I bought a Rough Rider with the 2 cylinders many years ago when they first came out. It was total junk. Granted, I know they have improved some, and they have several models of varying quality, but to put them in the same category as a Ruger, ANY Ruger, is outside my reasoning.

The barrel on my Rough Rider became loose after less than 150 rounds. The Mag cylinder would not reliably discharge, and the timing was screwed up. I paid $72.99 and DID NOT get my money out of it. I sent it back to Rough Rider after the warranty had expired (my bad) and they told me for $125.00 they could make it as good as new. I told them to send it back to me and no thanks. I already had it when it was as good as new and it was junk then, so thanks but no thanks ... I'll save the $125.00.

I received it back and I Loctited the barrel in, use only 22 shorts in it now, have converted the Mag cylinder to a paperweight,and it is actually a much better hammer than it is a pistol. It works fine for chipmunk executions, and for driving nails.

I bought a real 22 pistol in 2003 purchasing a Ruger Super Single Six in stainless with adjustable sights.

I wouldn't buy a Rough Rider in any configuration after my experience, but I have heard they got better. Just not better enough to ever get one and put it in the same gun cabinet with the Ruger.

I gotta go outside and fix the fence ... loose nails ... where's my pistol??