gnappi
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by gnappi on Nov 23, 2023 0:10:16 GMT -5
Dealer specials or factory there are a couple of Rugers I'd like to see made and own.
I'd like a 4" Alaskan derivative. The Alaskan doesn't have the clunky scope mount on the top strap that I'd not need in a 4" revolver. Better still with a bull barrel, I'd buy one, two or maybe even more depending on the calibers offered. They might call it the "Denali" or "Teton" :-)
A 5 shot Bisley Blackhawk with a bull barrel from 4"-5" long I'd wait in line for, I'll even buy one in blue. I like "Bighorn" "Sierra" or "Eldorado" for names.
Any caliber that starts with "4" (except .40S&W or 10mm etc.) is agreeable to me :-)
Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by kings6 on Nov 23, 2023 0:17:58 GMT -5
Call me the stick in the mud and I’m thankful Ruger builds great guns but nothing built on a new model holds much interest for me.
Guess I’m an old model guy at heart in most cases.
|
|
|
Post by lar4570 on Nov 23, 2023 13:52:10 GMT -5
I'd go for a 4" Alaskan in 480
|
|
gnappi
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by gnappi on Nov 23, 2023 14:07:14 GMT -5
I'd go for a 4" Alaskan in 480 I'd buy two! One to shoot, the other as an "investment" :-)
|
|
|
Post by potatojudge on Nov 23, 2023 15:55:37 GMT -5
Start chambering all their 480 to accept 475 and bring out light 480 ammo. And then a lever gun to match.
DX front sight bases as factory option.
Flat top everything.
|
|
|
Post by goatfarmer on Nov 23, 2023 16:28:35 GMT -5
+1 for DX front sight base from Ruger.
I'd buy a Redhawk in 45 Colt with 5.5 inch barrel and blued finish.
|
|
|
Post by lar4570 on Nov 23, 2023 16:36:22 GMT -5
Start chambering all their 480 to accept 475 and bring out light 480 ammo. And then a lever gun to match. DX front sight bases as factory option. Flat top everything. +1
|
|
|
Post by AxeHandle on Nov 23, 2023 17:23:20 GMT -5
Revive the Hawkeye!
|
|
|
Post by kevshell on Nov 23, 2023 17:47:19 GMT -5
More 32's!
|
|
nicholst55
.375 Atomic
Retired, twice.
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by nicholst55 on Nov 23, 2023 19:57:53 GMT -5
I'd like to see them up their game in the aesthetics department. Make the guns work when you get them, and make them look presentable. I'm not talking about a "Custom-Shop" appearance, just no obvious flat spots that shouldn't be, etc. One other thing - I wish they would invest in CNC machines to finish shape their single action grip frames. Make them all the same contour and size - and make their grips to fit. I'm sure that some people will say 'oh, that's okay the way it is...' I strongly disagree. They should ALL be the same size and contour, with no sharp edges. They look like they were done by high school kids the way they are.
As far as a .480 anything, forgetaboutit. The cartridge is D-E-A-D. That's my feeling, anyway, and yes, I own one. I will never buy another firearm chambered for a cartridge whose name ends in 'Ruger.' Perhaps if they were to offer a factory program to convert their failed .480s to .475 Linebaugh at cost, I might change my mind. Since they won't, we'll never know.
|
|
|
Post by bigbore442001 on Nov 24, 2023 7:32:48 GMT -5
Well. This may sound oddball, but a "Hunter" model Single Six in .327 Federal. That would be an awesome small game-varmint revolver.
|
|
|
Post by singleaction on Nov 24, 2023 7:45:46 GMT -5
I'd like to see them up their game in the aesthetics department. Make the guns work when you get them, and make them look presentable. I'm not talking about a "Custom-Shop" appearance, just no obvious flat spots that shouldn't be, etc. One other thing - I wish they would invest in CNC machines to finish shape their single action grip frames. Make them all the same contour and size - and make their grips to fit. I'm sure that some people will say 'oh, that's okay the way it is...' I strongly disagree. They should ALL be the same size and contour, with no sharp edges. They look like they were done by high school kids the way they are. As far as a .480 anything, forgetaboutit. The cartridge is D-E-A-D. That's my feeling, anyway, and yes, I own one. I will never buy another firearm chambered for a cartridge whose name ends in 'Ruger.' Perhaps if they were to offer a factory program to convert their failed .480s to .475 Linebaugh at cost, I might change my mind. Since they won't, we'll never know. I agree that the 480 is dead, but I wish they would revive with another run of 4 5/8” guns, and a run of 5.5” guns. More 454’s too. I have two SS flattop 44 specials with grossly oversize gip frames. The front and back straps easily stick out 1/8” or more from the grips. A SS grip frame recently acquired from midway is the same. Would also like to see loading gates properly fitted. Of the dozens of 5.5” dual cylinder 45’s I looked at within the last year, none had a properly fitted gate, and all had the giant grip frames. Would like a run of blued FLATTOP 5.5” bisleys in 45 Colt, 44 mag, and 41 mag. Fluted cylinders and blued hammers for all, and make them as nice as they did the 2009 Lipsey’s Flattop 44 specials. Ruger proved what they were really capable of when they made those guns!
|
|
gnappi
.375 Atomic
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by gnappi on Nov 24, 2023 8:10:57 GMT -5
Start chambering all their 480 to accept 475 and bring out light 480 ammo. And then a lever gun to match. DX front sight bases as factory option. Flat top everything. Other firearm manufacturers have offered ammo to promote a newly introduced caliber or just diversification of product offerings. But, since they're publicly traded and not doing spectacularly well I suspect they're not able to expand into this type of market.
|
|
|
Post by contender on Nov 24, 2023 10:57:08 GMT -5
I know we have a bunch of folks who have special desires. I know that Ruger is still behind in production of their current offerings due to the set-back from the covid crap. At one point,, they had 65% of their work force out. Many didn't come back thanks to various reasons. It takes time to train new folks and get stuff back up & running.
And like Robb said,, I'm just thankful for what we do have already,, and I too prefer the "Old Models" even though I do have several New Models.
But understand marketing. They can't expend the money it'd take to do any project unless they can get a good solid return on the expense. Materials, labor, marketing etc all have to be factored in to where a large number of guns have to be sold to make a profit. Many distributor exclusives are not much more than variations on production models. Lower expense in re-tooling, and guarantees sales to the distributor. The distributor takes the risks on the re-sales.
That said,, it's NOT to say Ruger doesn't listen, or try to build new stuff for us. But let's be practical in our "wish list" and maybe it could happen.
The Alaskan hasn't enjoyed a huge amount of sales. so deviations from it may not be as profitable as needed. I think they did make a .480 in a shorter barrel like the Alaskan but my memory may be off. The 5-shot Bisley with a bull barrel, in shorter lengths, point to more expense in re-tooling, and of course,, they look at how many folks might want to "customize" them, and in a few cases,, blow up guns. The lawyers squelch a lot of things like this.
"+1 for DX front sight base from Ruger.
I'd buy a Redhawk in 45 Colt with 5.5 inch barrel and blued finish."
The DX front sight base may be hog-tied due to ownership, patents, or other behind the scenes issues. And a blued gun is more expensive to make. They've made the .45 Colt Redhawks,, but always in limited numbers due to slower sales. Maybe accepting a Redhawk with a Cerrakoting blued color would be an option. But many feel the coating isn't as "nice" looking as bluing.
Flattoping everything is very unlikely,, as the protected sights are great for "Johnny dumb-butt redneck" who needs that extra sight protection.
Making the .475's,, runs afoul of name recognition, and they have their name on the .480. Don't expect that to happen. And while many think the .480 is dead,, don't bet on it.
While I too wished HARD for the return of the Hawkeye handgun,, even if they changed the caliber to accept a more commonly found one,, is a dead end. I was told by several at Ruger that won't happen. Besides,, they now use the name for their rifle line,, AND they let the 50th anniversary pass without making any. Not going to happen,, darn it.!!
.32 cal guns. Not dead,, just not on the front line of things. Remember,, they have a backlog. Plus,, the .327 is suffering from ammo shortages.
" Make the guns work when you get them, and make them look presentable. I'm not talking about a "Custom-Shop" appearance, just no obvious flat spots that shouldn't be, etc. One other thing - I wish they would invest in CNC machines to finish shape their single action grip frames. Make them all the same contour and size - and make their grips to fit. I'm sure that some people will say 'oh, that's okay the way it is...' I strongly disagree. They should ALL be the same size and contour, with no sharp edges. They look like they were done by high school kids the way they are."
Due to the labor issues,, they are behind,,, and many of their workers are not "gun people." They don't see the same flaws we see. They are also on a production schedule. To "make them look presentable" requires more TIME,, which translates to COST,, and SKILL,,, which also COSTS. They hire a lot of "machine operators" & not people who are gunsmith types. Throw in the production demands,, we see flaws. Now,, when Bill was alive,, and guns came out in a more presentable fashion,, everybody complained about AVAILABILITY. Ruger would introduce a new gun, yet it usually took 1-3 YEARS before we'd see any. Nowadays,, we get new introductions, AND supplies are quickly available. Production demands,, equals the fact we get the occasional flawed part. If the gun starts on the assy line,, and the parts assembler puts a part on, and it fits & is "in spec" it goes down the line. Remember, they are assemblers,, NOT gun people. They do use CNC machines,, but the final polishing is often where things come out a bit differently. But look at the fact that the grip frame to main frame holes are all the same. Ronnie is able to make us all some EXCELLENT alternative grip frames because of this. But the final polishing of the factory stuff is done to production necessities. The grips. Ever since Lett closed & no longer supplied Ruger with the grips,, other makers have been under contract. They were provided specs,, which, sadly are not all the exact same as necessary to where grips fit much better. It is something they are working on,, but variations in the casting & polishing using newer & faster methods have caused the poor fitting grips we've all seen. Again,, they are trying to work on it,, but assemblers will just put on a set of grips,, not looking at the fit,, and down the line it goes.
Again,, it all comes down to MONEY. Labor & time costs MONEY. And nowadays,, with the competition, the expenses,,etc,, Ruger tries to produce a quality product,, and keep the costs affordable. Yet,, I still hear a lot of complaints about them costing too much. Average Joe customer often doesn't look at things the way we who are immersed in our handguns do. It's about production & costs.
A Hunter in .327 could easily be a viable thing for a distributor,, but until the ammo is available,, I doubt a distributor would attempt that.
And gnappi has it right. Ruger is NOT the same company it was under Bill. It's a publicly traded stock company. The bean counters have a LOT to say about what they make & how it's made. But on the other hand,, they do have a pretty good selection of products,, over a wide spectrum of firearms for us to select from. Many companies don't offer such a selection. And we do get stuff a lot quicker than we used to.
Are they perfect? No. None of us are. Could they do better? Yes. But to hire skilled labor,, and slow production,, they would have to charge a lot more for the product. Stockholders wouldn't appreciate that,, because sales would decrease. And as noted,, the stock is currently in a slump.
But having a wish list,, is a good thing. Good ideas do come out of it. And often,, we do get something we desire. The Bisley .480's & .454's are a perfect example. Of heck,, the Lipsey's .44 spls. We just have to be practical in our wishes,, and prove that sales would allow a good profit. Unfortunately,, in todays market,, the majority of the average gun buyer wants "black, plastic & tactical." I hear a LOT of folks comment about how the revolver market is a "waste, or dead, or useless." Heck,, we are the minority here.
But I'm proud to be in this minority category.
|
|
|
Post by bisleyfan41 on Nov 24, 2023 12:29:15 GMT -5
Flattoping everything is very unlikely,, as the protected sights are great for "Johnny dumb-butt redneck" who needs that extra sight protection. Well thanks Ty, I don't think I've ever been called a "Johnny dumb-butt redneck" before. At least not by someone on "our side". Is it because some actually prefer this real-world improvement to Rugers original design??? I mean the flattop MIGHT look better, but that's form, not function. Function in a heavy-use field gun is more important. Guns that actually live their lives on a hip, on a tractor or atv, in a truck cab, etc. A flattop sighted so that the rear sight is elevated in its slot, runs a real risk of damage from bumps and knocks in use. I've had it happen. The "ears" offer some protection against that. Now, for a safe queen that gets toted to and from the range in its locking hard case once or twice a year, the flattop sight should be safe from damage. Funny, most pics on here are of real-world competitors and hunters, almost universally featuring guns with protected rear sights. We must all be Johnny dumb-butt rednecks?
|
|