Joined
·
5,372 Posts
In the past few years, I have seen a lot of firearms that show a decrease of quality in manufacture.
Our gun club bought four Ruger Mark III 5.5" blued target pistols. One pistol would not fire. One of the 8 magazines would not accept more than 2 cartridges.The other three would double load, almost every magazine load. This means the empty coming out of the chamber strikes the top of the magazine and is released from the extractor before hitting the ejector. Then the fresh cartridge pushes the empty case against the top of the receiver and you have a jam. I have been training Louisiana 4H shooters in .22 rf Pistol and during the live fire part of the training, many of the Ruger Mark III pistols have the double loading problem. Another problem is the 5 to 7 pound trigger pull and the after travel or backlash adjustment of the trigger. One of the Mark III pistols had a trigger pull so hard, that I looked at the safety to see if it wereon safe. All these problems are solveable but why should they be there in the first place. I have performed over 40 Ruger Mark III trigger jobs and magazine fixes in the last year.
A revolver I was dissapointed in, was a S&W hammerless Lightweight in .38 spl. I took off the sideplate and I was shocked. The hammer is a crude looking casting. The double action sear is not pinned to the hammer. It fits into a slot in the hammer and the one I looked at appeared to be nylon or plastic. The inside of the frame was very rough and all the internal parts were as well. This is why the fellow brought the revolver to me, the trigger pull was Horrible. After the parts were smoothed out and the interior of the frame polished, the trigger pull was improved. Another thing I noticed was, there was no lubricant inside the revolver.
I am going to be very selective on what I buy in handguns in the future. I don't think I am interested in very many new firearms offered these days. If I were to buy another revolver it would have to be a S&W with a pinned barrel, dating from before 1980. The Ruger Mark III pistols are still well made but need tweaking to get optimum performance. I would rather have a good used Mark II Ruger .22 auto than a new Mark III. If you have a Ruger Mark III that functions well and has an acceptable trigger, you are fortunate.
I am afraid that many of our arms manufacturers are listening to the bean counters instead of trying to uphold the quality that the industry has been famous for. We should all remember what Winchester did to their firearms line in 1964. The quality went out the window and their business has not been as successful as it was before 1964.
Doug Bowser
Our gun club bought four Ruger Mark III 5.5" blued target pistols. One pistol would not fire. One of the 8 magazines would not accept more than 2 cartridges.The other three would double load, almost every magazine load. This means the empty coming out of the chamber strikes the top of the magazine and is released from the extractor before hitting the ejector. Then the fresh cartridge pushes the empty case against the top of the receiver and you have a jam. I have been training Louisiana 4H shooters in .22 rf Pistol and during the live fire part of the training, many of the Ruger Mark III pistols have the double loading problem. Another problem is the 5 to 7 pound trigger pull and the after travel or backlash adjustment of the trigger. One of the Mark III pistols had a trigger pull so hard, that I looked at the safety to see if it wereon safe. All these problems are solveable but why should they be there in the first place. I have performed over 40 Ruger Mark III trigger jobs and magazine fixes in the last year.
A revolver I was dissapointed in, was a S&W hammerless Lightweight in .38 spl. I took off the sideplate and I was shocked. The hammer is a crude looking casting. The double action sear is not pinned to the hammer. It fits into a slot in the hammer and the one I looked at appeared to be nylon or plastic. The inside of the frame was very rough and all the internal parts were as well. This is why the fellow brought the revolver to me, the trigger pull was Horrible. After the parts were smoothed out and the interior of the frame polished, the trigger pull was improved. Another thing I noticed was, there was no lubricant inside the revolver.
I am going to be very selective on what I buy in handguns in the future. I don't think I am interested in very many new firearms offered these days. If I were to buy another revolver it would have to be a S&W with a pinned barrel, dating from before 1980. The Ruger Mark III pistols are still well made but need tweaking to get optimum performance. I would rather have a good used Mark II Ruger .22 auto than a new Mark III. If you have a Ruger Mark III that functions well and has an acceptable trigger, you are fortunate.
I am afraid that many of our arms manufacturers are listening to the bean counters instead of trying to uphold the quality that the industry has been famous for. We should all remember what Winchester did to their firearms line in 1964. The quality went out the window and their business has not been as successful as it was before 1964.
Doug Bowser
