please delete

Sorry cant help you. But I can say I am not bery impressed with Rugers QC these days. I just bought a redhawk with the 4.2" barrel and there is a significant gap between the frame and crane. Never seen a gap like this before. It shoots great and locks up like a vault. But I wouldn't say I am impressed by any standards
 
Where are the tool marks located?

If they are in a place where the metal is needed to ensure a good fit then likely you can't remove the metal around the area to blend out the marks. If it's out on the surface of the cylinder or gun then I suspect they could be blended in and polished up nicely.
 
BCRider said:
Where are the tool marks located?

If they are in a place where the metal is needed to ensure a good fit then likely you can't remove the metal around the area to blend out the marks. If it's out on the surface of the cylinder or gun then I suspect they could be blended in and polished up nicely.
Click to expand...

One on the outside edge of the muzzle. The other again at the muzzle near the front sight retention pin(?).

They are pretty shallow.
 
My 4.2 Redhawk has several tool marks or scratches on the recoil plate around the firing pin hole and on the inside of the top strap.
Doesn't affect accuracy, just looks crappy when the revolver is open.
Seems like the Ruger assembly line could use another QC inspector or two....
 
Gp 100 tool marks

Have you guys thought about contacting Ruger ?? say a phone call or email pictures to them telling them you have owned many Rugers for years and ask them what kind of quality control do you call this ??

money can be tight nowadays so I want what I'm paying for . I have a GP 100 and if there was anything wrong with it they would be hearing form this guy . JMO
 
Ruger revolvers have cast frames. The marks on the underside of the top strap and places like that are rough from the cast and are not areas that get machined. If you want something that is finished like a S&W you need to buy one of them and pay $400 more. I just bought a new blued GP100 and am happy with it but it does have rough areas inside the frame from casting, S&W are forged then machined and are for sure finished better but that comes at a premium price.
 
I've recently seen a Flitz'd stainless GP100 on the EE, perhaps that's a solution you may consider, but I personally prefer the satin look of my gun, blemishes and everything. I expect it to get even worse when I get a kydex holster for it, but then again, I didn't buy a GP100 for its looks (though I prefer the look of its underlug to a S&W 686).
 
jlagman said:
I've recently seen a Flitz'd stainless GP100 on the EE, perhaps that's a solution you may consider, but I personally prefer the satin look of my gun, blemishes and everything. I expect it to get even worse when I get a kydex holster for it, but then again, I didn't buy a GP100 for its looks (though I prefer the look of its underlug to a S&W 686).
Click to expand...

I saw the semi polished, semi fitzed gun on EE as well (sold fast too), exchanged a couple of PMs with the seller actually....anyway, I kinda like the look and am considering doing mine. As you mention, I much prefer the look of the GP underlug to the 686.....and they sure shoot nice. I'm not gonna start a 686 vs GP100 debate though, they both have their pros and cons, for the price you pay for them. I like mine.....
 
Ruger, fine firearms... but definitely made in haste. <sigh>
I hope my SP101 .22lr (whenever they land) is a better example of their craftsmanship.

I don't think I've ever owned a Ruger than didn't have ugly/unfinished tooling marks somewhere on it. They work though :)
 
I do think that Ruger quality control has slipped a bit over the years.
My first handgun registered in 1963 was a Ruger 22 Auto costing about
$ 40.00 new back then and it was very well finished, still have and its always been a reliable gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom