With the arthritis in my hands and the price of components I'm thinking about buying fishing equipment instead, then I keep hearing about Ruger's Wrangler. I'm tempted but at least half of the reviews I read says accuracy is very suspect. I know it isn't a target pistol but I wonder if it has enough accuracy to be interesting. Any opinions?
Ruger Wrangler
- Thread starter Rex
- Start date
Tomme boy
Well-Known Member
Some shoot really good. Some not so. Mine minute of pop can out to 25yds. The sights are what makes them shoot poorly if you ask me. I struggle with these SAA guns. So I went and got the Super Wrangler with real sights that you can adjust. It shoots much better do to the sights.
With the arthritis you might might not want one of these as it takes a lot more finger dexterity to load these. Diamondback has one that is a sa/da and the cyl folds out like a newer revolver.
With the arthritis you might might not want one of these as it takes a lot more finger dexterity to load these. Diamondback has one that is a sa/da and the cyl folds out like a newer revolver.
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
I don't own a Wrangler, but my local friend and occasional shooting pard does and I've shot it.
With a non-adjustable sighted centerfire handgun one is able to develop a load that shoots to the sights. That's not possible with the Wrangler, and finding a brand and flavor of ammunition it prefers could easily turn into a frustrating and costly endeavor. I suspect that the negative reviewers haven't spent enough money and time trying to find their guns' ammo preferences. (I tested more than two dozen brands and flavors of .22 LR before I found the one that my recently rebuilt 10/22 liked.)
I like the Wrangler' concept, but wouldn't buy one.
I very much like the Super Wrangler's concept and if I wanted a .22 rimfire pistol I would buy one, and for no other reason than its sight adjustability. The magnum cylinder is an added bonus.
With a non-adjustable sighted centerfire handgun one is able to develop a load that shoots to the sights. That's not possible with the Wrangler, and finding a brand and flavor of ammunition it prefers could easily turn into a frustrating and costly endeavor. I suspect that the negative reviewers haven't spent enough money and time trying to find their guns' ammo preferences. (I tested more than two dozen brands and flavors of .22 LR before I found the one that my recently rebuilt 10/22 liked.)
I like the Wrangler' concept, but wouldn't buy one.
I very much like the Super Wrangler's concept and if I wanted a .22 rimfire pistol I would buy one, and for no other reason than its sight adjustability. The magnum cylinder is an added bonus.
L Ross
Well-Known Member
Please don't think I am raining on anyone's Cheerios here. If you bought Wrangler and like it, well good for you. I just don't want to encourage Ruger to make "pot metal" revolvers. I mean hell, they have the Single Six, a quality piece in blue or stainless made out of real steel.
I suppose they had to race to closer to the bottom to compete with that Heritage Rough Rider low dollar budget gun. But are any of us here on this forum so broke we can't sell some of the other stuff we've acquired over the years and buy a real steel gun?
I'm still PO'd at Ruger for caving in to a bunch of lily liver lawyers and deleting the three screw series. If we want to delete something we could delete a good portion of the 1.3 million parasitic lawyers our Republic is "blessed" with. People that are too stupid to handle a dangerous piece of equipment should either leave them to those qualified or suffer the consequences. That goes for guns, table saws, double bitted axes, and a decent sharp filet knife for that matter.
Boy a good rant can be cathartic when you have a sprained ankle and some sort of respiratory virus.
I suppose they had to race to closer to the bottom to compete with that Heritage Rough Rider low dollar budget gun. But are any of us here on this forum so broke we can't sell some of the other stuff we've acquired over the years and buy a real steel gun?
I'm still PO'd at Ruger for caving in to a bunch of lily liver lawyers and deleting the three screw series. If we want to delete something we could delete a good portion of the 1.3 million parasitic lawyers our Republic is "blessed" with. People that are too stupid to handle a dangerous piece of equipment should either leave them to those qualified or suffer the consequences. That goes for guns, table saws, double bitted axes, and a decent sharp filet knife for that matter.
Boy a good rant can be cathartic when you have a sprained ankle and some sort of respiratory virus.
I’ve had 4 Wranglers, still have two.
No, they are not target models- but neither was any Single Six I’ve ever owned.
All of my Wranglers have been dead on windage wise but I did have to shorten the front sight on one of them.
I still consider them the best economical gun out there.
And they will hunt.
Outpost75
Active Member
I bought a Wrangler as an inexpensive handgun for camp use. I had to cut down the front sight to correct elevation, but otherwise it is well centered for windage. Accuracy not as good as my Colt Woodsman or High Standard B-US, but quite acceptable. A 25 yard sand bagged target with CCI 45-grain Subsonic Suppressor ammo.
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
Much like airguns... I found the cerokote paint can get inside barrels and destroy accuracy. Airguns this is common as its more common for these to see paint then bluing.
So If ya are buying ir have one that dont shoot well. Look hard at whats in your bbl and what your crown looks like.
I bought a pair of birds heads when they came out as a pair to the 327 Birds heads and BOTH of mine responded well to re crowning and good cleanings. They dont shoot to my old single six standards but are accurate "enough" to hit what I need shot. (So far)
CW
So If ya are buying ir have one that dont shoot well. Look hard at whats in your bbl and what your crown looks like.
I bought a pair of birds heads when they came out as a pair to the 327 Birds heads and BOTH of mine responded well to re crowning and good cleanings. They dont shoot to my old single six standards but are accurate "enough" to hit what I need shot. (So far)
CW
Winelover
North Central Arkansas
Not a fan of SA revolvers. LGS told me that they sell a ton of them. He had one guy purchase ten for his grandchildren. I considered the birds head grip model but found a few things lacking besides being SA and having fixed sights. IMO, Ruger missed the boat by not offering a 8 shot cylinder. Then there's the pot metal construction.
For a few dollars more, I ordered a 8 shot DA Charter Arms Pathfinder. I chose the 2" barrel for inexpensive practice comparable to my centerfire 2" barreled carry revolvers.
Would have preferred hammerless but that's not an option. Not that big of deal, cause I'm not looking to carry it. Nor do I have ever hammer cock it, either. Nowadays, shooting 22LR is cheaper than what a primer costs. And there is no prepping and reloading brass or casting bullets.
For a few dollars more, I ordered a 8 shot DA Charter Arms Pathfinder. I chose the 2" barrel for inexpensive practice comparable to my centerfire 2" barreled carry revolvers.
Would have preferred hammerless but that's not an option. Not that big of deal, cause I'm not looking to carry it. Nor do I have ever hammer cock it, either. Nowadays, shooting 22LR is cheaper than what a primer costs. And there is no prepping and reloading brass or casting bullets.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Like L. Ross, I don’t wish to rain on anyone’s parade. If you have a Wrangle and like it, that’s great.
Ruger isn’t the first company to find innovative materials and manufacturing methods to reduce costs. There are many examples of companies finding ways to build firearms with non-traditional but totally acceptable materials and methods. The Remington Nylon 66 comes to mind. H&K made the P9 and P9S pistols with a pressed steel and plastic-coated receiver. It also had a pressed steel slide. The roller delayed action with a separate bolt made this possible without sacrificing strength. The SIG P220 (P-75) and later 225 (P6), P226 and P228 all had pressed steel slides with separate breach blocks. Those pressed steel slides ran on aluminum frames. Those pistols are extremely reliable. The Glock pistols are probably the most well-known use of an innovative material for a pistol frame (although the H&K VP70, circa 1970 was the first pistol with a polymer frame). Polymer framed pistols are now extraordinarily common and certainly well proven.
However, Ruger is one of the best-known companies when it comes to using innovative manufacturing techniques. The Ruger Standard Pistol, later to become the Mark II and subsequent variants, used two stamped steel shells welded together to form the grip frame. This was coupled with a tubular steel receiver screwed to the barrel with a reciprocating internal bolt in place of a slide. This made for an extremely good pistol at a low price point.
Ruger later made EXTENSIVE use of cast steel to reduce manufacturing costs while making very strong and durable guns such as the Service-Six, GP-100, SP101 and many others. Ruger used investment cast steel processes in many firearms, and they have proven to be very strong. The P-85 and later P-series pistols used cost saving materials for multiple components. Ruger has used aluminum grip frames on SA revolvers for decades. The Ruger LCR revolver is a newer example of modern materials used to reduce both weight and cost.
So, the Wrangler series of SA revolvers are simply the latest examples of Ruger using non-traditional materials where possible to lower the price point of a product. The cast aluminum receiver and cast zinc grip frame of the Wrangler revolvers is certainly in line with Ruger’s history of innovative manufacturing. The use of MIM parts to further reduce manufacturing costs is another method to hold costs down while making adequate parts. The Cerakote type finish allows for a durable but inexpensive finish with lots of variations in colors. The stresses on the receiver, grip frame and small parts of a .22 rimfire, single action revolver are rather low. The Wranglers are inexpensive, lightweight, and largely rust-resistant. Overall, I understand Ruger’s course with the Wrangler series.
However (you knew this was coming), I question just how low does the price point need to be? Do we really need to shave every penny possible off the production cost to remain competitive?
Ruger isn’t the first company to find innovative materials and manufacturing methods to reduce costs. There are many examples of companies finding ways to build firearms with non-traditional but totally acceptable materials and methods. The Remington Nylon 66 comes to mind. H&K made the P9 and P9S pistols with a pressed steel and plastic-coated receiver. It also had a pressed steel slide. The roller delayed action with a separate bolt made this possible without sacrificing strength. The SIG P220 (P-75) and later 225 (P6), P226 and P228 all had pressed steel slides with separate breach blocks. Those pressed steel slides ran on aluminum frames. Those pistols are extremely reliable. The Glock pistols are probably the most well-known use of an innovative material for a pistol frame (although the H&K VP70, circa 1970 was the first pistol with a polymer frame). Polymer framed pistols are now extraordinarily common and certainly well proven.
However, Ruger is one of the best-known companies when it comes to using innovative manufacturing techniques. The Ruger Standard Pistol, later to become the Mark II and subsequent variants, used two stamped steel shells welded together to form the grip frame. This was coupled with a tubular steel receiver screwed to the barrel with a reciprocating internal bolt in place of a slide. This made for an extremely good pistol at a low price point.
Ruger later made EXTENSIVE use of cast steel to reduce manufacturing costs while making very strong and durable guns such as the Service-Six, GP-100, SP101 and many others. Ruger used investment cast steel processes in many firearms, and they have proven to be very strong. The P-85 and later P-series pistols used cost saving materials for multiple components. Ruger has used aluminum grip frames on SA revolvers for decades. The Ruger LCR revolver is a newer example of modern materials used to reduce both weight and cost.
So, the Wrangler series of SA revolvers are simply the latest examples of Ruger using non-traditional materials where possible to lower the price point of a product. The cast aluminum receiver and cast zinc grip frame of the Wrangler revolvers is certainly in line with Ruger’s history of innovative manufacturing. The use of MIM parts to further reduce manufacturing costs is another method to hold costs down while making adequate parts. The Cerakote type finish allows for a durable but inexpensive finish with lots of variations in colors. The stresses on the receiver, grip frame and small parts of a .22 rimfire, single action revolver are rather low. The Wranglers are inexpensive, lightweight, and largely rust-resistant. Overall, I understand Ruger’s course with the Wrangler series.
However (you knew this was coming), I question just how low does the price point need to be? Do we really need to shave every penny possible off the production cost to remain competitive?
It’s funny that the Nylon 66 is mentioned.
I’ve been using one of those cheaply made guns for fifty years. It’s in a scabbard on the tractor as we speak.
What I like about the Wrangler is due to its finish I don’t have to baby it to keep it rust free.
When they came out, I bought one for a Guinea pig to replace another “beater” - Heritage RR- that lobbed bullets sideways.
It outperformed the Heritage easily. But there are happy Heritage owners out there too; so maybe my example wasn’t representative.
I had thought that the Wrangler cylinder frame is the Zinc part and the grip frame is Aluminum. Is that wrong?
With Single Six revolvers going for $500+ used;
The Wrangler makes sense for lots of folks.
I’ve been using one of those cheaply made guns for fifty years. It’s in a scabbard on the tractor as we speak.
What I like about the Wrangler is due to its finish I don’t have to baby it to keep it rust free.
When they came out, I bought one for a Guinea pig to replace another “beater” - Heritage RR- that lobbed bullets sideways.
It outperformed the Heritage easily. But there are happy Heritage owners out there too; so maybe my example wasn’t representative.
I had thought that the Wrangler cylinder frame is the Zinc part and the grip frame is Aluminum. Is that wrong?
With Single Six revolvers going for $500+ used;
The Wrangler makes sense for lots of folks.
L Ross
Well-Known Member
Yeah, when you put it like that I can see a lot of merit. And is that what Single Six's are fetching these days?
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
I like my Single Sixes allot better. Not a fan of the pott metal. Thats why I wont own a Heritage. But the Wrangler is OK.
CW
CW
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The frame (receiver) of the Wrangler is aluminum.
The grip frame is zinc.
Neither of those parts are under a great deal of stress in a .22 rimfire SA revolver.
L Ross
Well-Known Member
Dammit P&P, you always make so much sense. I'll bet you could sell ice to penquins.
I don't have to make anyone happy but me when it comes to likin' stuff. I don't have to rational, nor consistent. I can be as arbitrary, capricious, even mercurial. I can even discriminate between Shiloh Sharps and C. Sharps in favor of C. Sharps because they used forgings and cut rifled barrels. Though I own both.
It saddens me to think that things started goin' ta hell in a hand basket in 1964 when I was but a lad.
I have been proven wrong about unleaded gas, fuel injection, modern automobiles and trucks, technology and a myriad of other topics. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
We all have some internal threshold concerning quality and cost. There was a time in my life when I believed pre-1968 cars were better because the government hadn’t mandated those ridiculous dual piston master cylinders and side marker lights prior to 1968. I’ve since re-examined those criteria and softened my views a bit.
I’m not sure that all cost savings measures are a bad thing and history shows this. Early clocks had gear trains made with iron gears. Later when sheet brass became available at low cost, gears were made of cheaper brass that was not only easier to work and less expensive, but it was also rust-proof. So, the cost went down, and the quality went up. This doesn’t always happen but it’s good when it does occur.
Firearms manufacturing is one of those industries where high cost isn’t absolutely linked to necessary quality. I’m not certain that I want to spend an extra thousand dollars for hand cut checkering on a fine walnut rifle stock that will be carried in the woods in the worst of weather. Every period publication I’ve read about the release of the Remington 870 in 1950 derided that model as the “punch press” gun due to the large amount of stamped steel parts. More than 11 million were produced over the span of 60+ years. There are countless similar examples of other successful inexpensive but very durable firearms.
Compromise is often seen as a negative, but a good compromise can be a positive.
I’m not sure that all cost savings measures are a bad thing and history shows this. Early clocks had gear trains made with iron gears. Later when sheet brass became available at low cost, gears were made of cheaper brass that was not only easier to work and less expensive, but it was also rust-proof. So, the cost went down, and the quality went up. This doesn’t always happen but it’s good when it does occur.
Firearms manufacturing is one of those industries where high cost isn’t absolutely linked to necessary quality. I’m not certain that I want to spend an extra thousand dollars for hand cut checkering on a fine walnut rifle stock that will be carried in the woods in the worst of weather. Every period publication I’ve read about the release of the Remington 870 in 1950 derided that model as the “punch press” gun due to the large amount of stamped steel parts. More than 11 million were produced over the span of 60+ years. There are countless similar examples of other successful inexpensive but very durable firearms.
Compromise is often seen as a negative, but a good compromise can be a positive.
Last edited:
2BZ2Ranch
New Member
A very interesting post. Thank you.
I’m well old enough to remember the 68 GCA. That act eliminated the “dreaded Saturday Night Special” which was all I could afford at the time. Your post did spark my curiosity enough to do a quick search and the results are amazing. That said, I honestly don’t think the Wrangler qualifies as a “SNS” regardless of the price point. It’s just a corporate decision made toward staying in business.
Dave
JWinAZ
Active Member
The Wrangler is an example of the incredible variety now available in all things firearms. Most other goods and services have the same kind of amazing variety. In some cases a sign of progress too. However, at times it is troublesome. To quote Ogden Nash: "Progress might have been alright once, but it has gone on too long."
