doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: ed good RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 12:20 AM
there is a ruger sxs for sale on gunbroker...

it reminds me of the story that some of these guns do not shoot both barrels to point of aim...any experiences you would like to share here?
Posted By: Last Dollar Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 01:11 AM
I had one for a while...performed well for me...shot quite a few birds used it one season...Didn't love it...didn't hate it..forget where it went
Posted By: skeettx Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 01:49 AM
https://www.gunbroker.com/Side-By-Side-S...turerName=Ruger
Posted By: nca225 Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 02:10 AM
I heard these guns were light and kicked like a damn mule. Any accuracy to that? Standard single trigger is a deal breaker for me.

However, if Ruger made em with a double trigger in a small bore, I'd probably have one.
Posted By: ed good Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 02:20 AM
the ones i have handled did seem light weight for a 12 bore with choke tubes...

noticed the three guys selling these guns on gb, do not offer a return policy...

Posted By: Shotgunjones Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 02:52 AM
Regulation issues killed the gun.

It's not a rumor, it's a fact.

Yet, people buy crap from Turkey that shoots just as poorly with triggers that are even worse than Ruger (and that takes talent to make) and rave about what a 'value' they received.

The weight complaints are unfounded. Had they been on the heavy side, people would have complained about that too.
Posted By: L. Brown Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 10:28 AM
I think most of the serious barrel regulation issues never made it out of the factory. That's one reason the price of the gun increased fairly rapidly. Ruger had to trash a bunch of barrels.

Weight . . . Ruger reduced weight by milling steel out of the receiver. The result was a lighter gun, but one that was barrel-heavy.

I don't know whether anyone is buying, but they're certainly asking big $ for the Gold Labels.

Mine shot OK, but I didn't like the balance. Never really cared for the Ruger safety either. And make it light . . . and then make it 3". Never made sense to me.
Posted By: Perry M. Kissam Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 03:04 PM
I still have one and like it. It is light which works well for me and my old shoulders when walking all day. Like Larry says I also have never cared that much for the Ruger safety but that is a minor point considering all the other things I do like about mine. My brother and I ordered a couple and paid for them and then waited over a year to get them. By that time the price had increased and the dealer tried to make us pay more or he would just refund our money whether we wanted him to or not. When threatened with a law suit he quickly delivered our guns!! I have had no problems with mine other than the safety going back on after firing. I shipped it back to Ruger at their expense and it was fixed. Also fixed was the wood that both me and my brother received. When we ordered them based on ones we had seen and handled at shows the wood was pretty classy. When I got mine it looked like a walnut stained 2x4. I called customer service and complained and was told to ship it back (same shipment as the safety) and the wood was replaced with some pretty spectacular wood. My brother then did the same. Other than that I have no complaints whatsoever with my Gold Label. I also marvel at making a 6.4 pound gun and then giving it 3 inch chambers!! I have never shot any 3 inch shells in it and do not plan to do so!! As to recoil with Golden Pheasant 5's, it is noticeable but not objectionable, at least not to me. I would love to have had it in 20 gauge though with 26 inch barrels.
Posted By: BrentD, Prof Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 03:11 PM
Perry,
Could you post some pictures? Sounds like a nice gun. I never picked one up, but I always thought the Red Label O/Us were darn heavy so I assumed the SxSs were too. Apparently not.
Posted By: Perry M. Kissam Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 04:28 PM
I will have to take a couple and then figure out how to post them. I may have to send them to one of you here to post for me.
Posted By: sxsman1 Re: RUGER SXS - 09/10/19 06:34 PM
I had one, couldn't hit a thing with it, I put it on paper and found the right barrel hit about 8" to left of point of aim and the left barrel hit about 18" high and the same left of point of aim. I called Ruger and they told me to send it in, and I did they returned the gun with new barrels and it still shot about 8" high and 8" to the left, I called Ruger and they told me to return it. I returned it and they told me they couldn't fix it and I could have another model in exchange for the Gold Label. I got a 28 gauge Red label with .410 tubes. The 28 gauge was a nice little gun but I didn't care for the .410 tubes, too heavy.
Pete
Posted By: Gunflint Charlie Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 04:51 AM
Larry, how about for shooting steel shot? Those loads wouldn't be killers for recoil in a light gun. The 3" chamber adds steel shot versatility for upland birds where it's required. And the drawback is ... what exactly?

Jay
Posted By: HomelessjOe Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 10:21 AM
I thought it was because they were so dang ugly only a liberal idiOt could see beauty in one.
Posted By: L. Brown Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 10:52 AM
Originally Posted By: Gunflint Charlie
Larry, how about for shooting steel shot? Those loads wouldn't be killers for recoil in a light gun. The 3" chamber adds steel shot versatility for upland birds where it's required. And the drawback is ... what exactly?

Jay


Specifically, which 3" steel loads are you speaking of, Jay? Depends on what you think you need in terms of pellet count (pattern density) and retained energy to do the job. In order to match a 1 1/4 oz load of lead 6's, you'd need 1 3/8 oz of steel 4's. To give you 2 ft-lbs of retained energy at 40 yards, you need to have a steel load with a velocity of 1275 fps (pretty modest by steel standards); 1220 fps for the 1 1/4 oz lead load. Difference in recoil energy: 36 ft-lbs with the steel load; 26 ft-lbs with the lead load. For a lot of people, that increase in recoil would be a definite drawback in a light gun.
Posted By: tut Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 01:05 PM
I held one in hand when they first came out and felt the wood to metal fit was pretty poor and on top of that the wood was very proud. To me a vintage Fox Sterlingworth had better wood to metal fit. To me it was indeed muzzle heavy. At the time I had 4 Merkel's in the inventory and I felt they were much much better put together.
Posted By: DoubleTake Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 01:19 PM
I had a pistol gripped Gold Label and I didn't have much to complain about. The wood to metal fit was decent with no gaps, and the gun functioned fine. The weight up front led to some high sporting clays scores, but it was an average shooter in the field. I got the heebie-jeebies about it when I learned that Ruger was no longer supporting the gun, and a guy at the club dearly wanted my PG model, so off it went.
Posted By: AZMike Re: RUGER SXS - 09/24/19 01:19 PM
I have a first year Red Label 20 (blued) that actually went back to Ruger because it loosened up just hunting for a few years!
It is a very good quail gun, Stan Baker re-choked to real open/real full, Sam Welch even engraved my old hunting dog Runyon on it!
I wouldn't get another Ruger.
© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com