deserttrans
Buckeye
Is this a common stamping of the early pre fix Bearcats? Notice the difference of the nine and zeros.
Srange Bearcat Serial Stamping
- Thread starter deserttrans
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
yes, very common, and we've talked about this off and on for many years, the stamping "jig" fixture left a lot to be desired and had to be "manually" adjusted (rotated) after each gun stamping, so newer stamps in with older ,worn ones and the changes if any broke at any time, , and who may have supplied them and on and on, and with the errors that occurred, we then got the "D" guns, when numbers got 'duplicated' OR skipped over, or ?????????? Ah, the joys of manufacturing and having to number each and EVERY gun, keep things in order and running smoothly as well as FAST !!!!!!talk about a stress filled job, hope he did not drink......... :roll:
deserttrans
Buckeye
Thanks for the information Dan. Much appreciated.
chet15
Hawkeye
As Dan mentioned...pretty common.
And again, I have to say...that's another example of why I think there was a period where the prefixes were put on at a different time than the rest of the serial number, even though Dougan's latest book says they had a serial number head that could manage all 8 numbers plus the dash. Have seen too many early digit prefixed guns with the prefix way out of whack with the rest of the serial number....and in one case, missing completely on what was supposed to be a Single-Six serial number "09359"....that was it, no prefix or dash at all! I determined it was supposed to be 20-09359 because of the era of the rollmark on the left side of the cylinder frame.
But just about every prefix gun from the early 1969 era shows major differences in stamping depth and/or position of the prefix in relation to the other five digits. So....if it was stamped all at once you'd think you'd have even pressure on the stamp throughout and consistency of spacing between digits.
Note on the Bearcat serial number in this thread that the dash almost overlaps the "0" of the prefix...it almost looks like the dash itself pushed metal into the far right side of the "0".
Chet15
And again, I have to say...that's another example of why I think there was a period where the prefixes were put on at a different time than the rest of the serial number, even though Dougan's latest book says they had a serial number head that could manage all 8 numbers plus the dash. Have seen too many early digit prefixed guns with the prefix way out of whack with the rest of the serial number....and in one case, missing completely on what was supposed to be a Single-Six serial number "09359"....that was it, no prefix or dash at all! I determined it was supposed to be 20-09359 because of the era of the rollmark on the left side of the cylinder frame.
But just about every prefix gun from the early 1969 era shows major differences in stamping depth and/or position of the prefix in relation to the other five digits. So....if it was stamped all at once you'd think you'd have even pressure on the stamp throughout and consistency of spacing between digits.
Note on the Bearcat serial number in this thread that the dash almost overlaps the "0" of the prefix...it almost looks like the dash itself pushed metal into the far right side of the "0".
Chet15
