alloy ejector housing?
- Thread starter slofyr
- Start date
flatgate
Hawkeye
slofyr said:
Since late '62/early '63.........
flatgate
A
Anonymous
One reason the one I used to own, and the one I own now, are stainless models. Stainless ejector housings. Other pluses on current stainless models are XR3-RED frames and no lock, either.
Thanks for the good feedback, guys. My NR4L, manufactured in February 2011, has a steel ejector housing.
During a day at the range chasing the 10-ring, offhand, the steel item adds unnecessary barrel weight. Also, fwiw, the blue steel NR4L with its alloy grip frame is about 6oz lighter than the stainless version.
This pic was taken after a Bisley hammer and trigger mod, but it shows the steel housing.
During a day at the range chasing the 10-ring, offhand, the steel item adds unnecessary barrel weight. Also, fwiw, the blue steel NR4L with its alloy grip frame is about 6oz lighter than the stainless version.
This pic was taken after a Bisley hammer and trigger mod, but it shows the steel housing.
chet15
Hawkeye
Hmmm. Maybe Ruger went to steel housings on all their blue SA's with alum. grip frames? Can anybody else confirm.
It was quite a few years ago that Ruger went to a steel housing on their blue SA's that had steel grip frames, but this would be the first I've heard of a steel housing on an aluminum GF model.
'Course, I could also see Ruger putting a steel housing on a blue SS by mistake.
Aluminum housings should be cheaper than steel, so would surprise me if Ruger made the change to steel on all their SA's.
Chet15
It was quite a few years ago that Ruger went to a steel housing on their blue SA's that had steel grip frames, but this would be the first I've heard of a steel housing on an aluminum GF model.
'Course, I could also see Ruger putting a steel housing on a blue SS by mistake.
Aluminum housings should be cheaper than steel, so would surprise me if Ruger made the change to steel on all their SA's.
Chet15
CraigC
Hawkeye
Good Lord, no matter what they do, somebody will find a reason to complain. :roll:
I find that a 5.5" Single Six with steel ejector housing balances very well and is certainly not overly heavy. The difference is very minor but noticeable.
I find that a 5.5" Single Six with steel ejector housing balances very well and is certainly not overly heavy. The difference is very minor but noticeable.
Phalanx429
Bearcat
G2...Are you saying that you have an extra (or two) alum ERHs? If so, I'd gladly take them off your hands...working on two SASS shooters that I'd like EXTRA lite! Let me know what you want for them...
CraigC said:
Refinement to enable the revolver to hold the 9-ring at 25 yards is not "complaining". Improving the balance for a steadier sight picture is worthwhile. I've previously owned the 22lr Bisley and NR-6L and found them both difficult to hold during a 150 round practice session. The balance of the 4 5/8" is a vast improvement, and with the aluminum housing it should be close to perfect. The NR-4L weighs 32oz. Your NR-5L adds one ounce on the barrel end. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it matters with the Colt-style rounded grip which tries to drop the muzzle.
Fwiw, the trigger was swapped out, too, because I choke up on the grip to lower the center of gravity in my hand. With the flatter stock trigger, holding high created an uphill pull on the trigger transferring the contact to the side of the trigger finger. The cupped Bisley trigger puts the load on the pad of the finger and lets the trigger rotate more freely around its fulcrum. What I didn't expect with the trigger and hammer change was a cleaner break. The original trigger had creep, so I suspect there is less sear engagement with the Bisley parts.
The 22lr Single Six is considered a plinker by many into precision shooting. It's good fun to prove them wrong.
Hondo44
Hawkeye
Phalanx429 said:
Just FYI: New Genuine Ruger alloy ERHs are only $6 something in the Brownell's catalog and they ship faster than Ruger.
Hondo44
Hawkeye
I put steel grip frames and ERHs on almost every Ruger SA I have. I will admit though, I left the alloy parts on my blue .22 Super since the gun is heavy enough. I replace the steel ERH with alloy on my shooter grade ligtwieghts because like the OP, I find them muzzle heavy with the alloy XR3 alloy grip frame.
Also like the OP's, my NM Super SS w/Bisley hammer but with wide spur modified to look more like a SBH hammer, Bisley trigger, plus Colt eject rod with sharpened tip and freespin pawl to make it easier to 'find' those little holes when ejecting cases.
Modified Ruger base pin (OM shown) with extra detent cut in the hammer end to retain pin in the 'out' position for changing or removing cylinders in the field w/o dropping from gun. Colt ejector rod showing 'cam grind' on the end so ejector rod spring tension cams it up tight against barrel when at rest with standard Ruger straight slot housing.
Also like the OP's, my NM Super SS w/Bisley hammer but with wide spur modified to look more like a SBH hammer, Bisley trigger, plus Colt eject rod with sharpened tip and freespin pawl to make it easier to 'find' those little holes when ejecting cases.
Modified Ruger base pin (OM shown) with extra detent cut in the hammer end to retain pin in the 'out' position for changing or removing cylinders in the field w/o dropping from gun. Colt ejector rod showing 'cam grind' on the end so ejector rod spring tension cams it up tight against barrel when at rest with standard Ruger straight slot housing.
chet15
Hawkeye
So are Ruger's current blue SA's being shipped with aluminum or steel housings?
Chet15
Chet15
CraigC
Hawkeye
I'm saying that folks have complained about Ruger's ugly aluminum housings for years and years. Now that they supply blued sixguns with blued steel ejector housings, "it's too heavy".slofyr said:
But I fail to see how removing weight from the front of a 33oz sixgun is gonna make it steadier.
Hondo44
Hawkeye
chet15 said:
Chet,
It's not clear to me but I can only say that all the current production guns I've observed have alloy ERHs. Maybe others will report in. But no matter what we've collectively observed, it doesn't preclude the possibility that one or several left the factory with steel due to human error or more likely a temporary shortage of alloy ERH inventory.
Chief_10Beers
Blackhawk
slofyr said:Thanks for the good feedback, guys. My NR4L, manufactured in February 2011, has a steel ejector housing.
During a day at the range chasing the 10-ring, offhand, the steel item adds unnecessary barrel weight. Also, fwiw, the blue steel NR4L with its alloy grip frame is about 6oz lighter than the stainless version.
This pic was taken after a Bisley hammer and trigger mod, but it shows the steel housing.
I have NR4L MFG in 09 with the Aluminum Ejector Housing, wanna trade?...................................
tek4260
Buckeye
Just checked my 09 NR4L and it tis aluminum too.
My guess is perhaps left over parts bin steel ERHs from the fixed sight .32 Vaqueritos, which have always been steel (and 4.62"). If someone has a 5.5 steel, then that throws that theory out the window 
(unless they are the exact same as Vaquero, New Vaquero and flattop ERHs--as other possible suppliers).
(unless they are the exact same as Vaquero, New Vaquero and flattop ERHs--as other possible suppliers).Hondo44
Hawkeye
gak said:My guess is perhaps left over parts bin steel ERHs from the fixed sight .32 Vaqueritos, which have always been steel (and 4.62"). If someone has a 5.5 steel, then that throws that theory out the window
They could be from any of the following which all use the same steel ERH: left over 32 Vaq. single 6, original large frame Vaqeros towards the end of production when those came with steel ERHs, anniversary 357 & 44, or any current New Vaq., SBH and the new Flattops.
All of mine from the models listed above are interchangeable and all measure the same. Even though some have different part numbers. Regardless of 4 5/8 or 5 1/2" barrels they are the same also. This excludes of course all the Old Model early steel with the dog leg slots, Old Model steel ERH for the Blackhawks that used the large diameter screw, and all the longer ones from the Hawkeye, late model 10" barrels and 357 Maximum.
flatgate
Hawkeye
Hondo44 said:
Not Hawkeye. Most Hawkeyes were fitted with the standard aluminum ejector housing. The early examples had a "straight slot" steel housing.
All were the same length as utilized on the Single-Sixes and Blackhawks and Super Blackhawks.
flatgate
Hondo44
Hawkeye
flatgate said:
Thanks flatgate, I no longer have mine and my memory was faulty. I must have put the steel on it and I'm glad you clarified so no one is left with mis-information!
Olsherm
Blackhawk
I have a recent new model single six in 4 5/8 bbl that came with an alloy (aluminum)housing. It now has a steel housing that i ordered from Ruger. I like all steel guns.If I had one I would put a steel grip frame on it like the new flat-tops have."Forget the extra weight) I can't tell the difference in the housings.However I like a muzzle heavy gun anyway.To each his own.
Olsherm said:
Barrel weight does steady the hold. Even with the alloy ejector housing the revolver's weight bias is still noticeably barrel dominant. On my digital postal scale the steel item weighs 1.41 ounces and the alloy weighs .45 ounces. That takes the claimed 32 ounce overall weight of the NR-4L down to 31.04 ounces. The trend in target pistols is evolving toward lighter weight, as well. For example the latest Walther SSP weighs only 34.2 ounces http://tinyurl.com/3cd6rs9 , down considerably from the 45 ounces some older match pistols used to weigh. A lighter Single Six improves the accuracy and grin factor [for me].
Similar threads
