
September 29, 2006, 12:12 AM
High Plains Drifter,

You got a lemon, or you are using Euro-spec. ammo. Assuming you are having trouble feeding U.S.-brand hollowpoints (SAAMI specs.):

Try a new mag, then (if that doesn't work), ship to Ruger, they will fix it.

My P95 went 4000 rounds of U.S. ammo of all types, with only one malf, a misfire I blame on the ammo. My carry ammo was Cor-Bon. Look around the site, you can see how many say the P95 is just about the best in reliability.

Quickdraw Limpsalot
September 29, 2006, 07:03 AM
I clicked on this thinking it would open a worthwhile discussion, but instead I found the same garbage from the same mouths. Where's my back button... ah, there it is.

High Planes Drifter
September 29, 2006, 08:52 AM
Mossin, I do recall having trouble with various brands. Tho its been so long ago, I dont recall which. I do know that the mags would have had to have been Ruger, because the only magazines I had were the ones that came with the gun. Which ammo should I have been using? I will tell my Dad to try that brand in the gun.

I've got pretty bad luck with pistols. I've gone thru 3 pistols (Ruger, and 2 1911's) before I got one that hasnt jamed in the first year of owning it(Sig 220). My luck, it'll probably get stolen, or start jamming now because I've jinxed it.:o

JR47
September 29, 2006, 10:27 AM
I a'm afraid we will never agree on this ,so I say enjoy your Ruger's and leave it at that.I have an extensive collection (in excess of 300 firearms)and only 1 Ruger a 10 22 .

That makes you an expert, how? My personal collection has that many pistols, alone.

The best thing about Rugers is the day you wake up and sell them for something better.

You're absolutely sure about that? You simply make statements about what you think. No reasons, no examples, just because. Wow, you could have the world's only complete collection of Davis Firearms, for all we know. THAT would certainly make us look up and take notice of your expertise in firearms. The ONLY thing that having a large collection of weapons, and no Rugers, saya is that YOU, PERSONALLY, don't care for Rugers. Should I let the papers know??????:barf:

The original thread dealt with the Ruger P95. Even the poltical assassin felt that it was a "a fantastic gun at a good price." I think that his comment says it all about the pistol.:)

Mal H
September 29, 2006, 11:25 AM
Funny how a thread can sit for almost 6 years feeling all warm and fuzzy in its hiding place - and then someone reopens it and it goes to hell in a handbasket in just a few short days!

Not much point in leaving it open any longer.