I like Rugers. I've liked Rugers for year. I like the name, I like the logo, I like their style (seriously), and I like the guns' claimed durability.
I owned a 2" SP101 .357. Great gun. Well balanced, loud, fun. I owned a 10/22 with several "high capacity" mags. They are the Hotlips design, so I quickly destroyed the feed lips on one. I sold those guns when I moved to NYC. I wished that I had stored them with a relative instead, because I really miss them.
Since I moved to the relatively gun-friendly state of North Carolina, I bought a P95. Though I have problems with the grip, I really like it, too. The only reason I didn't also buy a Ruger shotgun is that they don't make a pump action. And of course the Remington 870 is "legendary."
Am I Ruger fanboy? I doubt it. I might be a Ruger loyalist, or a Ruger enthusiast. But if they don't have the tool I want or need at the price I'm willing to pay, then I'll get it somewhere else.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
Long Live The Gun Review
I have mixed feelings about gun reviews. I love and hate the following parts and qualities of gun reviews, and I love and hate when they are missing: technical evaluations, ergonomics, concealability, range reports, photos, and, subjectivity. And that's the problem.
Gun reviews take into account so many subjective and "mission critical" factors that the reviewer often loves, hates, or grows to love or hate the same gun based on his (her) changing experience, skills, and the company he keeps. This parody of a Nutnfancy "Tabletop" comparison of a couple guns is a good illustration:
As I have stated, I like subjectivity in gun reviews - or I hate it. But a review of the Wilson ADP a few years ago in American Handgunner magazine was a good example of how objectivity can somehow get ridiculously lost in subjectivity.