Gentlemen:
I fear I'll ramble on a bit here...
About Ruger:
I didn't know that Bill Ruger was dead, and after the post about the LCP and the SR9 (with which I'm not familiar) I looked them up. The reliability issue isn't one I'm used to being associated with Ruger arms.
Sure enough, as was pointed out about Bill Ruger shying away from concealed carry type weapons, what I learned was that, basically, the SR9 is a Glock knock off and the LCP is basically a Kel Tec knock off. I have to say, if someone is going to copy something, it would seem reasonable to expect an improvement over the original, at least from Ruger!
My personal experience with Rugers doesn't at all encompass any of these. I have 2 Rugers, a #1 in .270 and a Blackhawk in 45 Colt (pic below) and am familiar with my Dad's .22 auto 6" (which has changed since then) and my Brother's 4" Security Six in .357.
My #1: I like it a lot, it is very accurate. There is an issue with the bedding of the fore end that must be solved to correct a wandering zero. I've implemented a way of doing it that doesn't alter the rifle permanently -- will discuss when I post the picture. It is very nicely made with great wood and a fine trigger -- a copy of the old British designs with the improvement of putting the hammer in the falling block and using investment castings to make the thing affordable.
My Blackhawk: Very capable and a good value for the money. I paid $135 for it in 1978. i have shot loads up to 23 gr of 296 WW behind 250 gr Hornadys, which makes for quite a bang. This is much hotter than any Colt SAA could stand.
The cylinder is a bit larger than the Colt -- that's where part of its strength comes from, and this is what usually seems to have distinguished Ruger designs from other handguns. Its finish, as you can see from comparing it to my Colt Commemorative above, is utilitarian. (The Colt is "new-in-box" and is the 1964 125-year Colt Commemorative. Its finish is exquisite. I've only handled it a few times; it just sits in the box. There is simply nothing like an old Colt IMO.)
The .22 auto: very capable, accurate and reliable. They were a great value for the money.
The Security Six: a working gun, decently finished, but heavy. The action is nothing at all like a Colt DA revolver. It shot fine, but as it was my Brother's carry gun, I always thought it was like carrying a club, but then again, it was his choice, not mine.
Anyhow, I can't say much about the two faulty Rugers that have been cited, as I've never shot them or a Glock or a Keltec. I do understand that both the Glock and the Keltec are both quite reliable -- I know folks with Glocks who swear by them. As Ruger (in my mind, at least) was famous for using cutting edge manufacturing with innovative design to bring good guns at good prices to market, both the S9 and the LCP seem to have fallen far short, as they were not engineered/tested adequately and certainly don't seem to have the innovation that the Rugers I'm used to would offer.
On the LCR, I have to admit, on DA revolvers, I am very biased toward Colts, as you've seen from some of my other postings.
I learned about the actions used on Colt DAs years ago in an old book in a small town library. That book had those old time pictures that look like ancient patent de.scriptions, but I was able to make out how the action worked. The action I'm talking about is the Belgian Schmidt-Galand action. I am surprised that one can find so little about it on the www -- only a few references and no pictures or de.scription at all.
(I'd like to go on about this a bit, because I find DA revolvers to be a weird mix of the primitive and the complex simultaneously, and that's why I find them interesting. I got tired of chasing brass when shooting varmints with my 1911 and decided that a .38 Special Revolver was what was needed, and that's why I read up on this stuff originally.)
Colt had brought out a double action revolver in 1877. Unofficially, the version in .38 was called the "Lightning" and the version in .41 was called the "Thunderer." A bit later, a larger, 45 caliber version was introduced. This one was unofficially called the "Omnipotent," and tho it looked like a larger version, it was different mechanically. None of these revolvers have noticeable locking lugs, because they are in the back of the cylinder. One of the more widely recognized pieces of trivia about this weapon is that the American outlaw, Billy the Kid liked the Thunderer. They looked a lot like a Single Action Army with a solid frame and no swing-out cylinder, and with a bird's head grip. Back in the 70s and early 80s, I could have bought them pretty cheaply. All of the ones I saw were broken, however. They were notorious for being fragile. (the gun below isn't mine.)
Sometime later, Colt brought out a double action revolver with a swing out cylinder. At first, they had no visible locking notches on the cylinder, for they were in the back like the previous models. Then Colt added one set of locking notches, to keep the cylinder from turning backwards. Then, both sets of locking lugs were put on the outside of the cylinder, as on the one below (it isn't mine):
Of this second design, they all (as you can see in the picture) have the side plate of the action on the right side and their cylinders turn counter-clockwise, just like Smith & Wessons do.
Finally, Colt bought into the Schmidt Galand patent from Belgium, which a number of European revolvers used. (I think that some of the old British Webleys might have used this action, too.) One chief attribute of this action is that it has a positive stop for the hammer that is activated by the trigger. This allows you to carry the weapon with the chamber under the hammer loaded and there is no fear that striking the hammer will set off that round. We take this for granted, but the feature was a big deal back then. The Colts that use the Schmidt-Galand action all have the side plate on the left and the cylinder rotating clockwise.
The first Colts to use this Schmidt-Galand action were the 32 caliber "Pocket Positive" and "Police Positive" models of 1905. (When these were modified to take the longer .38 Special cartridge, the cylinder and frame were lengthened and "Special" was added to the name. My "Detective Special" is a direct descendent of the Colt Schmidt-Galand small "D" frame DA revolver.)
In 1908, Colt brought out models of their medium .41 caliber frame ("I" frame) as the Army Special and Official Police. The famous Colt Python is the direct descendent of these weapons.
In 1909, Colt brought out their large .45 caliber frame "New Service" revolvers that used the Schmidt Galand action.
I cannot find a good picture of the action for you, so I will post these for comparison. Note that all of the different sizes of Colts using the Schmidt-Galand action are very similar.
(
http://www.coltparts.com/pix_python.jpg)
Compare that with this SMith & Wesson diagram:
(
http://www.e-gunparts.com/images/schematic/1980z10.jpg)
The Smith action has a lot more little parts -- the Schmidt-Galand action of the Colt has only a few parts that do everything. All sorts of angles and sliding motions take place in the Colt -- one reason why they discontinued the action on most of their revolvers. It takes a lot of knowledgeable hand fitting to make one work correctly. However, as is said here:
Python is a unique breed. In fact, a friend of mine works in another company. I asked him "do you own any other brands". He said "yes, I've got a few Colts". What makes the Colt so unique is the amount of handfitting. The Colt is both simple and very complex from an armorers stand point. The key to proper timing is rebound, lifter interaction. Very complex and the Colt has a height sensitive hand (called a "lifter" by Colt). Just the same, the Rebound fitting is touchy. With that Colt single action engagement. The action is unique. Although smoother then any production revolver ever manufactured. Hand tuning takes the action to a level of performance that is beyond comprehension. The Colt Python is one of the best revolvers ever manufacturered and I suggest you read Jerry Kuhnhausens book "Colt Revolvers Volume 1". Look at the sections on timing and rebound levers. What is apparent even to those trained. Many areas of the rebound have multiple effects on timing. Go for it, that snake is a very expensive gun to manuacturer.
(
http://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=37478)
This fellow has pretty much said it all about what separates what a Schmidt-Galand action is all about!
Now, the big deal about what I saw in that Ruger LCR is that, for one thing, they do away with the single action. This simplifies things. Secondly, they are using a new way of changing the leverages (the cam business they mention on their site) to offer a non-stacking trigger pull. Whether or not they have achieved this, I cannot say, but I would admit that it is certainly possible to achieve the same or nearly the same results as a Schmidt-Galand action and make a differently designed action approach a Python for smoothness.
Just using the new materials, while interesting, wasn't the whole reason my interest was whetted. I liked the idea of something really innovative in the lock work. For instance, did the camming action that is used in compound bows really improve the capabilities of the bow, as compared to a longbow or a recurved bow? That's the direction my mind went in when I saw the material on this LCR. Of course, just how it actually works remains to be seen.
!!! Thanks for sharing.