What is wrong with ruger rifles

[Q_Sertorius]

Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't stop it from being a pig. Applying Gen-2 lipstick to the Ruger American doesn't stop it from being the bargain-bin bolt action rifle that the "RAR" was meant to be. The lipstick does drive up the price, though.

The action runs with a gritty, unrefined, unfinished feel. The trigger is creepy enough to star in a horror show. The cheap Tupperware stock of the Gen-1 has been replaced by another cheap Tupperware stock. Color me unimpressed. I wouldn't buy one for my kids because I wouldn't want one myself. Like me, they'd rather have an AR-15.




The LOP on the DPMS Oracle I bought for my daughter got pretty short, too, which was nice for my kids when they were 7 years old, but so was the gas-operated, semi-auto action, coupled with the already mild-mannered 5.56 NATO cartridge.



I have yet to meet a 7 year old kid who would rather shoot a 6 - 6.5 pound bolt-action rifle with .270 Winchester recoil instead of an AR-15 "optics-ready carbine" in 5.56 NATO.


So far, we're saddling a kid with what is, in essence, a bargain-bin bolt action rifle with a less than stellar trigger. In order to suck even more joy out of the shooting experience, we're also getting it in a cartridge with recoil on par with a .270 Winchester. Finally, to insure the non-success of this endeavor, we have this:



I have visions of some obscure brand sold on Amazon for $35.00 to $40.00. The phrase "low end scope" has me thinking "poor quality" these days, rather than "low price." Hawke scopes don't cost much, but they tend to be usable, reasonably rugged, and reliable, without costing a lot. I've got a Weaver 2-7 x 32 that didn't cost a lot, but is slightly better optically than the Leupold Vari-X II c's that I used to use.




Which is an excellent reason to buy it chambered into something a 7 year old kid is going to want to shoot instead of what Dad thinks is the coolest thing.




I filled 21 mule deer tags, 3 pronghorn tags, 2 caribou tags, and 1 bull elk tag with the pipsqueak .250 Savage loaded to SAAMI pressure, and I couldn't count the number of California Central Coast swine I piled up wit it. Out of my Ruger M77RL Ultralight, which came with a 20" barrel, my .250 Savage ammo had the same terminal ballistic performance that I can duplicate (70 grain Barnes X) or exceed ( 77 grain Sierra Match King or Tipped Match King) with the 5.56 NATO today. You might WANT a 6.5 PRC, but you don't need one to cleanly kill the animals listed.




Hopefully less. Much less. Why? Because you also wrote this:



If you're buy a rifle for a 7 year old kid with the idea that he or she won't be shooting it much, you're buying the wrong rifle. I think you know that, yet your original post reads like it was written by someone seeking validation for a choice already made than someone seeking to make the very best possible choice.




"Old school" is me whacking mule deer with a c.1912 .250-3000 Savage instead of a more powerful .243 Winchester. I think YOU want a 6.5 PRC and you're using a 7 year old kid as an excuse to buy one. If you REALLY "always think heavier is better," then why aren't you shooting a .338 Winchester Magnum or .340 Weatherby instead of a .300 Winchester Magnum? A .375 Holland and Holland can have a 0-300 trajectory substantively similar to the .30-'06 and you never have to worry about whether you have enough gun with that cartridge.

Your thought process has nothing to do with that best suits a 7 year old kid. If your kid is going to be successful in the field, you need to ditch the idea of expecting a kid with little to no off-season practice with a rifle having the same felt recoil of a .270 Winchester is going to make clean, killing shots out to the 500 yard line.

I was a licensed guide (#2725) in California. I guided pig hunters in the Central Coast region. REGARDLESS OF AGE, the clients who shot the best in the field were those who were users of firearms, rather than mere owners; people who shot a rifle they were comfortable shooting during extended range sessions. I'd rather hunt with a kid who spent a year sending thousands of bullets from a 6mm TCU out of the barrel of a T/C Contender Carbine than a 7 year old armed with a 6.5 PRC he or she only shot a handful of times and didn't enjoy shooting.




The wind blows at Camp Perry near Port Clinton, Ohio when the National Matches are held there. A high master shooting CMP Service Rifle can score 200/200 during the slow-fire prone phase of the course of fire. He or she can do that with the 5.56 NATO at 600 yards on a target with a 36" aiming black and a 12" 10 -ring.

And he or she can do that because bullet diameter and weight doesn't mitigate wind drift. Ballistic Coefficient and flight time do.

And he or she can do that because he or she gets lots of practice shooting 600 yard prone between matches.

"The kids are pretty tough. The gun will not be used for plinking too much, but it will happen some."

No 7-year old kid is "tough." No 7 year old kid comes out of the womb with the ability to whack a pronghorn at 500 yards, either. If your 7 year old is so damn tough, why not let him or her plink away with the 6.5 PRC you've got your heart set on? I'll take a wild-ass guess and say it is because you know that kid really isn't tough enough to handle an extended range session with it.

Good post. I suggest cross posting the basic lesson here into the kid’s rifle manifesto thread.

 

[BrotherMovesOn]

Nothing.
We have the Ranch(16") and the Predator(22"). I'd recommend the Ranch if you're going suppressed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with prc. My kids shoot everything from 270, 50cal muzzy to 300wm. Get ready for lots of pushback though, for smaller calibers due to recoil.
I ended up going 6.5CM because of the wide range of ammo availability and the fact that we can practice with 95gn rounds and hunt with 143gn ELDX. I was skeptical of smaller calibers, especially going for Oryx, but my son wanted to shoot the 6.5. His Oryx shot from 120yds with the Predator made it 100-120yds and piled up. So we took the ranch on my daughter's hunt and she shot an oryx at 60yds with Ranch and it was DRT. The 6.5cm has practicaly zero recoil practicing with the 95gn. And, throwing in heavier bullets to hunt with, the kids don't notice recoil on game shots.

View attachment 1007182

I like the RAR gen 2 at $500 a lot
For $600+ though, I agree with others that it is harder to justify vs a Tikka

Even though the blued tikkas like to rust, the factory stock on the RAR gen 2 is atrocious without modification IMO, and the trigger is pretty creepy. Both are big wins for Tikka to me

I’m getting my first Tikka, basic t3x. Is there anything I can do, apart from oil, to get ahead of rust on the barrel?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Would you guys take over Canada already? Enough small talk.

Wish we could have Ar’s to hunt with. Would have been first choice for kids getting in. Got an early gen rar and dumped in lightened mdt chassis and Magpul furniture and they did really well with Grendel’s. I have played with a gen 2 creed mounting scope and adjusting trigger and it only got down to about 4 1/4 lbs, my early one went to 3.0 and so it remains, a little polishing bottom of bolt and cut a couple coils from ar mag springs and still loving the early gen rar grendel and shoots great. Only thing to draw me to a gen 2 would be a cartridge choice. Too many things now to spend money on, brake remove and dust cap, trigger replace or maybe a spring option, the stock is fugly squared. They should have just left it a pig and not put any lipstick on it. Imo

 

[Shortschaf]

I’m getting my first Tikka, basic t3x. Is there anything I can do, apart from oil, to get ahead of rust on the barrel?

Cerekote or nitride for $50-150

Clear coat or any color spray paint for $10

 

[Q_Sertorius]

I’m getting my first Tikka, basic t3x. Is there anything I can do, apart from oil, to get ahead of rust on the barrel?

Put a light coat of oil on it and don’t worry about it? Don’t leave sweaty fingerprints on it? It’s the same as any other blued rifle.