Ruger quality control revisited

[Scott Tschirhart]

I’ve shared my experience with a Ruger Hawkeye bolt gun that had some difficulty and how I had to send it back to Ruger twice to make it right.

Apparently I am not the only guy who had one of these laminated stocks break at the tang.

But one thing that should never break is the extractor claw!

https://youtu.be/i1uWG_RyjQo?is=LkPRj2A7fqfRQ8IB

[JB]

I've always said that Ruger has poor quality control, but they're excellent at taking care of any problems. I own a number of Ruger firearms and I'm sure I'll buy more, but I've also seen more a number of issues with brand new guns that should have never left the factory. Not quite to the late Remington made Marlin level, but still bad.

[.45colt]

What a flippin shame. That would scare the stuff out of Me.! How could You possibly carry that rifle in Bear country. forty years ago We had a Win model 70 .458mag in the Family for several years . It saw hundreds of rounds. not one malfunction . It had a receiver sight on it and was dead on balls accurate . Ruger must really be slipping.

[AJMD429]

.
My Ruger Hawkeye is the 'Alaskan' in 375 Ruger, so has the Hogue 'overmolded' stock and so it's not had that issue (or any other).

I do worry that the stock may get 'gummy' as I've had other rubber/plastic things get gummy and sticky and I don't know how to fix that.

At to the guy's complaint about the factory 'express' sights, you guys know me.... I'd replace it with a Marble's Bullseye sight...

I put a Redfield 2-7x scope on mine however, as the 375 Ruger is so flat-shooting (very close to some 270 Win loads) that I'd use it for 200-400 yards without hesitation, and probably not for 'close-in charging bears', and I'll never go to Africa in this life. If I did need something for 'charging fangs and claws', I'd use my BHA 500 S&W Levergun anyway - 50 caliber with wide meplat, tons (literally) of energy, shoots faster, and even holds more, versus bolt-actions.

[Scott Tschirhart]

What a flippin shame. That would scare the stuff out of Me.! How could You possibly carry that rifle in Bear country. forty years ago We had a Win model 70 .458mag in the Family for several years . It saw hundreds of rounds. not one malfunction . It had a receiver sight on it and was dead on balls accurate . Ruger must really be slipping.

Imagine if the stock came apart during a bear charge!

[JimT]

Issues like these are why many dangerous game hunters prefer the double rifle.

[Walt]

I only have a couple of Ruger's long guns and aside from changing the rear sight on one, a model 94 in .357 I haven't experienced any problems. On revolvers, however, I expect to make changes on every one I acquire whether new or used. The specifications of their internal parts are mandated by attorneys and I don't consider them to be acceptable so I replace parts, sand and polish until they make me happy. When I'm done, they are very good.

[.45colt]

Scott wrote:"Imagine if the stock came apart during a bear charge!" or the extractor claw..... . The model 70 I wrote about had 4 boxes of factory 510 grain loads and several hundred reloads that were in the heavy 45-70 range. It never failed to work or broke in the least. The 45-70 loads in that rifle was like shooting a giant .22 . very comfortable and not punishing in the least . I have bought and sold many guns in My life but that Model 70 haunts Me every day. I could have had it for less that $800, with all the brass, bullets, and bullet moulds.........

[Scott Tschirhart]

Issues like these are why many dangerous game hunters prefer the double rifle.

Double rifles fail too. Mine is in the shop right now.

[JimT]

Yes I am sure they do. But you do have 2 separate rifles in one package. However, I am sure that's why a lot of the early hunters in Africa had a gun bearer or two.

[Lastmohecken]

I have to say, based on the last 50 years of buying guns, that several brands have a pretty high rate of lemons that get out the door. The last one for me was a Smith and Wesson .357 686 plus Mountain gun, purchased early this year. I had all kinds of trouble with it, and I sent it back once, and they didn't fix it. It would misfire, lock up when it got hot after about 5 or 6 rounds, cylinder was difficult to open. Anyway, I pretty much fixed everything myself, after giving up on the repair center. But by that time, I was so sick of it, that I traded it for the Ruger Bisley 44 mag. I just wanted that Smith out of my life, I was so sick of it.!

Oh! And I wanted to comment, that I have gotten burned (deceived twice this year) on Gunbroker deals. There's several dealers on there, that use Gunbroker as a dumping ground for defective guns. And I have learned my lesson on one thing, never buy off of a Gunbroker seller that doesn't take returns and several have that policy. I will rate them right up there with horse traders and used car dealers.

[Scott Tschirhart]

What Smith & Wesson did with this new batch of Mountain Guns is a crying shame.

[BobM]

I have a S&W 432UC that went back to the factory three times and still didn’t work. I finally put an aftermarket firing pin in it and so far it’s working. Very frustrating for what is supposed to be a more premium gun. I have a 632 that I bought a year earlier that’s been fine other than needing a sight adjustment

[Lastmohecken]

What Smith & Wesson did with this new batch of Mountain Guns is a crying shame.

Yes, it certainly is.
And I just have to say this, but their marketing department is bunch of liars. They have everyone believing that they eliminated the Hillary Lock (Hillary Hole) whatever you want to call. Well ok, they eliminated the hole and the one part that in the hole, but on that last run of 686 plus mountain pistols, they left the rest of the extra parts in the gun, possibly just waiting to cause a lock up, maybe.
When I was sorting out all of the problems I had with the one I purchased, I had all of the guts out of the gun, several times, and found those parts still in the gun. What bothers me about those parts is one of the parts that was designed to lock the gun, is only held down in the unlocked position by a tiny and I do mean TINY, spring. If that spring was to fail for some reason, or fall out, which is not too far-fetched, the other part could flip up and down during recoil and possibly lock the gun up.

So, obviously, Smith and Wesson is using up old frames or just didn't want to re-tool up, and I guess they are leaving those parts in there, for a spacer. But the gun will work without those parts being in the gun, my gun needed shims to correct a dragging hammer, which was not related to the locking parts, because they don't really serve as a spacer, anyway. So, eliminating the Hillary lock on those, is a Big Lie. And it's funny that all of those YouTube influencers that take money from the industry, failed to expose this.
Ok, sorry about the rant!

[Walt]

Funny that you mention that. Last week I was working on a friend's Smith model 396PD .44 special that does not have the keyhole and came across the remnants of the locking system in the frame. Curious what the purpose of the small triangular piece with the tiny spring was, he called Smith and Wesson and was told they do not discuss the internals of their firearms. There was a post on the Smith forum which concluded that it was there to satisfy the hammer drop test. Not sure what to think about that.

[Scott Tschirhart]

I do think it makes sense to order a spare extractor if you own one of these rifles. I did just that.

[Scott Tschirhart]

Funny that you mention that. Last week I was working on a friend's Smith model 396PD .44 special that does not have the keyhole and came across the remnants of the locking system in the frame. Curious what the purpose of the small triangular piece with the tiny spring was, he called Smith and Wesson and was told they do not discuss the internals of their firearms. There was a post on the Smith forum which concluded that it was there to satisfy the hammer drop test. Not sure what to think about that.

Smith had a product improvement program a few years ago and in the 629 Mountain Guns of that time they put in a block that prevented the cylinder from opening when the hammer went forward. This was to counteract problems with the cylinder moving in recoil. I’ll bet that is the part that your friend is describing though I haven’t been inside that particular gun.

[Walt]

Scott, I experienced that cylinder rotation issue years ago on a 4" model 29. I couldn't figure out what was causing that but suspected it was a spring problem. This was before people began writing about it. I called Wolff Gunsprings but they were unaware of it. They gave me a phone number to call which I did and a familiar voice answered, "this is Jerry". Jerry Miculek has had vast experience with Smiths but was unfamiliar with that particular issue. I can't remember who suggested a heavier spring under the cylinder bolt but I ordered an Endurance Package spring (identified by the blue color), installed it and never had another problem with it.

[marlinman93]

I'd be surprised at any bolt gun using the large Mauser 98 type claw extractor ever had an extractor fail. That's one of the finest extractors ever invented, and they seem to be bullet proof.

[Scott Tschirhart]

I'd be surprised at any bolt gun using the large Mauser 98 type claw extractor ever had an extractor fail. That's one of the finest extractors ever invented, and they seem to be bullet proof.

I know of three of these failing on Ruger MK II rifles.

Never heard of such a failure on a Mauser rifle.

[Lastmohecken]

I'd be surprised at any bolt gun using the large Mauser 98 type claw extractor ever had an extractor fail. That's one of the finest extractors ever invented, and they seem to be bullet proof.

I know of three of these failing on Ruger MK II rifles.

Never heard of such a failure on a Mauser rifle.

I wonder if the extractors are getting damaged when people try to load the mag full, then feed one in on top of it by hand, to gain that extra round? I have heard and read that some Ruger's will let you do that and some will not pop up over the case rim. I have also read that gunsmiths used to modify the Mauser extractor so that you could hand feed a round into the barrel and the extractor would slip up over the rim. I know that my model 70's Pre-64 rifles need to have the cartridge pushed down into the magazine and feed from there, so that the case rim can slide up under the Mauser style extractor as the cartridge is being feed into the chamber ie. controlled round feed.

But I guess the old Remington 03A3's extractor was designed to snap up over the case rim if necessary and had the magazine cut off, to allow single feeding, and keep the full magazine in reserve. Either way, out of ignorance, as a kid I hunted with both my dad's A303 and a 94 Swedish Mauser Carbine and I always topped them off with that 6th round over the fully loaded magazine and never had a problem. Still have both guns to this day with the original extractors still in them.

Bottom line, however, is that the Ruger's are known for being finicky with some allowing the gun to be loaded with that extra round and some having an extractor that would not tolerate sneaking that extra round in on top of a loaded mag. However, on a Ruger Scout rifle, with the under detachable mag, it's not an issue and I see no reason to ever want to top the mag off by handfeeding a round into the barrel.

[marlinman93]

I'd be surprised at any bolt gun using the large Mauser 98 type claw extractor ever had an extractor fail. That's one of the finest extractors ever invented, and they seem to be bullet proof.

I know of three of these failing on Ruger MK II rifles.

Never heard of such a failure on a Mauser rifle.

Must be that investment casting Ruger uses to make parts?