|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 members (12boreman, battle, 1 invisible),
181
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,935
Posts550,906
Members14,460
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 197 Likes: 5
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 197 Likes: 5 |
When I was blinded in my right eye (master eye and shooting eye, of course) I sold all my SXS shotguns EXCEPT my RGL. It weighs 6 lbs 9 oz with a straight grip and is just very faintly muzzle heavy. Had looked at three different ones before I purchased the one I have. Excellent fit & finish on this one, the others not so much. I really like it and absolutely don't understand the gripes people have about the safety. Have owned about six or so of the Red Labels and no complaints about the safeties, just too heavy guns. After becoming one eyed I found that SXS barrels blocked too much of my vision. YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,211 Likes: 224
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,211 Likes: 224 |
I've always wanted a CD 201 in 20 gauge, so that is my choice. A shooting friend liked the Gold Medal so much, he special ordered his engraved and with a portrait of his Chessie in the engraving. He also special ordered English Walnut. He probably has the fanciest Gold Label out there. It is a wonderful gun and he shoots it often.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,017 Likes: 70
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,017 Likes: 70 |
I owned a pistol gripped Gold Label for about 3 years. I can't say I had a bit of trouble with it and it shot well for me. A combination of things resulted me letting it go. Knowing the resale value was increasing I didn't want to scratch it up hunting, and at the same time I didn't want to have that much invested in a gun that only saw the range now and then. A fellow the club had a straight-stocked Gold Label and he dearly wanted mine as he had looked high and low for a pistol gripped model. So with all those things in mind I ended up selling it to him and reinvested in another direction.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
I pick #1
And I'd have sold it by now for a handsome profit. Yes, if you bought one new, today you'd make some resale profit for sure. Here's what Phil Bourjaily wrote in a 2005 review. He bought one, and several years later wrote that it was his "plains and pheasant gun." “Patterned after the round-action guns of John Dickson, the Gold Label is wonderfully slim and light; at 6 1 /2 pounds with 28-inch barrels, this 12 gauge is lighter and trimmer than many 20 gauges .... The Gold Label handles like a British best but sells for a price many ordinary uplanders can afford. Although the Gold Label was announced in 2002, production problems kept it from dealer’s shelves until this year. It’s here now, and upland hunters can rejoice. $2000.” The comparison with weight of some 20 ga. doubles applies here in spades. A "for sale" listing for a 20 ga. Classic Doubles 201 with good details in the description lists weight as 7 lbs. 3 oz. Jay I think what's "good handling" to one shooter does not appeal to another. I ended up buying the GL Ruger sent me for field test. Can't say it was a mistake, in the sense that I didn't lose any money. But it was a mistake as far as a gun I wanted to keep. At that time, I had a pair of Army & Navy 12 bore boxlocks, made by Webley & Scott. Weight was several ounces less than the GL. They were a far cry from a British best, but to me, they handled much better than the GL. And of course they did not remain $2,000 guns for very long. One reason Ruger dropped them was they claimed they were losing money on the guns--which is a pretty good reason to stop making them, if you can't sell them for more. The main reason they sell for more now is that a relatively small number were produced. And I'm not sure how close the actual selling prices are to the asking prices, which sometimes approach $4K. Wonder if Don Amos ever spun a GL on his MOI machine? Would be interesting to know just how closely the gun's handling characteristics approached that of a real British best.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 916 Likes: 1 |
I think what's "good handling" to one shooter does not appeal to another. I ended up buying the GL Ruger sent me for field test. Can't say it was a mistake, in the sense that I didn't lose any money. But it was a mistake as far as a gun I wanted to keep. At that time, I had a pair of Army & Navy 12 bore boxlocks, made by Webley & Scott. Weight was several ounces less than the GL. They were a far cry from a British best, but to me, they handled much better than the GL.
...
Wonder if Don Amos ever spun a GL on his MOI machine? Would be interesting to know just how closely the gun's handling characteristics approached that of a real British best. Larry, just out of curiosity -- what would be your percentage estimate of mistake vs. non-mistake gun purchases based on number bought vs. the number you've kept?  I've read quite a few of Don's posts about MOI, but don't recall if he identified a narrow MOI range as representing "British best gun" handling characteristics. Guess I'd expect quite a lot of variance reflecting differences in what "good handling" meant for their original buyers. I'd be interested in comparing the RGL's handling measurements to a bunch of "bests". Don wrote this in a thread a few years ago. I assume you understand stock measurements and would agree that they can't be "summed up" by any one measurement or descriptor. Consider that handling dynamicas are the same in that it takes four measurements to describe any particular gun's handling. Also, consider that, just like stock dimensions, handling dimensions need to be "fitted" to the individual shooter. And this in another. Since many "best work" guns are bespoke, we should assume that the stock dimensions and handling dimensions suited the the bespeaker. We should also assume that the "best work" gunmaker satisfied himself that the bespeaker was properly advised as to his specifications. That is to say, the bespeaker will have a gun which suits him/her personally for the purpose communicated to the maker. I imagine the RGL's light weight was Bourjaily's main reference point for best gun handling. Jay
Last edited by Gunflint Charlie; 03/10/15 10:49 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
Jay, most of my mistakes have been either guns I paid too much for, or else guns I should have kept. The Ruger GL falls into neither of those categories. There is a range of handling characteristics that are generally regarded as being more appropriate for a game gun than for, say, a pigeon gun or a waterfowl gun. The GL certainly fell within typical game gun weight, which was more or less 6 1/4-6 3/4#. But his machine would have gone further than I'm able to in terms of quantifying how the gun's barrel heavy balance impacted its overall handling. All I know is that it was not what I was looking for. I do give Ruger credit for making a gallant effort . . . which resulted in their learning that making a sxs from scratch without experience can be pretty challenging.
|
|
|
|
|
