The Ruger's hammer throw was very long, almost centerfire-like, and had a 'hitch' about 3/4 of the way through cocking. Its cylinder seemed to be dragging at the rear (overly tight fitting or Cerakote uneveness maybe?). The Heritage doesn't give up much though, and I've looked at at least one with the 4.75' barrel - it was also serviceable IMO.īig surprise here: The Wrangler was very rough out of the box, and improved only slightly with shooting.

The Ruger takes home the gold again with an actual - if subtle - rear notch & slightly crisper front blade. Oddly, despite my small hands and stubby digits, I felt both revolvers could have used larger (or longer) grips my supporting trigger-hand fingers were cramped together even on the larger Wrangler's grip. The Rough Rider was fine overall, but neither the stock grips nor the aftermarket pink ones were quite as comfortable or 'grippy.' I had to shift the gun in my hand less when cocking the hammer between shots. The Wrangler takes this one too - wider, more comfortable and taller in the grip frame. The Ruger's loading gate felt much more solid, and stayed open better for takedown, than the Heritage's did. My buddy's Heritage had a scuffed barrel and rough frame edges that weren't smoothed out or finished over properly. The Ruger definitely wins here, with a nice smooth finish, solid feel and tidy workmanship. As I may have mentioned, shot these two at my buddy's place last weekend put about 200 rounds through them, mostly break-in and informal accuracy testing.I'll try and compare them as best I can.

Heritage rough rider 45 review