The Duplicate Old Model .41 Magnum Blackhawks

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
Walter, in an earlier post you said "The serial number of my OM Blackhawk .41 Magnum with the 6.5" barrel is 10569. There is no "D" stamp."

Now you say "Ruger Records sent me a copy of the shipping invoices for both the original serial # 10569, a BKH41 that shipped to Yakima Hardware Co. in Yakima WA on 7/31/67 and mine, the BKH42 S/N [D]10569."

Does your gun have a "D" stamp or not? This is the key here.
 
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
8,966
Location
Ohio , U.S.A.
would LOVE to "see" ( even in a picture) one of the 41 mag Old Models with the "D" stamped on the frame ,with the serial number....between both Don W and Rich W. doubt they ever had or seen one and they are BOTH gone now, only guys that I knew who were heavy into the 41 mag caliber guns, and as for any letter back to the which gun shipped first with what barrel length, and HOW did the factory even know the difference,,,like Kim told us years ago, it was whomever called or wrote in FIRST and requested any info???????? beyond me........ 8) :roll: :wink:
 

Walter Rego

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
128
Location
Occupied California
My gun does not have the D stamp. That is why I put the D in [brackets] when referring to the serial number.

Ruger sent me a photocopy of a couple of rows from the log book. It is hand written and kind of hard to read, but looks like # 10568 shipped to Olympic Co, Cal. on 7-29-67 and 10569 shipped to Yakima Hdwe, Wash. also on 7-29-67. Squeezed in between those two numbers is written 10569D W. Hoegee, Cal. 9-20-67. (verbatim from the log page)

This information plus the dates on the invoices of 7/31/67 for the BKH41 that was shipped to Yakima Hardware and 9/21/67 for the BKH42 that was shipped to Western-Hoegee leads me to believe that my gun is the duplicate.

An interesting side note, and a reminder that sometimes serial numbers get shipped much later than their serial numbers would indicate is that on the invoice to Yakima Hardware contains a BKH41, serial number 3189. That would be a 1963 gun ! All the other .41 Mag Blackhawks in that shipment number between 9141 and 10792. I wonder where that one was hiding for 4 years ?
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
I would say that this . . .

"This information plus the dates on the invoices of 7/31/67 for the BKH41 that was shipped to Yakima Hardware and 9/21/67 for the BKH42 that was shipped to Western-Hoegee leads me to believe that my gun is the duplicate."

. . . is as good as we're going to get, your gun being the BKH42. Very good, Walter.

Your last paragraph further points out the potential for certain "irregularities" in the record-keeping that were a big part of the creation of the 1968 gun law that forced the manufacturers to get their serial numbering straightened out. And yes, it's no big secret that Ruger did ship many guns late.

Anyway, here we have pretty good documentation of a pair of identically-numbered guns. Fortunately, the difference in barrel lengths is the key to identifying which came first and which is what we will all the "duplicate". Now, if we could ever hear from the current owner of the BKH41.

Walter, any chance you could post the invoices here for our edification and admiration?

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 

Walter Rego

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
128
Location
Occupied California
Here are the invoices for the .41 mag Blackhawks shipped to Western-Hoegee, Yakima Hardware and a scan of the daybook showing where they added the duplicate number 10569D.

The colored highlighting was done by the Ruger records department.
ig7oe0F.jpg

SQkkCdW.jpg


KbyiGBT.jpg
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
Walter, the invoice to Yakima Hardware for BKH41 #10569 shows a Ruger ship date of 7-31-67.

The invoice to Western-Hoegee does not show the Ruger ship date for BKH42 #10569 . . . it shows the customer's order was received on 9-21-67, but the Ruger ship date is cut off at the right side. Any chance of seeing the right edge of that invoice for the Ruger ship date?

I'm thinking the daybook dates may be a little messed up.

We're getting there, thanks to you.

:mrgreen:
 

Walter Rego

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
128
Location
Occupied California
Ale, the invoice scan for Western-Hoegee is complete. Compare it to the one from Yakima Hardware. Both have a typewritten DATE RECEIVED section and both have a handwritten date in the DATE section.
If you study the invoice to Yakima hardware you will notice that the date received was 12/19/66. None of the 15 S47B (Super Blackhawk, Brass Grip Frame !) models ordered had shipped prior to 7/31/67, 20 of the 25 BKH41's ordered had shipped previously and the last 5 serial numbers are on that invoice. 7 BKH42's had shipped previously, 10 are on the invoice and 23 more were shipped at some later date.

The invoice to Western-Hoegee shows the order was received on 9/21/67 (with 1966 XXXX'd out) and shipped the same day, but incomplete. Subsequent invoices to W-H would have had the numbers remaining in the Balance Due column, i.e. 20 due for the BKH41 and 15 due for the BKH42 and so on until the order was completed or back orders canceled.

I wonder why Ruger had not shipped any S47B's against Yakima hardware's order ? They had entered the order about 8 months previous to the invoice pictured.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
Walter, I beg your pardon. After fiddling around with my computer I was able to see the entire Western-Hoegge invoice revealing the 9-21-67 Ruger ship date. Story now complete. As far as I'm concerned your BKH42 is, in fact, the "duplicate" gun in spite of not wearing the "D" stamp on its frame. Of course, my opinion and five bucks may get you a cup of "special" coffee, but what the heck. :wink: :wink: :wink:

Your other observations are of interest, too. Things were not always well-organized at Ruger. Your scoring these documents sheds a little light into the operations back then. Thanks again for your contribution.

To the rest of you out there, this has been an example of how we learn about Ruger stuff. Please contribute whatever you can about these mysterious "duplicate" .41s. We are still hoping to see evidence of a gun wearing the "D" in the serial number on the gun's frame, unlikely as that seems. With Ruger, never say never.

:mrgreen:
 

41 nut son

Bearcat
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
14
Location
Central Maine
I finally had a chance this afternoon to dig into Richard's 41 mag notes. I found extensive notes on brass frames and "D" BKH 41s and 42s. I did find a letter a with "D" serial #, that the factory claimed was D marked, but the actual Blackhawk did not have a "D" stamp. I found numerous printed emails and other correspondence going back to the early 90s to include ads in RENE looking for a "D" stamped 41. He was still looking as late as 2016. He never found one nor verified that any existed.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
41 nut son said:
I finally had a chance this afternoon to dig into Richard's 41 mag notes. I found extensive notes on brass frames and "D" BKH 41s and 42s. I did find a letter a with "D" serial #, that the factory claimed was D marked, but the actual Blackhawk did not have a "D" stamp.

Any chance you could reproduce that letter here? I'd understand if you prefer not to, but it would certainly be of interest.

You could always block out names/addresses if you like.

:shock: :mrgreen:
 

Walter Rego

Single-Sixer
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
128
Location
Occupied California
The letter that I recently received for my duplicate S/N gave the number as "D10569". There was no mention or explanation about it being a duplicate, the letter followed the same standard format as the others I have received.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
Walter Rego said:
The letter that I recently received for my duplicate S/N gave the number as "D10569". There was no mention or explanation about it being a duplicate, the letter followed the same standard format as the others I have received.


Makes sense, as it merely reports what the daybook shows, and that includes the "D" notation. We tend to believe that this means the gun was so marked but this is obviously not the case thanks to your input.

Care to post that letter for us?

:mrgreen:
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
Thank you, Walter. It's of considerable interest that the letter provides the "ship to" information, as that's almost never given.

These letters used to be signed by one of the nice ladies at Ruger, but that practice has also gone by the board.

:)
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,654
Location
Kentucky
ndruger said:
I have three of these guns. None are lettered.
10485- 4 5/8
10661- 6 1/2
10788- 6 1/2



Nice. Right through the range of numbers. Thanks for sharing.

If you do "letter" them, be sure to ask that they check for any like numbers that show a "D" as well. As we have seen, they might not think to do that so a little prompting and explanation might go a long way to discovering interesting info.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
Top