Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Question on Ruger revolvers

About thirty years ago I had an early Single Six blued convertible model .22 lr revolver. Can't remember if both cylinders where serialized, but at least the .22 magnum was marked with the frame serial number with an engraver in the same way a bolt is to a bolt action rifle. Got the urge to get a new Single Six convertible before they stop making them as everyone seems to have turned production to models such as the Wrangler. The new one's cylinder isn't serialized like the old model. Has modern CNC machining eliminated the need for hand fitting like in the old days or do they just not take the time to do it anymore. By the way, I also purchased a new Wrangler revolver and it turned out to be a really solid, well made revolver. First time in a long time I believe I got way more than I paid for.

I don’t think they ever actually “needed” the hand fitting for each gun and cylinder. I say this because several times I’ve bought a cylinder off Ebay or a gunshow table and every time they’ve dropped right in and been timed good enough. I’ve never experienced a Ruger SA cylinder in any caliber that needed fitting to function when put into a gun that it wasn’t original to. This to include 22lr/mag, 9mm, 357, and 44 mag.

Ruger, hand fitting?

I can't really rag on Ruger quality. As a matter of fact, can't think of a problem I've ever had with a Ruger firearm. On the other hand I have three Kimber 1911s that have all needed a little attention to run reliably. Things from higher spring rates to replacing slide stops. Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you don't. Can't complain about Kimber Customer Service though. Always been helpful when contacted.

All one needs to watch is the OAL of the cylinder to be swapped. I own an early 22 Magnum '"only" that I bought a standard 22 RF cylinder for given the dimensions that I knew would work. It worked.

Bill Ruger was a genius with no doubt, The lost wax casting at Pine Tree showed cast is stronger then forged. Even the BFR is a large Ruger cast at Pine Tree. I had the single six and the Mark I and no pistol ever shot as good. I still have 2 Mark II's and a Mark I. The .22 revolver is the hardest thing to make. My original Bearcat would not get close to the Mark I. But it still shot well. Why I sold some still pains me. But $37.50 was a weeks pay. $96 for a BH. $140 for a S&W 29. Came in the mail. No net, stick a check in the mail and wait. The anticipation and wait was unreal until the box came. I had molds and dies long before. No brass so factory loads were needed first.
It was so easy to buy a gun with paper route money. I could get anything from a WW pre 64 to a .300 Weatherby with store credit and no fees. Pay fast and get another gun. I bought from Klein's sporting goods in Chicago, Hart Arms in Cleveland and a small gun shop up the street. Then fishing stuff was crazy since I fished every day. I made my own jig molds and sinker molds when 12 years old. Got my first .357 at 14. Cast the 358156 and used 2400. You have no idea today with restrictions but we were free. When old enough with a car. My 220 swift and the .22 Rem was in it and the BH was always on my hip all over Ohio. We drove to Resthaven and then to Delaware and back to Pymatuning, Mosquito creek and Grand river in one day. The 88 olds. 54 Chevy and a 41 Ford got worked. Hated the Ford with mechanical brakes.

Cast steel is not stronger than forged, but is plenty strong.

Ditto...

It depends on the alloy. Forge weak metal and cast with better steel is stronger. It is like making a part from cold rolled that will not harden no matter how forged or beaten and tool steel. You can't make a knife from a water pipe or a bicycle frame.

So why would anyone put the money into forging dies and use cheaper metal????

The metal is maybe 2-3% of the cost.

You said the casting is stronger than forging.

Then add if weaker metal is used.

So according to you forging is also stronger than castings.

Why do people say this kind of stuff.

Cast Ruger frames and forged S&W, Colt frames are all made with good metal. The heavy cast frames tend to have less flex and absorb harmonics better within limits. But they are not stronger per cross section area. The Rugers feel clunky to me. I still like them but like S&W and Colt better.

I have an early SBH in .44 Magnum. Used to shoot full Keith loads in it all the time. When Break Free first came out, I would have to tighten screws before getting through 100 rounds, so the cast frames have flex too. The BH's are nothing but a wheel on an axle. That is as strong as it gets. But it still flexes.



Note: Bill Ruger was one of the best at casting metal.

Just got my Single Six out to look it over after reading a thread about poor quality control with Ruger. Still can't find anything to complain about the finish on the gun. But after looking over it again it, both cylinders are stenciled with the last 3 digits of the serial number of the frame, but on the opposite end that they used to. So I guess the timing of the cylinders are checked to the frame and cocking pawl. Can't find this on the new Wrangler I bought at the same time though, love that $180 gun though.

I'm NOT looking to get anyone fired up but I wanted to make a few points about forging vs casting.
I'm no expert but I've been in manufacturing all my life and I have some basic knowledge of the two.
They are both good approaches to manufacturing, and are both able to make quality products.

Forging both compresses steel and realigns the grain structure. It also induces stresses that are captured in the steel. No big deal when you're forging something like a wrench, but if its something the requires a lot of material removal like a revolver frame, its not so great because the more complicated (and uneven) the material removal is the less value it gives. The cost of manufacturing is mostly in the machining, and in many cases you're machining away the best portions of the forged blank.
Still - forging is good, even when working with tougher, higher strength materials.

The big advantage to casting is that very tough, high strength materials can be very accurately cast into complex forms that basically only need to have the sprue points removed and maybe a few critical to quality surfaces machined. For casting, the cost of manufacturing is really in the tooling, not the machining.
So, if you're a serious manufacturer (like Ruger) it can make a lot of sense to invest in casting based on product life/volume expectations.

In the end, both are a means to an end and what really drives the quality of the finished product is the company's commitment to doing it right.

ps - the word "casting" can cover a wide range including some real sloppy garbage. I'm talking about high tech, high quality stuff only.

I know you are generalizing here, but some of the higher end steel bikes are made from pretty exotic steels in order to get the thin tubes capable of making a lightweight steel bike.

Reynolds 853 for example.

Why Reynolds 853 works:
UTS: 1250-1400 MPa, density 7.78 gm/cc

The chemistry includes carbon, manganese, chrome, molybdenum, silicon, copper.

The interaction between the alloys result in a fine grain structure that forms with air-cooling without the traditional “quenching” (fast cooling in water or oil) process. High strength from bainitic phase steel after a series of cold-working operations.

Heat-treatment to the 853 specification raises the yield strength for the entire tube, increasing dent and impact resistance.

Regarding the OP's question about handfitting I would say 80+ percent of gun owners wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a handfitted pistol and a well made CNC produced pistol. Handling the occasional dud is probably cheaper than handfitting every pistol, which the bean counters like too.