That seems to be the consensus on Ruger semiautos. I’ve fired one once, but never owned one. The one I’ve fired seemed reliable and solidly made - even if it seemed to me to have a bit of that “com-block tractor factory” aesthetic appeal.Liberty wrote:My Dad once told me " There are Vettes and Cadillacs. Neither will get you there any better than the Belair.
I don't know much about revolvers or Rossi, but I have owned a P95 and even qualified with it a couple of times. It shoots well and can be trusted to go bang every time. I have a couple of other more expensive handguns, but I don't shoot any of them better, nor trust any gun more. This all being said it's not everyone's cup of tea. Long DA trigger, heavy, and not very pretty. I won't ever get rid of it.
I don’t know much about Rossi revolvers, except that they look like another knock-off of S&W.
In answer to the OP’s question (which I did not address above), if $450 was the limit that I could spend for a long time, and I had to have two guns.....and then that was it....well then yeah, I would say go for it. Those are probably good choices.....although I would spend half of it on the Ruger pistol and the other half on a .22 rifle. But like bmwdr said below, as a matter of personal habit, I have always taken quality over quantity, and in the end, that standard has served me well. I don’t have all the guns I want, but I definitely have more than I need to survive - more guns than a lot of people have - and going for quality over quantity hasn’t stopped me from accumulating guns. So I guess I’ve been blessed. Of course, one man’s “quality” is another man’s “junk”. Happen to like Glock pistols as carry/home-defense pistols, and I like S&W and Ruger revolvers, so I would have probably bought one or the other, knowing that I would eventually own both anyway. But a lot of people on this forum would consider my choice of Glocks as junk, and would have gone for a CZ, or a nice 1911, or whatever. And caliber has something to do with it too. Is that Ruger semiauto a 9mm, .40, or .45? If its a .40 or a .45, the amount of money you spend on ammo over the long haul will end up costing you more than you saved on the gun, compared to my 9mm Glock, for which ammo is cheap, even though the gun cost more at the outset. So the question the OP poses doesn’t have a simple answer that is right or wrong for the majority of people. It’s like asking is it better to buy two gasoline powered F150s at a lower price, or one larger diesel powered truck at a higher price. What’s the application? If you live in a large travel trailer and intend to move it occasionally across state lines, the single diesel truck is the better choice, even though it cost more.
To each his own. There is no right answer. There is only that answer which works for that individual.
It is a big ol' brick of a pistol, it will win no beauty contests, and it doesn't shoot MOA no matter how good of a shooter you may be. But it consistently will shoot MOBG and since it's so reliable, that's what matters most. It's the one pistol I really would never want to sell.
