Colt vs Ruger

[Photon Guy]

When it comes to single action revolvers both Colt and Ruger are really good but Im wondering which to choose. I've never had a Colt revolver but I do have a single action Ruger Vaquero in .45 LC which I really like. Colt does make some fine revolvers of that caliber but they're about $400 more than the Ruger Vaquero. I want to get another single action revolver and I've been looking at both Ruger and Colt. As of right now Im leaning towards Ruger since from my experience with them you get what you pay for and more.

[Jhaydeno]

I've got multiple Ruger handguns, and every one of them is great : built like tanks and never a problem. Colt makes some phenomenal firearms, but you do pay for them. The last Colt I sold, I got twice what I thought it was worth.

If you look at guns like investments and treat them well, buy the Colt. If you plan on keeping them forever and taking them to the muddy range on the passenger seat floorboards, purchase the Ruger.

[d4xycrq]

I like Colt better than Ruger, although Colt has, on occasion, disappointed their buyers. Years ago I had a Colt Trooper MkIII and had the opportunity to shoot a Ruger GP100, too. Was very happy I bought the Colt, even though a Trooper was considered a very modest revolver as compared to a Diamondback or Python.

As for your $400 price difference - I'd consider that a good investment in the world of Single Action Army revolvers.

Ray

[alpacaheat]

I've got multiple Ruger handguns, and every one of them is great : built like tanks and never a problem. Colt makes some phenomenal firearms, but you do pay for them. The last Colt I sold, I got twice what I thought it was worth.

If you look at guns like investments and treat them well buy the Colt. If you plan on keeping them forever and taking them to the muddy range on the passenger seat floorboards, purchase the Ruger.

Good assessment.

I have several Rugers, including a couple of EDC pieces that I've never had issues with. I'm a huge Ruger fan.

But like you said, if you're looking for a long-term collector piece to pass on, or resell later, go Colt.

[Action Jackson]

Ruger makes some nice looking revolvers. I was thinking of purchasing a GP100. Now I'm looking at the King Cobra which is supposed to be available this year.

When it come to SSA firearms I prefer Colt. I've had mine since 1971. It fires .357 round through a five and a half inch barrel and cost me $69.

[MD66948]

Colt!!!! Ruger's frames are beefy because they are made from castings and not milled from a solid block of steel.

[Hodgie]

Colt!!!! Ruger's frames are beefy because they are made from castings and not milled from a solid block of steel.

Correct, but it doesn't effect accuracy, function, reliability or longevity so it's really a moot point. What it comes down to is what the others said a "collectors" grade gun with a higher price because of a pony on the side or a daily shooting work horse with a lower resale value.

In my opinion the prestige of owning new production guns of once iconic companies is long gone. So many of these companies have switched hands time and time again, cut corners with manufacturing, QC and many now import more guns from other countries then they actually produce themselves.

[Brick]

Colt!!!! Ruger's frames are beefy because they are made from castings and not milled from a solid block of steel.

Then why does Linebaugh build his guns on Ruger frames?

[R L Suehr]

If it's a wall hanger, collector piece that gets shot occasionally get the colt. If you're going to shoot the hell out of it, get the Ruger. The only advantage to the colt roll mark is collector appeal when it comes to saa. If you want something more authentic, look at Uberti or cimminaron. Both have excellent quality reproduction.

[R L Suehr]

Then why does Linebaugh build his guns on Ruger frames?

^^^this^^^

Nothing wrong with the Ruger casting process other than weight. If you reload you'll see loads that are only meant to be fired in Ruger revolvers for a reason. They're generally overbuilt for caliber.