I agree about the G2 (assuming reliability) but They sell the synthetic separately. If you still have the scout it’s worth every penny.Originally Posted by Tokarev
I agree about the G2 (assuming reliability) but They sell the synthetic separately. If you still have the scout it’s worth every penny.
I'll have to look into that.
If I do anything else with the gun it would probably include ditching my scout/eir scope and putting something like a Vortex 1-6 on it. That's another drawback to the Scout concept. Not as many good options for scopes if the front rail is used.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Seems to be a few more than a few - Since it still exists - https://www.smith-wesson.com/revolvers - Filter at the top "Series" and you'll find Classics right down on the list.
That presupposes that they need to sell the guns. I don't get the impression that Ruger is hurting financially by any stretch. They make the most popular concealed carry gun on the planet (since most of the planet doesn't CC) in the form of the LCP/LCP2 and just added to that with the new .22 LCP. The various rifles sell plenty well, for hunting and general shooting and the ARs seem to be selling fairly well too. And the 10/22 remains the most popular .22 rifle in the U.S.
I never had trouble selling Rugers when I sold guns. I doubt that's changed much since I stopped selling them a decade ago. I dunno how many Vaqueros Ruger sells every year, but I get the impression they sell more 5.7s with that hold "20 rounds of body armor piercing ammo." Particularly to the boogaloo bois out there.
altmodischepistole (Old fashioned pistol)
oder
altmodischeschützen (old fashioned protection)
Judging by how rare a particularly novel design is commercially successful...I'd say A LOT of Dardicks have to be made. When we consider the basic lockwork of the Glock is Walther and Browning underneath and that the novelty came in manufacturing technique and simplification - you might argue that it is exceedingly rare. Almost all semi-auto pistol designs today are derived from some variant of Walther or Browning. Innovation is pretty difficult, so I don't really care how it comes if folks are trying, it's going to be tough to build the next Glock or the next 1911.
Well, at least now we know what you were chosen to be an initial Ruger 57 reviewer.
As someone who owned a Ruger Scout, the practical problem is they work IF you can have just one long gun. For people in CA, NJ and so on where ARs and AKs get the stink eye they make a lot of sense.
For American residents, it’s easier to just buy a specialized rifle for a given task.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
I suppose the case could be made that, given current markets, Ruger could focus on what historically sells and leave it at that. Turn the 10/22 machine on and let it run until every household in America has one. Or two.
[emoji16]Well, at least now we know what you were chosen to be an initial Ruger 57 reviewer
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Last edited by Tokarev; 01-03-2020 at 05:01 PM.
That right there is my biggest problem in current industry. Stupid people doing stupid things. And I want to move toward being in the gun business? I might just be insane yet.
I think this is the main reason why I don't want one. I'm just not on that bandwagon. Might even help explain my dislike for Glocks, too.
The discussion of Scout Riles brings back some very old memories. When I was an instructor at Gunsite in 1978 I was introduced to the Scout Rifle concept by Cooper himself and got to shoot "Scout 1" a couple times. He could go on for hours touting it's virtues, and did around the dinner table for a couple evenings. Naturally, when I got back home I had to build one.
I started with the same Remington 600 in 308 that Cooper used. Found a Redfield 2.5 pistol scope and cobbled up a forward mount. Remember stuff like forward mounts were not yet being made commercially. I even fitted a Ching Sling. I was set, and ventured forth to the range for sighting in and to the desert to bust rocks.
I had several hundred rounds through it, and thought I was shooting it well, when the club I belonged to decided to have their first "practical" rifle match. After sign-in everyone wanted to see my Scout Rifle, but I was starting to notice I was up against AKs, AR-15s, an FN-FAL, and two M1As.
Long story short, I came in dead last...with the emphasis on "dead". I was so far behind the next to the last place shooter I felt like they probably timed my performance with a calendar rather than a timer. After the humiliation of that match the Scout Rifle went into the back of the safe, and eventually on down the road. (smile)
Dave
Life is too short to just focus on what's practical 100% of the time.
AR15's and glocks are great, but it's nice to slow down every now and again. Lest you end up like some curmudgeon who hates what they do.
Last edited by Zman001; 01-03-2020 at 11:40 PM.
Sometimes we do try awfully hard to take all the fun out of an otherwise very enjoyable hobby.
We tend to measure things with the metric we know.
An accomplished USPSA shooter will likely look at a certain handgun and say, "This will never work in a match" and dismiss it immediately as useless. By the same token a trap and skeet guy is likely to judge something like a Saiga-12 as a worthless novelty based on his most common use for the shotgun.
Is the new Ruger-57 useless? Yeah I suppose if I apply a defensive mindset to it it has little value. But if I take a step back and try to view it as a hobbyist and a shooter I think I can see how the gun came to be and why Ruger chose to make such an oddball firearm.
Years and years ago I worked in a pawn shop. We did a very good business in used firearms and I'd often buy used guns from the shop or borrow them for a weekend or two. One day we happened to take a SIG 226, a half dozen mags and a nice shoulder holster rig on trade. I immediately blew about a week's pay and claimed the stuff as mine. Awhile later I was showing my new acquisition to a regular customer. He started laughing at me. He said a clean cut kid like myself will buy something like this and never shooy anybody with it. Meanwhile a gang banger in Baltimore has his Raven .25 and probably shot five or six people over the weekend. Touché, Big Al.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Last edited by Tokarev; 01-04-2020 at 09:29 AM.
IMO that kind of experiment is part of the problem. Although as I understand it Randy Cain took a Pat Rogers carbine course running a practical rifle against a class full of ARs and did just fine.
I’m still a huge Cooper fan (fuck you millenial contrarians) but I’m not a Moonie about it. I have zero interest in a classic scout. Or do I think the concept was flawless, nor do I think it’s a substitute in 2020 for a basic AR in 5.56 with a LPV (although, in a bad situation, the bolt action hunting rifle may well be how you go out and find yourself said AR...) Randy, along with others like Brockman, took that concept and expounded on it and modernized it, and practical-ized it in the form of the “practical rifle”, and even that’s not exactly what I want. I’ve handled and shot Randy’s Brockmans and I don’t like them, for me. Appreciate them? Yes. Want one? No.
For me, there are concepts in the Scout, and Practical Rifle, that I find could fit an application for me, once further tweaked.
To the point of the thread, I don’t know if that makes it novelty or practicality. As I mentioned up-thread, I frankly find what most people think of as “practical” to not only be novelty but also to be frivolous flights of fancy, which IMO is a lot worse. I can respect the guy that says “I’d like to shoot one of these new Ruger 57s, and maybe even own one, for no particular reason” a lot more than the guy that’s insisting that his collection of 13 Glocks and 9 ARs are purely practical.
Reply With Quote