[PilatusTurbo]

You need to try accuracy with the defect and then with the new barrel

It really won't/didn't affect accuracy. I'm saying I do not believe it'll present an accuracy or reliability problem, and in my case, it did neither. However, it is something that won't get better with time, and needs fixing.

The problem is they're probably craaaaanking these RXMs out as rapidly as possible, because everywhere I've gone they're either sold out or one or two left.

That doesn't really excuse the defect in machining, which I've had that issue with Ruger before just not a barrel, but it does help explain it. I'm not saying anyone should just be "OK" or not be bothered by it; that's up to them. Personally, I have several guns to shoot or carry, so if one is down and back to the mothership for repairs, it's not a biggie. They kinda wanted my first RXM with the PMAGs issue, but I told them it's running satisfactorily with Glock mags, so they kinda left it up to me. I opted to not send it in. RXM #2 is there now, and they have the PMAGs, too. It ran 100% reliably, and no accuracy issues with the barrel chatter.

 

[J_Rico]

Interesting thread. Glad this seems to be a winner for Ruger and Magpul. Looking forward to what future models they release.

I have zero need for one of these, but that has never stopped me before.

 

[heydrich]

Mine does not have this defect in the barrel.
Possible serial number defect range?

 

[boilergonzo]

Knowing the date range could help folks sort out whether this was an issue associated with machine/machinist, or whether it was batches. I'd rather have that than those crazy off-center barrels we saw briefly with Glock, or the bad crowns on some SIG guns.

Not good, but manufacturing is never flawless, and is usually the worst for the first production runs as they iron things out. They likely had manufacturing runs for months, building up inventory in distribution warehouses until release, so who knows how far in they got prior to seeing the issue.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

Knowing the date range could help folks sort out whether this was an issue associated with machine/machinist, or whether it was batches. I'd rather have that than those crazy off-center barrels we saw briefly with Glock, or the bad crowns on some SIG guns.

Not good, but manufacturing is never flawless, and is usually the worst for the first production runs as they iron things out. They likely had manufacturing runs for months, building up inventory in distribution warehouses until release, so who knows how far in they got prior to seeing the issue.

Precisely my thoughts. Manufacturing is gonna have issues, here and there; I'm sure there will be a few here soon to tell us this never happened with Glock or Brand X or Brand Y. Yeah, it has.

@MCPreacher @vart If you guys are willing to divulge your serials, I can email the tech at Prescott if there seems to be a correlation. The issues are nearly identical barrel chattering to mine. DM me if you're interested, and I'll DM my serial also. We can post it here, too, if you guys want.

 

[Rich_J]

...and another one.

Mine is s/n range 094-22xxx. Have contacted Ruger to explain the concern, and request a new barrel. Will advise what they say.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

...and another one.

Mine is s/n range 094-22xxx. Have contacted Ruger to explain the concern, and request a new barrel. Will advise what they say.

View attachment 1356882
View attachment 1356883

That's 4 of us and counting. Mine is 094-229xx. Show me your X and I'll show you mine..

I wonder what their response will be. As I said (not to be the apologist, it sucks) at least it did not affect accuracy or function, so a replacement can and should be an easy fix.

They damn well better just send you guys a new barrel, not requiring you to send the gun in. There's now 4 confirmed cases just HERE, so tell them that. We've all shared photos of it, same exact issue.

As I've said, in the past, I had poor slide machining on a Sec 9 Compact. Prescott simply offered to send a brand new complete slide minus barrel, with an SASE to return the defective slide to them once I had the new one in hand. REQUIRE THAT.

 

[heydrich]

Just as an FYI, mine DOES NOT have the barrel defect with a S/N 094-24XXX
Maybe give an idea for a upper and lower base line.

 

[PilatusTurbo]

Just as an FYI, mine DOES NOT have the barrel defect with a S/N 094-24XXX
Maybe give an idea for a upper and lower base line.

Yup, my first RXM LOL does not have the barrel defect, and has a later serial 094-249xx

 

[Jarhead Al]

My 2nd RXM had this issue. I thought I brought it up in a recent post, but there's a lot of posts. Call Ruger, they'll get you a label to send it back. Mine is currently up the road in Prescott. My first RXM does not have this issue, and is a later serial in the series. They'll apologize, and they will get it made right for ya.


At this point, I'd call, wait on hold. Politely then inform them that you know of several people online showing pictures, and you want a new barrel overnighted or 2nd day air with an SASE. If they require the pistol to come back, at this point, I'd be disappointed.

However, it is a risk we take/took being an early adopter. I knew stuff like this would happen, but Ruger is solid, so I'm not stressed.

There are bound to be growing pains when any new item is released. The fact that Ruger seems to be fixing things is all one can expect at this time. If Ruger fixes things in a timely fashion and is transparent with those issues, it will boost their reputation. You and @PilatusTurbo are just glorified beta testers.😉

 

[PilatusTurbo]

There are bound to be growing pains when any new item is released. The fact that Ruger seems to be fixing things is all one can expect at this time. If Ruger fixes things in a timely fashion and is transparent with those issues, it will boost their reputation. You and @PilatusTurbo are just glorified beta testers.😉

Myself and myself are beta testers? Austin Powers: "Allow myself to introduce.... myself.... My name is Richie Cunningham, and this is my wife OPRAH."

 

[Jarhead Al]

You're worth a double mention, one mention for each of your two RXMs

 

[python357]

Mine is a 94-192xx, I'll have to get a picture with some good light to confirm it doesn't have the chatter marks.

 

[MCPreacher]

I DM'd my serial, but it is 094-44XXX so a lot later than any of yours so far. Since there are no serials on the barrels, I doubt we can track them that way. Seems like the barrels are done in different batches from the other parts in any case, so it may be a wild goose chase.

 

[arjohnson]

Just checked my barrel, looks fine, no marks like pictured. Mines a low serial number 10xxx

 

[PilatusTurbo]

I DM'd my serial, but it is 094-44XXX so a lot later than any of yours so far. Since there are no serials on the barrels, I doubt we can track them that way. Seems like the barrels are done in different batches from the other parts in any case, so it may be a wild goose chase.

The good news is, even though it's probably not an issue in the short term for accuracy or reliability as I've mentioned, they will get you taken care of. I know Ruger, they will. We decided to jump in early on this new pistol line, and so many new releases from so many gun companies have had teething issues. We trudge on.

 

[vart]

My serial # is 94-251xx

 

[vart]

If I'm not mistaken, the RXM should accept a Glock Gen 1-4 G19 barrel.

I have a Storm Lake barrel from a Gen 4 G19 that I would try, but I'm on vacation and the barrel is home.

 

[Rich_J]

The good news is, even though it's probably not an issue in the short term for accuracy...

I also am interested in accuracy. I think it's too early to tell for mine. Long-winded response below:

The first two range sessions, I was focusing mainly functionality and reliability. Squeeze = bang.

Having said that...

Bearing in mind I am no great shooter, in the past I have used three shooting metrics: Ken Hackathorn's "The Test" (10 rounds at 10 yards in 10 seconds on a B-8) (PASS=95%), Ten rounds slow fire, again on an NRA B-8 at 25 yards, standing two handed unsupported (PASS=90%), and a transition drill called "Find Your Level" which is one round on a 1" square, 2 rounds on a 2" circle, 3 rounds on a 3" square and finally 4 rounds on a 4" circle, again, standing two hand unsupported, untimed (PASS=10/10). I'm currently using the same range ammo I've always used, Federal American Eagle, either 115 or 124.

My historical log book shows the last recorded high scores below for my Glocks, which are "similar" to the RXM. I have 11,000+ rounds through 6 Glocks since 2017.

To date, I've shot the RXM with two runs of "the test", scoring 9 on paper (?) with a high of 83, and one run of "find your level" at 4 yards with a score of 7 of 10. All of these were done with an optic; a 507k on my G48, and a 507c on my G19G5 and G34 game gun. Same for the RXM, which currently has a 407k.

I'll say I was a bit surprised at only 9 on paper at 10 yards. That is usually something I can do. I mean, of course, I have a tendency to yank low and away, but the RXM trigger is pretty flat. I've shot my G34 game gun 000's of rounds with an Apex trigger, which is very similar. This kinda made me go hmmm. As well, only 7 of 10 on FYL at 4 yards, especially when I have a 10/10 at 5 yards with Glocks, is weird. If I have problems with FYL, it's usually trying to hit the 1" square. My failing scores are typically 9/10. 7/10 is not good.

So, at least based on the results so far, the accuracy of this particular RXM seems to be less than what I can do with a Glock, either single or double stack.

Next range session I'm going to do some benched shooting with carry ammo (Federal HST 124) to try and remove me from the equation and see how consistent it is. Maybe it's me, getting used to the gun, or maybe it's the gun. I dunno. I do hope Ruger takes care of this issue, so I can eliminate this defect as a variable.

At the moment I'd say I was a little disappointed in accuracy.

	Glock 48 507K
The Test (10)	98-5X	(6/4/21)	PASS
25 Yard B8	78-1x	(1/18/21)	FAIL
FYL 5 YD	10	(1/21/21)	PASS
	Glock 19 507C
The Test (10)	95-1X	07/05/21	PASS
25 Yard B8	88-1X	08/01/21	FAIL
FYL 5 YD	9	08/01/21	FAIL
	Glock 34 507C
The Test (10)	99-0X	03/04/21	PASS
25 Yard B8	92-3X	05/30/21	PASS
FYL 5 YD	10	01/21/21	PASS

 

[PilatusTurbo]

I also am interested in accuracy. I think it's too early to tell for mine. Long-winded response below:

The first two range sessions, I was focusing mainly functionality and reliability. Squeeze = bang.

Having said that...

Bearing in mind I am no great shooter, in the past I have used three shooting metrics: Ken Hackathorn's "The Test" (10 rounds at 10 yards in 10 seconds on a B-8) (PASS=95%), Ten rounds slow fire, again on an NRA B-8 at 25 yards, standing two handed unsupported (PASS=90%), and a transition drill called "Find Your Level" which is one round on a 1" square, 2 rounds on a 2" circle, 3 rounds on a 3" square and finally 4 rounds on a 4" circle, again, standing two hand unsupported, untimed (PASS=10/10). I'm currently using the same range ammo I've always used, Federal American Eagle, either 115 or 124.

My historical log book shows the last recorded high scores below for my Glocks, which are "similar" to the RXM. I have 11,000+ rounds through 6 Glocks since 2017.

To date, I've shot the RXM with two runs of "the test", scoring 9 on paper (?) with a high of 83, and one run of "find your level" at 4 yards with a score of 7 of 10. All of these were done with an optic; a 507k on my G48, and a 507c on my G19G5 and G34 game gun. Same for the RXM, which currently has a 407k.

I'll say I was a bit surprised at only 9 on paper at 10 yards. That is usually something I can do. I mean, of course, I have a tendency to yank low and away, but the RXM trigger is pretty flat. I've shot my G34 game gun 000's of rounds with an Apex trigger, which is very similar. This kinda made me go hmmm. As well, only 7 of 10 on FYL at 4 yards, especially when I have a 10/10 at 5 yards with Glocks, is weird. If I have problems with FYL, it's usually trying to hit the 1" square. My failing scores are typically 9/10. 7/10 is not good.

So, at least based on the results so far, the accuracy of this particular RXM seems to be less than what I can do with a Glock, either single or double stack.

Next range session I'm going to do some benched shooting with carry ammo (Federal HST 124) to try and remove me from the equation and see how consistent it is. Maybe it's me, getting used to the gun, or maybe it's the gun. I dunno. I do hope Ruger takes care of this issue, so I can eliminate this defect as a variable.

At the moment I'd say I was a little disappointed in accuracy.

	Glock 48 507K
The Test (10)	98-5X	(6/4/21)	PASS
25 Yard B8	78-1x	(1/18/21)	FAIL
FYL 5 YD	10	(1/21/21)	PASS
	Glock 19 507C
The Test (10)	95-1X	07/05/21	PASS
25 Yard B8	88-1X	08/01/21	FAIL
FYL 5 YD	9	08/01/21	FAIL
	Glock 34 507C
The Test (10)	99-0X	03/04/21	PASS
25 Yard B8	92-3X	05/30/21	PASS
FYL 5 YD	10	01/21/21	PASS

Maybe accuracy is marginally affected, then? Yeah, almost everyone saying they've contacted Ruger is emailing or messaging them. Call their number, option 5, option 5, and hold times lately have been 15-25 minutes. I always wait through their "we are busy, call back later" message, and get a person on the phone after about 15 or so minutes. I've been in touch with them a lot lately, as to the PMAGs issue, but I'm also calling to report findings and stuff.