Ranger | New Belgium Brewing

very good
1,312 Reviews

Brewed by:
New Belgium Brewing
Colorado, United States

Style: American IPA

Alcohol by volume (ABV): 6.50%

Availability: Year-round

Notes / Commercial Description:
70 IBU

Added by brownbeer on 12-30-2009

For Trade:
User Reviews
Sort by:  Recent | High | Low | Top Raters | Alström Bros
first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Reviews: 1,312 | Ratings: 5,922
Photo of DavidTW41
1/5  rDev -73.9%
look: 1 | smell: 1 | taste: 1 | feel: 1 | overall: 1

Let me put this gently...All these rating categories do nothing for me. I filled a number because it is required, and there is not a zero I could have given this beer. I cannot smell any difference from one beer to another. My only rating criteria is "I like it or I do not like it." I find some beers are worth more than one, others are not. Ranger IPA is one of the "nots." I had one and found it to be whimpy at best, lacked bite, lacked flavor with little or no character. Now perhaps some folks are far more advance in beer tastes than I, but I know what beers are good to me. Ranger is not a good IPA.

 607 characters

Photo of jethrodium
1.32/5  rDev -65.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 1

On tap. Pours a clear light amber with a small white head that has decent retention and leaves some light lacing on the glass. The aroma is pine and dank hops, some light caramel, sugar cookie, and a lot of butterscotch. Quite nasty. The taste is sweet with piney and dank hops, caramel, and tons of butterscotch and buttered popcorn. Nasty butterscotch finish with a light bitterness. Medium body. Medium carbonation. This is one of the worst beers I've had. I only had a couple ounces of it. I'm assuming it was a bad batch, but I won't be ordering it again.

 560 characters

Photo of Savewaterdrinkbeer
1.81/5  rDev -52.7%
look: 2.5 | smell: 1.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Pours good with nice head and lacing.

Appearence is medium-light amber. Moderate carbonation.

Very mild citrus with a little funky smell. Not very aromatic.

Piney with mild citrus notes, hoppiness over-powers flavor, very bitter after taste.

Watery feeling, goes flat quickly...you will notice if you cant get past the bitter after taste.

Overall, personally i wont buy again, ive had better that cost less!!

This is my personal opinion.

 444 characters

Photo of 928BeerBlog
1.88/5  rDev -50.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 2

Severely disappointed to find that this is an extra bitter brew (ESB) not an IPA. This is far too bitter to be considered an IPA. Who can drink stuff this BITTER? It made me sick to my stomach. This is SOUR like taking a huge bite of the white inside of an orange peel, unbearably bitter!

So sour in fact that I called them to see if they take pride in their brews. Apparently not seeing as how I had to suggest that they take down the batch number to see if others had concerns. The lady told me this beer is the #2 IPA, all natural and vegan & that they get a high volume of complaints?! Either label it right or recall the batch.

This is alcohol folks and improper brewing can be dangerous and can make people sick. How can you begin to review a beer that isn't made with pride? No accountability means you don't get my business.

I was trying to get to the bottom of why this beer turned my stomach after drinking it. It's a business with a bottom line.

Severely disappointed to find a failed attempt at beer,
as well as customer service.


 1,069 characters

Photo of hdf561
1.92/5  rDev -49.9%
look: 3 | smell: 1 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2.5

Poured from bottle into English pub glass....more Amber than gold but very clear lacing through out glass minimal head on pour that lasted no time....I will freely admit I do not like IPA's but my buddy recommended it so I am trying it...initial smell is awful the hops completely overwhelm anything in the first few sniffs, after my nose adjusts I can smell some caramel possibly some spices but still a ton of hops...taste is surprisingly decent smoother than expected but still has the harshness and dry mouth feel and finish I get when I drink this style....prob wouldn't buy or try again...if you like IPA's you'll probably dig it.

 636 characters

Photo of bobhits
1.99/5  rDev -48%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

The pour provides a very light bright colored beer, crystal clear. There isn't much body or head forming so I can't comment much on lacing but there's some.

The aroma brings out an almost vegetable hop note with some citrus grape fruit notes. A bit of caramel malt at the finish to give it some sweetness.

The flavor is a mixed bag of vegetables, grape fruit, caramel malts, perhaps some onion, and well something fake and off.

The body and the carbonation are ok for an IPA.

Ranger goes into my never again beer list. It isn't bad as I love IPA's but there's too much good beer for a brewery to make this. Avoid if you have any other craft options.

 657 characters

Photo of whatchathink
2.09/5  rDev -45.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2

Whatcha see? Apple juice appearance, white head that leaves splotchy lacing. Whatcha smell? Old white bread, pungent hops that comes across as wet dog food, and a really unpleasant pine. Whatcha taste? Grassy, earthy, old malts. Bitter, astringent, and piney hops. Super carbonated like a light lager. Alcohol is noticeable. Mouth feel is prickly and dry. Whatcha think? Just a bad IPA in my opinion. If you like an all earthy hay-type IPA then you might like this. Really hard to finish. D-

 491 characters

Photo of Rodekill
2.13/5  rDev -44.4%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 1.5 | overall: 2

I like the new look of the label, but the beer itself was disappointing. Thin body, no malt backbone. It tastes like fizzy hop water. The hop character is funky in every way - nose, bitterness and flavor. Perhaps a little more malt to back up the hops would help, but it's not a good beer at the moment. I like balance in beer in general, and especially in hoppy beers. This one doesn't deliver.

 395 characters

Photo of youcantmakeme
2.25/5  rDev -41.3%
look: 2.25 | smell: 2.25 | taste: 2.25 | feel: 2.25 | overall: 2.25

It's cheap i paid $3 and change for 22 oz, it starts off okay and it's somewhat refreshing but a then at the end i get this garlic or burnt taste which iv'e tasted before and do not like. For what it's worth it's not bad iv'e tasted another beer which was more expensive with the same taste. I would not buy it again though even if i was low on cash.

 350 characters

Photo of AboutBeverages
2.25/5  rDev -41.3%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1.5

Copper/red, yellow in color. Notes of hops in the aroma, with hints of herbs and fruit on the end. Initially mild on the palate, but then turns real herbal, and really dries out the tongue. Some metallic notes were picked up the finish. Overall, very dry and not well balanced.

 277 characters

Photo of WhatsNewinBooze
2.29/5  rDev -40.2%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 3

This was one of the weakest IPA's I have ever tasted. Most pale ales have more hops than this beer. But it is a good interduction into IPA for people who have never tried one before, since it is smooth and easy to drink. I am not a fan but I can see how people would like this anyway

 283 characters

Photo of Riccymon
2.3/5  rDev -39.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 1 | overall: 1.5

Pours from the bottle a surprisingly clear, orangey-brown cider color. About a half inch of white head. Smell is new to me for an IPA; immediately there's a pencil eraser/Windex note, though it's not necessarily unpleasant, just odd. Light mint and lemon join in. Taste is pretty bitter at first and that chemical/plastic flavor is still there, but malt and minty hops join in an odd Goldfish-cracker finish.

Body is pretty light and easy-drinking, but a harsh, salty bitterness settles in the throat, making for mouthfeel characteristics that I don't enjoy. The combination of strange flavors and the unpleasant mouthfeel didn't make this a good drinking experience. Drainpour.

 680 characters

Photo of goochpunch
2.32/5  rDev -39.4%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.75 | overall: 2

Pours out a light copper. Thin head. Smells malty as hell. Worty. Hops are of the citric variety, but wildly under represented in the nose. Flavor is malty, worty, Grape Nut-y, sweet, with a touch of hops. I pick up heavy toasty NB house taste. Mouthfeel is slightly thicker than I'd like. Carbonation is a bit prickly. Not feeling this. Weirdly worty. Lacking.

 361 characters

Photo of kojevergas
2.33/5  rDev -39.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

33cl brown glass bottle with standard pressure cap served into a Hard Rock cafe hefeweissbier glass in low altitude Los Angeles, California. Reviewed live, unpaired with food.

A: Pours a four finger head of fair cream and thickness, and good retention. Colour is a clear yellow-gold. Generally appealing.

Sm: A mild strength aroma of citrus ester hops and barley.

T: Citrus ester hops indeed dominate - mainly badly handled grapefruit - but they're curbed near the climax by unwelcome bittering hops and off cream. The first half starts out decently, but it trainwrecks at the climax, ruining the balance. The flavours were chosen alright, but the structure and balance are where the problems lay.

Mf: Smooth and wet, but indistinct and certainly not tailored to the flavours. The thickness is strange as well.

Dr: The quality - or relative lack thereof - makes it difficult to drink. The price isn't that great especially as part of a variety pack. I won't be having it again. A relatively high ABV.

 1,010 characters

Photo of Murchmac
2.45/5  rDev -36%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 1

Was hoping this beer was good as i've heard so much about it.

Poured brilliant, smelled brilliant, tasted awful.

Ive only had two beers by New Belgium that are any good, 1554 beer and La Folie. All their other beers taste like some variation of fat tire.

This brewery is the rogue of the rocky mountains. A couple good beers, the rest all have the same mediocore taste.

 374 characters

Photo of MrOH
2.46/5  rDev -35.8%
look: 5 | smell: 4 | taste: 1 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

Brilliant light gold with a solid finger and a half of tight foam. Excellent retention. Spotty lace.

Resinous and citrus hops on the nose. A good amount of earthiness, as well. Slight toast.

Resiny at first, followed by earthiness, followed by foul B.O. taste. Gross. No malt to speak of. Very bitter on the finish with lingering bitterness.

Medium bodied with good carbonation.

With the exception of that horrible flavor and a bit too much bitterness, this would be a very good IPA.

 487 characters

Photo of PhilsPils
2.51/5  rDev -34.5%
look: 3.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

This one is not my cup of IPA. I am not sure if it is the grain bill or the yeast that gives it a sweaty, underarm nose but I smell a lot of things before I smell hops and that ain't IPA material to me. There seems to be a general dismissal of Chico (California Ale) yeast these days as being boring or simple and a crutch to the brewers that use it. And as a brewer myself, I agree that there are yeasts that can provide more complex flavors in a a beer but if you are going to brew an American IPA, I think you have to be careful with those slightly out-of-the-box flavors. Maybe that's just me but anything that keeps the hops from shining through in an IPA...use it in a different beer style. Deschutes doesn't make any bad beers but their Red Chair misses the mark for me for just those reasons. Simply put, Ranger is one of the worst IPA I have had. Maybe I just don't get what must be an attempt at a Belgian Fusion IPA. Luckily for New Belgium, I have tried some Shiner stabs at IPAs and that bumped them up a bit on my list!

 1,041 characters

Photo of gordavidson
2.53/5  rDev -33.9%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

A- A clear, light orange liquid with a thin white head that leaves some nice lacing.

S- Steamed asparagus, butter, lemon, and lots of pepper. Normally a beer of this nature tend to be repulsive to me, but it works better than most here.

T- Oh man... This is not good to me. The asparagus, butter, and pepper really take over and makes this very strange... The one redeeming value is the slight watermelon aspect. Still, I can't get into this at all.

M- The carbonation keeps it spicy and it has a lasting dryness associated with the bitterness.

D- Overall, the asparagus aspect to this really killed it. Not gross though.

 625 characters

Photo of BarrytheBear
2.54/5  rDev -33.7%
look: 4 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2

12 oz bottle pours a nice pale orange. Each sip leaves pretty legs down the side of my tulip.

Smell is muted fruitiness and a vaporous boozy quality that I'm not excited to pull from a 6.5% beer. If this is dry hopped, I'm not getting it.

What's happening here? Heavy solvent taste and bittering hops. Seems the Chinook are taking center stage. I realize balance is overrated, but this is an astringent mess. For the alcohol level, this beer does nothing to hide it. Bummer.

Mouthfeel and drinkability pull an average. Feelin a bit confused by this beer.

Really don't enjoy slamming a beer, because there are so many good beers, great brewers, and it's a tough gig. But, this is a major letdown.

 699 characters

Photo of OremLK
2.56/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 4 | overall: 2.5

Poured a cold one from a sampler case into a chalice and let warm for a few minutes.

A: Pours golden, medium head which quickly fades, soft bubbles as you drink through the glass.

S: Pine, pine, citrus, more pine. Pine smell is too strong to be appealing. Would've liked more balance with the citrus.

T: Solid initially. Medium bitterness, nice hoppy citrus/pine at the start. Not much malt backing, but fine for the style. The problem comes in with the aftertaste. It is VERY strong pine and follows the smell. After a burp I feel like I've just eaten a whole plate full of pine needles. Honestly kind of gross.

M: Perfect carbonation. A nice, drinkable pale ale in terms of the mouthfeel.

Overall: Not a big fan. Too much pine going on here, as I mentioned before. I don't think I will have another. I hope the amber and the Snow Day are better beers as I wasn't a fan of this one or the Trippel (due to the overwhelming coriander taste, but that's for another review).

 976 characters

Photo of Reaper16
2.56/5  rDev -33.2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

12oz. bottle served into a pint glass

Pours an ultra-clear light amber. This looks like a lager; like a bock or something. The head sits at two solid fingers of white fluff. This doesn't look like many IPAs but it is pretty. The lacing does its thing admirably as well.

The beer smells soapy and spicy with a faint sense of grapefruit. The hops, that is, smell that way. Some pine, too. I'm expecting the malts to shine and become assertive and, though it takes a while, it happens. It smells pretty sweet. Meh.

Sweet, sugary malt is what this supposedly American-style IPA tastes like. The hops? Ummmm, let me try and find them again. *dives down* *minutes pass* *surfaces* Welp, I found a couple but that's it. There is some light grapefruit but it leaves the palate quicker than the average length of term for a CTU Director on "24." There is no hop bitterness. There is no finish. No aftertaste. This is disappointing and I came in with low expectations.

This is pretty thick for an IPA. I've had double IPAs that are thinner. And if you've read my reviews then you know that I personally prefer a light mouthfeel for hoppy beers. I have mixed feelings about the drinkability. One one hand the beer is light and super-easy to drink. On the other hand it is as boring as the first 15 episodes of season 8 of "24."

This beer might score more favorably as an Amber Ale. As an IPA? Nope.

 1,392 characters

Photo of dpnelson1978
2.57/5  rDev -32.9%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 2 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 2

22 oz. bottle into glass pint.

$3.99 / ea.

Bottled: June 9, 2010
Enjoyed: September 6, 2010

A: Bright straw body topped with a big loos head that quickly dissipates leaving light lacing, and a thin creamy cover.

S: Citrus aroma with strong pineapple character. Sweetness in the background. Very simple, but enjoyable.

T: Strong resinous hop flavor that dominates the flavor profile, and builds, ultimately overpowering the hint of citrus that was present at first taste. Difficult to make out any malt flavor after a few sips. Unpleasant hop aftertaste.

M: Light body with heavy carbonation. Crisp despite the hop strength. I would have expected an oilier texture.

D: Difficult to enjoy this one out of the bottle. One glass is plenty, but age may be playing a role. The mouthfeel is adequate, and the aroma touches on greatness, but ultimately the flavor profile is too one sided to enjoy in volume.

O: This beer was much better on tap. I'm pretty disappointed with the bottled version, but age could be playing a role. I'll pay close attention the next time I pick up a bottle. It could very easily be the last time.

 1,132 characters

Photo of alysmith4
2.58/5  rDev -32.6%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Not a bad IPA, just not one of my favorites. The taste is a little lacking in flavor, in my opinion. It's just a bit one-dimentional. Appearance and smell are just about average, and the taste is mildly hoppy. Not much else to report. I've picked up this beer several times from the grocery store when there aren't many other options, but I'm usually not all that thrilled with it.

 381 characters

Photo of Soneast
2.6/5  rDev -32.1%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 1.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 2.5

Pours a clear, golden color with a 2 finger thick, dense, cream colored head, with great retention, a thin layer hanging on through the whole glass, with moderate lacing.

The aroma is clearly hop forward, with a fair amount of pineyness on the nose in addition to a decent citrus character, as well as some sweet honey-like, pale malt notes.

The flavor starts out with some decent hop character, predominately of the citrus/pine variety with some herbal in the background towards the finish. The malt flavor takes over pretty quick, leaving a buttery caramel impression, the finish has a "harsh bitterness" to it that ends on a relatively sweet, butterscotch note, leaving an uncomfortable bitterness on the palate.

Ranger is a decent IPA...it doesn't excel in it's category, but the hops are showcased fairly well, though I perceive a touch of diacetyl in the finish, plus there is a unusual sweetness that drops in at the end that ruins the hop character. The finishing bitterness is quite harsh, with an almost metallic character. ***The last two bottles of this beer have been sitting in my fridge for over 3 months now. I just can't bring myself to drink them when I have FAR batter IPAs in there. That to me is indicative of the quality of this beer....it's just really not good. Consequently....lowering my grade.

 1,323 characters

Photo of waughbrew
2.61/5  rDev -31.9%
look: 3 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 3.25 | overall: 2.5

After all these years, New Belgium gets into New England! They have a pretty legendary status as a pioneer of the craft brewing world.

Nice labels, including a date stamp of enjoy before the 16th October, 2016. Custom glassware with the collar is very classy. Pours a surprisingly clear light gold with a pure white head that looks creamy and laces very well. Smells dull and musty, reminding me of what Cluster hops used to smell like, when brewers used those way back when. A bit piney. The taste falls flat for me. Stale biscuit and herbs with a sterile bitterness in the finish. I don't know if it's the yeast (chico?), or if this is filtered/pasteurized in a way that zaps the soul of it, but this beer really disappoints for me. Tastes like a brewing conglomerate trying to make a craft beer. Bummer.

 817 characters

first ← prev | 1-25 | 26-50 | 51-75  | nextlast
Ranger from New Belgium Brewing
3.83 out of 5 based on 5,922 ratings.
  • About Us

    Your go-to website for beer (since 1996), publishers of BeerAdvocate magazine (since 2006) and hosts of world-class beer events (since 2003). Respect Beer.
  • BeerAdvocate Microbrew Invitational

    Join us June 2-3, 2017 in Boston, Mass. for beer, cider, mead, kombucha and sake from over 70 small producers.

    Learn More
  • Subscribe to BeerAdvocate Magazine

    No fake news here. Get real beer content delivered to your doorstep every month.