Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Jamie B on January 02, 2012, 01:03:55 PM
-
Another new pistol, the SR22. Odd that it looks a lot like my Walther P22.....
I think that I will keep the Walther.
I like the fact that Ruger is introducing new products.
I do not like the fact that they seem to only be copying other makers (other than the LCR).
http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Pistol/index.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ruger.com%2Fproducts%2Fsr22Pistol%2Fimages%2FindexHeader.jpg&hash=831f77f646d365565ae287b8c48c183ff8faae2f)
-
Is the slide made out of that zinc cr@p like the P22? ;/
-
I look at that and I think "why?????".
-
Is the slide made out of that zinc cr@p like the P22? ;/
According to the web site the slide is black-anodized aluminum.
Brad
-
Another new pistol, the SR22. Odd that it looks a lot like my Walther P22.....
I think that I will keep the Walther.
I like the fact that Ruger is introducing new products.
I do not like the fact that they seem to only be copying other makers (other than the LCR).
Actually, it looks a lot like the SR9.....and Ruger has introduced a lot of great .22lr's lately....ones that stand on their own merits and can be used as "understudy guns" for their larger-caliber siblings....can't wait to see if a LCP .22lr is in the works....
Is the slide made out of that zinc cr@p like the P22? ;/
Ruger only deals in steel, aluminum, titanium (golf clubs only), and polymer....no junk metal allowed....
-
Seems like they also did quite well "copying" the Colt SAA ;)
-
And the CRF bolt rifle.
-
According to the Ruger website, the slide is aircraft-grade aluminum.
Oops, duplicate post to what Brad said earlier.
-
Actually, it looks a lot like the SR9.....and Ruger has introduced a lot of great .22lr's lately....ones that stand on their own merits and can be used as "understudy guns" for their larger-caliber siblings....can't wait to see if a LCP .22lr is in the works....
Except it has a hammer where the SR9 is striker-fired. I also see the Walther/S&W resemblance. I don't see much "SR" in that gun at all. Other than the obnoxious big lettering.
And ruger already has several FANTASTIC .22's that I would choose in a heartbeat over this thing.
Interesting, though, that the slide is stamped Prescott, AZ. I guess Ruger is getting out of Connecticut, finally. Shifting new manufacturing to a union-free State. Good on them. Though I'll not be buying this.
-
Except it has a hammer where the SR9 is striker-fired. I also see the Walther/S&W resemblance. I don't see much "SR" in that gun at all. Other than the obnoxious big lettering.
And ruger already has several FANTASTIC .22's that I would choose in a heartbeat over this thing.
Interesting, though, that the slide is stamped Prescott, AZ. I guess Ruger is getting out of Connecticut, finally. Shifting new manufacturing to a union-free State. Good on them. Though I'll not be buying this.
Ruger has been manufacturing in Prescott, AZ since 1985. They are still based out of CT and have manufacturing in NH as well.
-
According to the Ruger website, the slide is aircraft-grade aluminum.
Oops, duplicate post to what Brad said earlier.
Well, an aluminum slide is appropriate on a .22. I have several that have held up just fine. That said, everytime some company says "aircraft grade aluminum I wanna stick my finger in my eye just to stop the hurt. I can name about 30 different types of aluminium =D that I've used on an aircraft. Many entirely unsuitable to make a slide out of. How about tell us the alloy and temper and STFU about "aircraft grade?" Would that be too hard marketing people?
As far as the pistol? meh.
I hold grudges a long time, I was almost over the old man's AWB support when they decided to copy Kel-Tec. I have no respect for copycat companies, having worked for people with original patented stuff that was still ripped off.
Then there's my perfect world issues. In my fantasy land Colt makes 1911s and snake guns, Smith makes revolvers only, and Ruger makes revolvers, .22 target pistols and the occasional (bolt!!!) rifle and shotgun. Ruger and Smith auto pistols are a stain on the fabric of mankind. The mini-14 was cool right up until the A-Team got cancelled.
-
Meh.
Color me unexcited.
-
Except it has a hammer where the SR9 is striker-fired. I also see the Walther/S&W resemblance. I don't see much "SR" in that gun at all. Other than the obnoxious big lettering.
And ruger already has several FANTASTIC .22's that I would choose in a heartbeat over this thing.
Really. Two single action .22 revolvers, now two very recently introduced double action .22 revolvers, and a multitude of variations on the Mark III. Am I missing any?
Is this model there to show the world that Ruger can do what the other guy did, better?
-
everytime some company says "aircraft grade aluminum I wanna stick my finger in my eye just to stop the hurt. I can name about 30 different types of aluminium =D that I've used on an aircraft. Many entirely unsuitable to make a slide out of. How about tell us the alloy and temper and STFU about "aircraft grade?" Would that be too hard marketing people?
How about "surgical steel"? Every time I see that, I think bedpans...
-
I hold grudges a long time, I was almost over the old man's AWB support when they decided to copy Kel-Tec. I have no respect for copycat companies, having worked for people with original patented stuff that was still ripped off.
Please explain. If they are infringing on a patent, that's one thing, and it's actionable. But legally copying a successful design is just a) natural and expected competition in a capitalist system, b) serving the market, because capitalism is about selling the people what they want to buy and c) sometimes necessary for survival in a capitalist system, especially in a slow economy.
And where was this complaint when they started making 1911s?
-
I did not even dignify the 1911 thing with picking one up to look at it. There's pretty much a proven open source design. With the P3AT a big company, Ruger, patiently waited while a little tiny company planned, tested, innovated, failed, and then brilliantly succeeded. Ruger could afford to be so patient because they had no idea it could be done or there was a market. Nothing to patent that I see, plastic gun with tilt-barrel locking. The idea of getting the little guy to do all your legwork for you is abhorrent to me, just a pet peeve. On 1911s, I'm done. I've got a Sistema halfway finished in a tupperware, a S70 Colt, a Rem-Rand that needs to be re-built, and a modern Dan Wesson that is nice but doesn't trip my trigger due to its stainless flavor. I'm absolutely done buying new production guns that look like 1911s. I will either have the money to pay Les Baer, Ed Brown, and no others or I will build one myself with Caspian stuff. All the modern 1911s are mass production crap dreamed up by managers that probably don't know where the bullet comes out and just want to move units and make pretty graphs. That's why I didn't mention the 1911 thing, one off-topic can o worms per thread.
-
The fact that it's equipped with an ambidextrous safety makes it different from all other .22 autos and reason enough for me to take a serious look at it.
-
Then there's my perfect world issues. In my fantasy land Colt makes 1911s and snake guns, Smith makes revolvers only, and Ruger makes revolvers, .22 target pistols and the occasional (bolt!!!) rifle and shotgun. Ruger and Smith auto pistols are a stain on the fabric of mankind.
lol... eleventy plus one's for you.
+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
-
Please explain. If they are infringing on a patent, that's one thing, and it's actionable. But legally copying a successful design is just a) natural and expected competition in a capitalist system, b) serving the market, because capitalism is about selling the people what they want to buy and c) sometimes necessary for survival in a capitalist system, especially in a slow economy.
And where was this complaint when they started making 1911s?
and the pot stirring continues........
-
I did not even dignify the 1911 thing with picking one up to look at it. There's pretty much a proven open source design.
Grant Cunningham has some post-1911 centennary comments on the 1911, here: Hello 2012 - boy, am I glad to see you! (http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/fef6338ad8f76ccc3eaa7812f9009361-949.html).
Sure to fan the flames.
You probably didn't notice, but I made a vow last New Year's to not mention the 1911, or its designer, in this blog for all of 2011. I knew that everyone would be making a Big Freaking Deal (BFD) about the centennial of The Thing, and that there would be special editions and articles and books and videos and special editions and more articles and more special editions and videos and still more special editions and plenty of 1911-only shooting classes for people who didn’t take Inspector Girard’s advice to lose their nickel-plated sissy pistols.
I didn't want to show up in any Google searches for '1911', lest it seem that I actually approved of (let alone participated in) such nonsense.
I thus endured an entire year of people expounding on the virtues of the inefficient and unreliable design, while I forced myself (sometimes with pliers and a staple gun) to keep my tongue still.
....
-
The fact that it's equipped with an ambidextrous safety makes it different from all other .22 autos and reason enough for me to take a serious look at it.
I believe the GSG 1911 (a 1911-ish .22) has an ambidextrous safety as standard on each model. I assume the Sig-branded GSGs are the same.
-
With the P3AT a big company, Ruger, patiently waited while a little tiny company planned, tested, innovated, failed, and then brilliantly succeeded. Ruger could afford to be so patient because they had no idea it could be done or there was a market. Nothing to patent that I see, plastic gun with tilt-barrel locking. The idea of getting the little guy to do all your legwork for you is abhorrent to me, just a pet peeve.
You know gun companies are supposed to make money, right?
-
You know gun companies are supposed to make money, right?
Not enough threads locked lately due to your pot stirring?
-
OK, what is your definition of pot stirring? ???
-
Ruger and Smith auto pistols are a stain on the fabric of mankind.
Well said.
-
Please explain. If they are infringing on a patent, that's one thing, and it's actionable. But legally copying a successful design is just a) natural and expected competition in a capitalist system, b) serving the market, because capitalism is about selling the people what they want to buy and c) sometimes necessary for survival in a capitalist system, especially in a slow economy.
And where was this complaint when they started making 1911s?
While I find Ruger's timing, appearance, and introduction of the .380 LCP after Keltec's P-3AT personally distasteful, I do have to agree, Keltec had few unique innovations in the pistol. The P-32 and 3AT are pretty much 95% built upon "prior art" already.
JMB did the tilting barrel over 100 years ago. SIG-Sauer (IIRC) did the breech block/ejection port locking method roughly 30 years ago, HK did the polymer frame, and probably the most unique innovation, the removable frame/receiver/action block comes from the Tokarev, save for the fact it's not a load-bearing part, which I see as George Kelgren's one unique innovation. And there may be some other pistol I'm unaware of that invented even that.
Keltec's unique interest in the P-3AT largely lies in the time and effort they put into tweaking and perfecting it. And unfortunately, that is not what's patent-able, or defensible under American intellectual property laws.
The bright spot is that Ruger's copying does not seem to have hurt Keltec. As far as I know, they still sell every P-3AT they manage to make.
-
If the SR22 is reliable, I'm all ears! Ruger is really making it's move in the 22 market. Good to see.
-
I agree that all is fair in love, war, and laisseze faire capitalism, but given Ruger's large resources, I would expect more innovation from them, rather than the obvious copying other companies models.
It speaks very poorly for Ruger.
-
I'm glad there are a million flowers blooming for some types of firearms. I wish more companies would shamelessly copy the FAL, the M14, the Krag, and the various Enfield magazine rifles. And if we could get a few more companies making proper Commander-sized 1911s, that would be super.
-
I agree that all is fair in love, war, and laisseze faire capitalism, but given Ruger's large resources, I would expect more innovation from them, rather than the obvious copying other companies models.
It speaks very poorly for Ruger.
Immitation, forms of flattery and all that.
And isn't it the first duty/obligation of Ruger to make money for their shareholders? Doing so at the highest rate of investment seems to be A Good ThingTM.
Now, just for the fun of it - when was it that Ruger was known as an innovator in the firearms industry?
stay safe.
-
when was it that Ruger was known as an innovator in the firearms industry?
Back in the 1950s ;)
-
. . . I wish more companies would shamelessly copy the FAL, the M14, the Krag, and the various Enfield magazine rifles. And if we could get a few more companies making proper Commander-sized 1911s, that would be super.
When one company has a "Lock" on a particular market niche (as Colt's did with the 1911 for so many years) they become complacent, bean counters & unions start cutting corners, and quality suffers. At Colt's the crummy cr@p they were turning out for so long spawned a whole cottage industry of 'smiths performing "reliability package" work on a platform that had originally been chosen for military use in large part because of its reliability.
But now, there are plenty of alternatives, with top tier companies like Les Baer and Ed Brown putting out a very nice product indeed.
In ammo, too . . . Lee Jurras at Super Vel pioneered JHP bullets at higher velocity. Eventually the big boys jumped on the bandwagon and brought out their own - better! - JHP ammo. Super Vel, the pioneer, faded . . . bad for them, but just look at the selection we have now - the rest of us are MUCH better off because the market wasn't left to Super Vel.
Same thing with Ruger and their guns - so long as a patent isn't being violated, I see nothing wrong with making a similar - even a very similar - product. Time and the market will decide who's building the better mousetrap, based on price, performance, and service.
-
Actually, wasn't Ruger seen as a real innovator in their use of investment casting for firearms? My recall is hazy, but I thought I read articles about this back in the 80's.
-
Immitation, forms of flattery and all that.
And isn't it the first duty/obligation of Ruger to make money for their shareholders?
Absolutely indeed.
I wonder instead about Kel Tec's disinclination to protect their design.
Now, just for the fun of it - when was it that Ruger was known as an innovator in the firearms industry?
stay safe.
The original .22 autopistol. The mark 1 before they called it the mark 1 ("standard"?). Did good in wheelguns too.
Re: Sturm Ruger are Bastids!
And, to noone's surprise (I hope), Gunblast.com has a puff piece with lots of good pictures (http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-SR22P.htm).
Any reason I would want to get this instead of a Mark I|II|III or 22/45?
-
The bright spot is that Ruger's copying does not seem to have hurt Keltec. As far as I know, they still sell every P-3AT they manage to make.
I think this is an important point. Kel-tec makes guns, but the structure of their business is very different than Ruger A while back, they could have taken the money they were making off the P3AT and created a larger scale manufacturing operation. Instead, they are spending a lot of that money on developing new products. I don't think Kel-Tec wants wants to be as big as a Ruger or Smith and Wesson.
-
I'm still waiting for something like this with a >10rd magazine.
-
I think this is an important point. Kel-tec makes guns, but the structure of their business is very different than Ruger A while back, they could have taken the money they were making off the P3AT and created a larger scale manufacturing operation. Instead, they are spending a lot of that money on developing new products. I don't think Kel-Tec wants wants to be as big as a Ruger or Smith and Wesson.
After hashing out KT's inability, or unwillingness to actually meet market demand for their designs for years over on KTOG, I think the consensus is that Keltec/George Kelgren wouldn't mind being "bigger", however, they flatly refuse to go into debt or leverage the company to do it, and are on the pay-as-you-go plan. I guess it makes sense. Trying to follow election year gun-sales panics, or just get in debt up to the eyeballs, to only have the teetering American economy finally go over the precipice, and all discretionary income in the private sector to vanish... I agree it's not a sound business practice.
Using debt to ramp up to meet a market demand that may be transitory could well be a fiscal "Win the battle/lose the war" scenario. So while I don't like being unable to find a PMR-30 for even MSRP, a pistol who's "street price" should arguably be below $300, I understand it.
AFAIK, they're not meeting the demand for the SUB-2000, the RFB, the PMR-30, and I doubt the situation will be any different for the upcoming RMR-30, or the new KSG that just started dribbling out.
That makes them pretty unique in firearms mfg. history. There's been any number of botique makers, like Seecamp who've had the same issue on one model, perhaps the only one they make for just about forever, but I can't recall a maker who perpetually ran behind on four or five model lines indefinitely. [tinfoil]
-
Any reason I would want to get this instead of a Mark I|II|III or 22/45?
Other than familiarity for training with other Ruger autos, no.
The MarkIII / 22/45 platform enjoys phenomenal reliability.
-
Well, I am excited to see more modern takes on the .22LR service-auto clone. I'm kind of surprised that other than the SIG Mosquito, which had numerous teething problems of it's own, it's taken so long for other gun companies to get in the game.
I've loved the look of the P22 for some time, but I've never been 100% sold on the Umarex blank pistol/Airsoft/pellet gun build quality or zinc slide. Mainly because I want such a piece a as an economical suppressor host.
The S&W M&P .22 seems to be near unobtanium at times, so I'm glad to see Ruger entering the fray, if only to reduce demand and cost, and up availability.
My main beef with the thing is they now seem to be taking their styling cues from Taurus. :P
-
It took Ruger to make a P22 that's worth a *expletive deleted*it.
Honestly, all the heartache and whining over Ruger and so on just makes shooters look like a bunch of bitchy whiners... ;/
-
It took Ruger to make a P22 that's worth a *expletive deleted*.
Honestly, all the heartache and whining over Ruger and so on just makes shooters look like a bunch of bitchy whiners... ;/
I agree, it is picayune at times. However, such whining and scrutiny keeps gun makers on the straight and narrow. The fall out over Bill Ruger's magazine comments, the boycott over S&W's prior ownership's Clinton/HUD agreement, the whole Zumbo-thing, Cooper Firearms, H&S over the Lon Horiuchi flap...
I think all of these have done a lot of good at keeping the gun mfg's toeing the line, and from becoming our own worst enemy. Profit does not automatically mean good 2A support. Such crabbing and whining keeps the two more in line.
-
The fall out over Bill Ruger's magazine comments, the boycott over S&W's prior ownership's Clinton/HUD agreement, the whole Zumbo-thing, Cooper Firearms, H&S over the Lon Horiuchi flap...
It's one thing to raise some hue and cry over important stuff.
It's another thing to start fussing when one gun looks a bit like another, or someone copies a design, or whatever. The endless bitching about Rugers, Glocks, and so on is annoying as hell. Hell, when Ruger makes something original (like the LCR, for example) they get bitched about.
-
>The fact that it's equipped with an ambidextrous safety makes it different from all other .22 autos and reason enough for me to take a serious look at it.<
*cough*BerettaNeos*cough*
-
It took Ruger to make a P22 that's worth a *expletive deleted*.
Honestly, all the heartache and whining over Ruger and so on just makes shooters look like a bunch of bitchy whiners... ;/
I drove over my Ruger with my truck, and broke my truck =(
-
I grew up with my Dad's Mark I (that wasn't labeled Mark I) and bought my first pistol in a 22/45. I have a Mark II target as well now. Unless one of these plastic .22 pistols does a lot better than 10 rounds in the mag, I don't see the reason to spend the money.
-
>The fact that it's equipped with an ambidextrous safety makes it different from all other .22 autos and reason enough for me to take a serious look at it.<
*cough*BerettaNeos*cough*
I seconded that *cough*BerettaNeos*cough*
-
The fact that it's equipped with an ambidextrous safety makes it different from all other .22 autos and reason enough for me to take a serious look at it.
My P22 does as well...and I agree...this looks a LOT like a P22...
-
The MarkIII / 22/45 platform enjoys phenomenal reliability.
Mine has some...weird issues. You have to tip the first round up in the mag before loading it to ensure reliable feeding, for instance. Also can be aggravating to reassemble. I also can't stand the button shaped controls
I am always glad to see more .22 options on the market that handle and look like real guns vs. the odd looks of pistols such as Ruger Marks and Browning Buckmarks...
I vastly prefer my GSG 1911-22. And I would love to have a Walther P22 size and type pistol, but I will be damned if I'm going to buy potmetal. Thankfully, Ruger has brought out a much improved P22. It would make a very interesting small suppressor host, coupled with one of they tiny .22 suppressors on the market such as Thompson Machine's Wasp.
-
I grew up with my Dad's Mark I (that wasn't labeled Mark I) and bought my first pistol in a 22/45. I have a Mark II target as well now. Unless one of these plastic .22 pistols does a lot better than 10 rounds in the mag, I don't see the reason to spend the money.
Styling and action like a centerfire combat auto. That's what these provide.
Maybe the product cycle takes longer than 3 years, but I'm amazed that with the .22 slides/uppers out there for decades now, and ammo prices going ballistic around '08, every major maker didn't start offering a .22LR that mimics their centerfire offerings in look/feel to get that marketshare for themselves.
-
Styling and action like a centerfire combat auto. That's what these provide.
Maybe the product cycle takes longer than 3 years, but I'm amazed that with the .22 slides/uppers out there for decades now, and ammo prices going ballistic around '08, every major maker didn't start offering a .22LR that mimics their centerfire offerings in look/feel to get that marketshare for themselves.
I think maybe that it took them a while to get that yes, consumers will buy a nice .22 pistol that looks identical to the centerfire offerings and that we weren't always satisfied with the conversion kits and whatnot. Before Walther, S&W, et. al. started coming out with modern .22 pistols...we had stuff like the Ruger and Browning .22s, the Beretta Bobcat (and it's shitty Taurus cousin), the Beretta 70 (I've never actually seen one), Hi-Standards, S&W Mdl 41s, Colt Woodsmans and so on. Many were fine pistols...but obviously they looked odd and looked like oddball target pistols. Conversion kits were primarily limited to the 1911 (and recently Glock guns)...yes, Ciener supposedly made conversion kits for more pistols...now go and try to deal with that SOB...
Look how long it took to get .22 ARs on the market...and when I say a .22 AR, I don't mean a conversion kit or a "dedicated" .22 upper that uses conversion kit parts in the action.
Now we have a veritable cornucopia of .22 firearms out there. Ruger has introduced a whole slew of them recently (the SR 22 pistol, the LCR in .22, and the SP101 reintroduced in .22). S&W has the M&P 22 (if you can find it). CZ has quietly produced the Kadet for a while. ATI GSG 1911 brings a quality .22 1911 to the masses for an affordable price. This should be a time of rejoicing...for if you want a "classic" .22 pistol, you can still get one while you can also pick up something a bit more...updated.
-
Many were fine pistols...but obviously they looked odd and looked like oddball target pistols.
When introduced, the Ruger Standard Model resembled the then current German Luger (and the Nambu).