Conversation

Embed this notice

Account: Firearms (gat@mu.zaitcev.nu)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:35 JST

Account: Firearms

in reply to

@Coyote @admin @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost Now you've done it. Always saying one sentence too much.

Embed this notice

Coyote (coyote@80percent.social)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:36 JST

Coyote

in reply to

@gat @admin @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost I always kinda felt like Ruger was design and function, when S&W was being "this is a display case quality, every surface polished with optional engraving" kinda ? Yea... All makes sense now, I can see it in thousands of images of those two in years gone buy I held them side by side and said "yea, Ruger's fine, more a glovebox, you know it will work gun, I'd feel shitty throwing that pretty S&W in a toolbox, glovebox, backpack..." I don't know how I never thought about why the two were like that. Thanks @gat that's an epic explanation of Ruger's history.

Embed this notice

Coyote (coyote@80percent.social)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:36 JST

Coyote

in reply to

@gat @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost @admin I'd even add, like H&K being top shelf in that "reliability brand" and Ruger being the "This is designed to work, it's a tool, like your hammer, We're an American company, stand behind our work, and know you are trusting your LIFE with us" brand, it's hard to consider it a "cheap" gun, regardless of the fact they are affordable, they are just made to function, not be pretty..." If it came to, do I 100% trust it as a carry gun? Ruger v. S&W revolver? Ruger every time if I'm carrying it because I might need it, but S&W every time if it's competition or range gun, always kinda felt that way. You can even sorta see that pattern going back to the very first 9mm semiauto's they released, the 39/59 and that god awful slab of stanless steel Ruger made, I can't remember the name, I wanna say 89? Dunno.

Embed this notice

313Chris:hellokitty_headbang: (admin@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:37 JST

313Chris:hellokitty_headbang:

in reply to

@GLObalMARinePR @gat @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost The only MIM parts on RedHawks these days are the trigger and cylinder release.

Embed this notice

Account: Firearms (gat@mu.zaitcev.nu)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:37 JST

Account: Firearms

in reply to

@admin @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost I also suspect that nobody can tell a MIM part from a machined part, except by morphology: a machined part has imperfections that MIM part does not have. For example, many machined magazine latches on pistols are made from two parts (the stem and the head), so one can see a little circle of a dissimilar metal where stem was welded into the head, then dressed down with mill or a belt sander. But a MIM latch does not have that circle.

Ruger made its reputation as a casting company, and they never were shy of leaving the cast surface untreated where it didn't impede the function of the gun. This is where the kvetching about Ruger guns feeling cheap originates, and it went on before MIM technology became common.

Coincidentally, my Beretta 92X has a cast slide, and Beretta USA didn't think it necessary to clean up its inside. They only machined the outside. The one complaint about it that I heard, unsurprisingly on the hive of the pros that is Pistol-Forum, is how the cast surface of Beratta slides makes it more difficult to see cracks early. They have imperfections at times that cannot be told apart from cracks. I suppose it's the sort of concerns you start to have about the cast parts when you shoot 50,000 rounds a year.

Embed this notice

Global Marine PR (globalmarinepr@poa.st)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:38 JST

Global Marine PR

in reply to

@admin @gat @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost I know the Rugers are designed around their MIM parts, but IMO it will always make them look and feel cheap.

Embed this notice

313Chris:hellokitty_headbang: (admin@detroitriotcity.com)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:39 JST

313Chris:hellokitty_headbang:

in reply to

@gat @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl @Ottovonshitpost RedHawks were designed from the ground up specifically for sustained use with high-pressure loads, which reflects in their chunky appearance. I have one in .41 Magnum. It’s a boat anchor, but I trust that it will eat loads that would make an S&W model 57 wince just by seeing them.

Embed this notice

Account: Firearms (gat@mu.zaitcev.nu)'s status on Monday, 12-Sep-2022 00:20:40 JST

Account: Firearms

in reply to

@Ottovonshitpost @GLObalMARinePR @KarlDahl I just cannot get over the grotesquely disproportionate top half of Redhawk. Granted, I'm using a Pitbull instead, so obviously I'm not buying my rimless revolvers for their timeless lines. But still, come on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obkdJ-tdlfQ