VERY EARLY RUGER SINGLE SIX FLAT GATE #93

victorio1sw

Bearcat
Joined
Apr 13, 2024
Messages
33
City & State/Province
Texas
I like low serial numbers, and just bought this one. It seems to have the early features 1. Flat Gate, 2. non-serrated front sight, and 3. the small serrated button on the ejector rod.

These earliest production guns had a number of quality issues. One or more prototypes were made, and during early production other corrections would be identified.

1. One was that the frame blue often "blushed", as seen on the left side of this frame.

2. Another fault that I noticed was the small ejector head, coupled with a tight coil spring, is difficult to work backwards in ejecting shells. Oil had to be applied to make it work at all.

3. in ejecting shells, it was also noticed that the rod head can hang up in the backward position. A rod head installation slot is causing this.

4. The flat gate is very difficult to open, and consumers demanded that gates be profiled like the Colts.

5. When pulling the hammer to the safety or half cock position, the trigger slams forward and hits the trigger guard slot. it has done that enough times to roll some aluminum forward at that location (see picture #10).

However on the positive side, it appears that Ruger managed to get their tolerances tight enough, so that assembly numbers were not required. That includes the barrel, cylinder, and housing.

The ejector housing on this gun is made of Steel. I thought that these later were made of aluminum, but maybe not.

The grips are actually black hard rubber, and not some plastic! One can see on this example, that the butt areas are turning brown, as real hard rubber will.

This one was made in 1953 or 1954. Can I find out when it was made or shipped?

Were any frames (and serial numbers) scrapped during early production?
 

Attachments

  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-2.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-2.jpg
    107.4 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-1.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-1.jpg
    95 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-3.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-3.jpg
    172 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-4.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-4.jpg
    179.5 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-7.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-7.jpg
    37.5 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-8.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-8.jpg
    52 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-9.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-9.jpg
    73.3 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-14.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-14.jpg
    82.8 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-13.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-13.jpg
    95.2 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-12.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-12.jpg
    80.2 KB
  • FlatGateRugerSS#93-Muzzle.jpg
    FlatGateRugerSS#93-Muzzle.jpg
    70.2 KB
For $10, Ruger will send you a letter with shipping date.

Congrats! A 2 digit flatgate is a real prize.

If you ever get tired of opening that gate and ejecting the shells with that button, I can trade you a newer one from the later 1950s with the round gate and larger ejector button! If it were mine, I would not be shooting it. One of the first 100 Revolvers ever made by Ruger (by serial number anyway - they did not ship them in sequence).
 
Victorio1sw, welcome to the Ruger forum; I'm glad that you finally made it over here. It appears that some of our discussion may have been deleted from that other forum that starts with a 'C', but somehow, our moderators here got our message and here you are.
Once these folk get to know you, the info re: your questions should be forthcoming.
Again, WELCOME, hope you enjoy it here.
J.
 
welcome to the forum and that is indeed a very nice gun, sounds to me like most of the issues are dues to misuse, improper care ,oiling and cleaning of the gun, except for the discoloration, of the cylinder frames content of the 'casting mix' alloy ( 4140 chrome -moly) and causes the part to actually "plum" turn a reddish color the rest is as they designed and built them and it is "how many years old now" like 70 ??!! my, my fine looking pictures of that old girl is how we see it.......practice the how, whys and the wherefores and you'll be just fine, most of us here would LOVE to have that gun "as is"...:cool::rolleyes:;)
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
Victorio1sw, welcome to the Ruger forum; I'm glad that you finally made it over here. It appears that some of our discussion may have been deleted from that other forum that starts with a 'C', but somehow, our moderators here got our message and here you are.
Once these folk get to know you, the info re: your questions should be forthcoming.
Again, WELCOME, hope you enjoy it here.
J.
Yeah, I assume that the Ruger website was somewhat down a few weeks ago, as repeated requests for a pass code did not come through to my email. But then, yesterday, I tried one more time - and it came immediately. Thanks for your help!
 
welcome to the forum and that is indeed a very nice gun, sounds to me like most of the issues are dues to misuse, improper care ,oiling and cleaning of the gun, except for the discoloration, of the cylinder frames content of the 'casting mix' alloy ( 4140 chrome -moly) and causes the part to actually "plum" turn a reddish color the rest is as they designed and built them and it is "how many years old now" like 70 ??!! my, my fine looking pictures of that old girl is how we see it.......practice the how, whys and the wherefores and you'll be just fine, most of us here would LOVE to have that gun "as is"...:cool::rolleyes:;)
I do not plan to change anything, other than maybe making an adjustment to allow the lock bolt to fall a bit later. Right now, it falls just behind the cylinder flutes.

I am tempted to shoot this one, but I do have a 6-1/2" Single Six (with matching 22 Mag cylinder), in original box with the instruction pamphlet. I think that one was made in 1963.
 
Welcome to the Forum!!!!!!

NICE 2-digit gun for sure.

Many of your questions have already been answered. But I'll go in sequence.

(1) The color change was due to the metal blending before casting the frames. Often called "plum" coloring. And is actually enjoyed by many including collectors. When it happened,, and guns got returned,, Ruger would re-polish them, re-blue them, and return them. They eventually changed color again.
(2) You can remove the Ejector rod housing, and GENTLY see if there are any burrs inside the channel that need to be smoothed out.
(3) The hanging up of the ER button is just a little quirk. Later on, the offset clot was eliminated.
(4) Yes,, many found the flat loading gate was harder to open. A company named "Premier" started offering a rounded loading gate as an aftermarket item. Ruger changed from the flat loading gates to the ever popular rounded on & never went back.
(5) The trigger slot,, getting peened a bit by the trigger isn't a big deal. You can open up the slot a little if you wish,, but then you'll have a shiny aluminum spot showing.
(6) The rest of your comments.
Ruger didn't need to number parts because of the assy methods they used. However,, later on,, when they started offering spare cylinders in .22 Mag,, they would use an electric pencil to put the last 3 digits of the serial number on the spare cylinder to assure it went back to the appropriate gun after bluing.

Yes,, the early ER housings were steel. They later on went to aluminum, to save costs.

The grips are a "butaphane rubber" type. But they appear plastic,, and are an early form of plastic type. Again,, a way to save expenses in building. The changing of color has been well noted, and often a result from sunlight exposure. There have been attempts to "re-blacken" them with RIT dye,, but most if us just leave them alone.

Looks like you have the correct way to find out details on this gun by sending for the letter. That has been well covered above. HOWEVER,,,,,, there may be limited info on this gun. There was a flood & damaged records. Only by getting the letter will you know much direct info. But the info they provide may be very limited.

As far as we know,, most serial numbered frames were built & shipped. Any scrapped ones, were usually prototypes, or damaged ones,, and weren't normally marked as production guns.

I hope all this adds a little for you!
 
According to John Dougans book....................
The 93 was one of the first 14 guns produced, December 15th 1953.
An historic one for sure.

Slide that baby over to the classifieds.............. :cool:

Cheers,
JAYDAWG
Jawdawg, Many thanks for that information on the production date. I had been wondering if #93 could have been done the 1st year! Maybe not shipped until 1954, but actually completed in 1953.
 
Jawdawg, Many thanks for that information on the production date. I had been wondering if #93 could have been done the 1st year! Maybe not shipped until 1954, but actually completed in 1953.

Did you send in for a Ruger letter????

My last request took less than two weeks!!!

Please post some pics and results of the letter..............

Cheers,
JAYDAWG
 
You know when I see an old gun that looks in great shape, of course you feel good for the guy who "just got it", but what about the guy who had it before him. To me the history of a very well cared for gun always intrigued me. For one, when the original guy bought it and where he bought it. Of course that guy cared for the gun in its great condition. He even switched out the flat gate to the rounded one. Did he sell it to someone else. Heck for that matter why didn't his kids or his relatives want to keep it. It is to me anyway, a family heirloom. I guess it could have been an estate sale or the guy or family just sold it.....I guess maybe I'm weird, but I sort of like to be like an old Paul Harvey. It's good to know the rest of the story ...when you know that , it makes it even more special knowing the true history of the gun.
 
Well it would be certainly nice to know the history of this #93........First year of production, well cared for ALL of these years, etc....To me it is kind of weird that it didn't "stay in the family".....I mean we aren't talking about a well cared for gun that was made in 1993.....it was from 1953....
 
Just wondering .....I mean if it was the 14th one made as was mentioned earlier.....I wonder why it was numbered as #93....which is still ridiculously low, but only the 14th one made ?? The story of this gun would be very interesting for Ruger fans I would think ?? Definitely interesting for me. 🙂
 
According to John Dougans book....................
The 93 was one of the first 14 guns produced, December 15th 1953.
An historic one for sure.

Slide that baby over to the classifieds.............. :cool:

Cheers,
JAYDAWG
JAYDAWG you haven't got enough marbles to offer a fair trade in the classifieds. Beautiful flatgate and nice to be seen. Thanks for showing us victorio1sw.
 
Just wondering .....I mean if it was the 14th one made as was mentioned earlier.....I wonder why it was numbered as #93....which is still ridiculously low, but only the 14th one made ?? The story of this gun would be very interesting for Ruger fans I would think ?? Definitely interesting for me. 🙂

90% of what I have learned and 100% of facts I post about the early RRS guns come from John Dougans book "Ruger Pistols & Revolvers" The vintage years 1949-1973. I would encourage anyone who wants more knowledge about the history of Ruger and specifics about production NEEDS this book. I'm always reading up & refreshing my memory in it.

Back to the 93 and early serial numbers..........out of the first 17 Single Sixes produced the two days of December 15th & 16th 1953, six of those were 3 digit guns. In fact 28 of the first 86 guns were 3 digit.
It's referred to as the parts bin theory.
Fun stuff :D

Cheers,
JaydaWg
 
Well, that is all fine and good, as you read it in a book, But my question is really to the OP.......I wish he would share with us some history of his actual "new to him gun",. Serial number #93..... I would hope he would share what he may know of the origins of this very early made Single Six....To me and many others, the SS is very special. It would be nice to hear the story, if possible, about the origins of this particular gun.....I mean if he doesn't know, well that is ok and fine too, but how often does one come across something like this ....in my opinion.....it doesn't hurt to ask.....
 

Latest posts

Back
Top