Poor Ruger #1's!!

Investment casting is anything but cheap, quite the opposite in fact. The reason other companies don't do it is because of the extra expense and time involved. Yes there is less machining, but you then trade that for time and cost of the raw part.

So you think casting frames/receivers costs them MORE per unit then if they milled everything out of forgings and barstock?
I don't buy that...
 
Look up "investment casting" and the time and cost related to its manufacture. It's lag time, cost of manufacture, is why we don't have quality machine tools anymore. It's saves cost one one hand, but adds in the other, it also is not "instant gratification" like today's markets follow.

I for one commend Ruger for using a product and service other companies are unwilling to use because they can't get a return on their investment fast enough.
 
Iconic is a word I'd use...I'll get rid of my Luger before putting the No. 1 - T on the chopping block. The Martini-Enfield is right in the middle.
Had a 7mm Rem Mag ( No. 1 of course ), but it wasn't my style. 375 H & H cut to a 375 Weatherby Magnum...gtg!
They bring so much to the table. I lent it to an acquaintance; who was getting 3/4" groups at 100 yds with a Leupold 2.5 X scout scope! They are the epitome of class IMO...a firearms verison of a Buick. Not a Caddy ( a tad pretensious IMO ) but a damn nice unit none-the-less.
 
Look up "investment casting" and the time and cost related to its manufacture. It's lag time, cost of manufacture, is why we don't have quality machine tools anymore. It's saves cost one one hand, but adds in the other, it also is not "instant gratification" like today's markets follow.

I for one commend Ruger for using a product and service other companies are unwilling to use because they can't get a return on their investment fast enough.

That makes no sense what-so-ever.....but in the end it's your $$. I just prefer not to see any unfinished cast surfaces on a firearm if I have the choice. I'm quite glad no other companies go to the extent Ruger does with their casting. Imagine a S&W frame looking like this...it would be the end of them.
http://1.bp.########.com/-sVTF1wCRtbo/U20VdwZIU7I/AAAAAAAAEGI/aobPY8EH00k/s1600/DSC_0067_zpseae9e3cd.jpg
 
That makes no sense what-so-ever.....but in the end it's your $$. I just prefer not to see any unfinished cast surfaces on a firearm if I have the choice. I'm quite glad no other companies go to the extent Ruger does with their casting. Imagine a S&W frame looking like this...it would be the end of them.
http://1.bp.########.com/-sVTF1wCRtbo/U20VdwZIU7I/AAAAAAAAEGI/aobPY8EH00k/s1600/DSC_0067_zpseae9e3cd.jpg

Put your smith up against a Ruger gp101 in a toughness test then get back to me as to who makes better built guns....
 
One of the most beautiful firearms I have owned in my life was a number one v in 22250 it had the most amazing piece of wood and was just stunning to look at .I believe a member here has it now. DUTCH
 
. They don't cast because it makes a better stronger gun, they cast because it's cheaper then machining from bar stock/QUOTE]

You should buy a bar stock 783 and if you dont like not paying enough you can give them triple the money so it costs more than a ruger.
 
So you think casting frames/receivers costs them MORE per unit then if they milled everything out of forgings and barstock?
I don't buy that...

The American is forged and machined from bar stock.

Yep, the cheapest Ruger is forged and the expensive models are cast. So what was the argument about their castings being the cheap out method?

I would generally agree with you, but Ruger knows what the heck they are doing when it comes to investment casting, they also cast parts for other industries including aerospace. I see no functional difference between their quality castings and a quality forging. They certainly don't lack strength or a quality (in realitivly $ range) finishing. So where is the weak link in the casting? How does a forging make a difference?
 
Put your smith up against a Ruger gp101 in a toughness test then get back to me as to who makes better built guns....

There are lots of instances of Ruger revolvers shooting themselves loose if you took the time to Google it. The common misconception about Ruger toughness comes from the cast frames being bigger then the forged counterparts. They are bigger by necessity as they require more material to equal the strength of the same forged piece.
Also Google ruger casting voids and you will see things like this. Wonder why they don't MP these things...Colt even MP's forged parts, where the cast pieces are the ones that really need it.
3211044655_9739e70d73.jpg
 
The American is forged and machined from bar stock.

Yep, the cheapest Ruger is forged and the expensive models are cast. So what was the argument about their castings being the cheap out method?

I would generally agree with you, but Ruger knows what the heck they are doing when it comes to investment casting, they also cast parts for other industries including aerospace. I see no functional difference between their quality castings and a quality forging. They certainly don't lack strength or a quality (in realitivly $ range) finishing. So where is the weak link in the casting? How does a forging make a difference?

Well I'd wager the profit margin on a no1 for Ruger is 500%-700% vs 100%-200% on the American. But hey it's your money, I just don't think there is good value for that money in any Ruger save for the MK rimfire line.
 
I love the #1 as is. I have owned many but sold most of my single shot collection. ( do not do it you will regret it ). I still have 3 #3. The singles remind us of simpler times, wood,steel,and workmanship. Like high wall, low walls, Sharps, rolling blocks, and martinies, these look best when left alone. All these points are JMHO and if someone wants to change his property to work for his needs I can't say much. Resale will take a kicking though.
 
Well I'd wager the profit margin on a no1 for Ruger is 500%-700% vs 100%-200% on the American. But hey it's your money, I just don't think there is good value for that money in any Ruger save for the MK rimfire line.


Ruger has publicly stated they make less on the #1 than any other firearm they have ever made.
 
Opinions are inherently stupid, but if you dont know that and value your opinion in itself its just a prideful stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom