Broken Hammer Plunger; Is this a weak link in Ruger design?

[Chuck 100 yd]

cadillo , "Loading gate and cylinder latch are powered by the same spring, which can abide only one job at a time."

Are you sure they are operated by the same spring? Am I am missing something here? Please enlighten me.

 

[Hondo44]

cadillo , "Loading gate and cylinder latch are powered by the same spring, which can abide only one job at a time."

Are you sure they are operated by the same spring? Am I am missing something here? Please enlighten me.

Not exactly Chuck. The cylinder latch has its own coil spring and plunger mounted in the grip frame above the trigger guard.

The heavy 'V' spring is for the loading gate, however, when it is compressed by the opened locking gate it also serves to block the cyl latch from being lowered by cocking the hammer. Therefore the hammer can not be cocked with loading gate open. This can be defeated by cutting off the pin on the cylinder latch that is contacted by the V spring.

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

dang Hondo44 , I overlooked that part of it altogether. You are right as rain.
The loading gate spring also keeps the trigger pin in place. I guess it serves three functions.

 

[cadillo]

cadillo , "Loading gate and cylinder latch are powered by the same spring, which can abide only one job at a time."

Are you sure they are operated by the same spring? Am I am missing something here? Please enlighten me.

Not exactly Chuck. The cylinder latch has its own coil spring and plunger mounted in the grip frame above the trigger guard.

The heavy 'V' spring is for the loading gate, however, when it is compressed by the opened locking gate it also serves to block the cyl latch from being lowered by cocking the hammer. Therefore the hammer can not be cocked with loading gate open. This can be defeated by cutting off the pin on the cylinder latch that is contacted by the V spring.

Yes, it has a small coil spring to maintain upward pressure on the cylinder latch, but when the loading gate is open, the loading gate spring bears downward on (operating) the cylinder catch stud such that the catch can't move properly out of cylinder engagement when engaged by the hammer plunger when attempting to cock the hammer. Of the three parts involved, the hammer plunger is the weakest, and will bend if not break under those circumstances.

Don't believe me? Try it with your own gun.

 

[cadillo]

cadillo , "Loading gate and cylinder latch are powered by the same spring, which can abide only one job at a time."

Are you sure they are operated by the same spring? Am I am missing something here? Please enlighten me.

Not exactly Chuck. The cylinder latch has its own coil spring and plunger mounted in the grip frame above the trigger guard.

The heavy 'V' spring is for the loading gate, however, when it is compressed by the opened locking gate it also serves to block the cyl latch from being lowered by cocking the hammer. Therefore the hammer can not be cocked with loading gate open. This can be defeated by cutting off the pin on the cylinder latch that is contacted by the V spring.

Please explain how one would disengage the cylinder latch from the cylinder in order to turn the cylinder for loading/unloading after removal of the stud that's on the cylinder latch?

 

[Hondo44]

Cadillo, let me try to do a better job of explaining.

The V spring provides tension to keep the gate open as it compresses the V spring which in turn pushes down on the cyl latch pin. As well as keeps the loading gate in the closed position.

By removing the pin from the cyl latch, it's no longer operated by the loading gate. Therefore the hammer would be used to drop the cyl latch to allow the cyl to rotate and functions like an old model Ruger. The Power Custom half cock hammer has a loading notch for this purpose.

However when the hammer is cocked it moves the trigger, which is connected to the transfer bar, which is locked from moving by the opened loading gate blocking the transfer bar. Therefore, with trigger locked, the hammer is also rendered inoperable unless the transfer bar is modified (as supplied by Power Custom). The simple modification keeps the gate from locking the bar.

But the point is, there is no pressure put on the hammer plunger, because the hammer can't move, because the trigger can't move, because the transfer bar is locked. And that's the binding point, not the hammer plunger on the cyl latch. Whether or not the cyl latch is locked open by the gate or, with pin removed, not locked open, the hammer and it's plunger could operate the cyl latch properly and freely if the transfer bar were modified.

Hope that helps,

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

Excellent discussion guys. It makes one use his head and gives a much better understanding of the "how it works" part that we overlook.
I like!!

 

[cadillo]

Hondo,

The OP's question was in regard to the "Ruger Design" The aftermarket hammer you describe is way outside of that parameter. It's simply not Ruger's design as put forth in the OP's question.

When the loading gate is opened in order to access the chambers and rotate the cylinder of an original Ruger New Model, downward pressure by the loading gate lowers the top portion of the loading gate spring, which in turn pushes down on the cylinder latch stud thus lowering the latch's ball and disengaging it from the cylinder locking notch so as to allow the cylinder to rotate providing access to the individual chambers for either loading or unloading as the situation requires. Due to the downward pressure on cylinder catch stud, the catch cannot yield to pressure exerted by the hammer plunger, which then becomes vulnerable when forced upon an unmovable object.

I have to admit that due to the time lapse since I had this problem, I'm no longer sure whether the plunger got damaged during cocking or de-cocking of the hammer, but I do know that when the cylinder latch is held out of engagement with the cylinder by the opening of the loading gate, cycling of the hammer will overstress the hammer plunger and do damage. This being in reference to Mr. Ruger's own design. I have no experience with the aftermarket modifications you now describe, but do know that removal of the cylinder latch stud will render Ruger's original New Model design Kaput.

 

[Hondo44]

cadillo,

On a stock Ruger the hammer can't be cocked with the loading gate open and cyl latch disengaged from the cyl, period, as explained above. So there's no way "cycling of the hammer will overstress the hammer plunger and do damage." If you try to cycle the hammer, the force is against the trigger which is against the transfer bar which is blocked by the open loading gate. There is no stress against the hammer plunger hitting the cyl latch because the hammer can't move that far. But even if the hammer could be cycled either cocking or deccking, it would not stress the plunger at all since it can't even contact the cyl latch in the down position.

To prove that point, is the only reason I mentioned the Power Custom after market parts. They have been installed in many thousands of Rugers. They DO allow the hammer to be cocked with gate open and cyl latch down. And in all of those thousands of installations the hammer plungers do not break when the hammer is cycled with the cyl latch down and disengaged from the cyl. There's actually zero stress on the plunger because the cyl latch is already in the down position and completely out of contact with the hammer plunger. Remove the transfer bar from your gun to try it and see.

If you say so than this is true: "I have no experience with the aftermarket modifications you now describe,"
This is not true: "but do know that removal of the cylinder latch stud will render Ruger's original New Model design Kaput."

The Ruger design is not "kaput" it's modified, but still retaining the transfer bar safety! And the pin would only be removed when a transfer bar that allows the hammer to be cocked with gate open. Therefore the hammer will take over for the V spring function of lowering the cyl latch just like it does when the gate is closed.

 

[cadillo]

cadillo,



This is not true: "but do know that removal of the cylinder latch stud will render Ruger's original New Model design Kaput."

The Ruger design is not "kaput" it's modified, but still retaining the transfer bar safety! And the pin would only be removed when a transfer bar that allows the hammer to be cocked with gate open. Therefore the hammer will take over for the V spring function of lowering the cyl latch just like it does when the gate is closed.

As we will never agree on sooo much, I'll close by asking you to defend the above statement about the cylinder latch stud.

If one were to follow your idea of removing the cylinder latch stud from the latch on an original Ruger New Model Single Action, opening the loading gate would no longer disengage the latch from the cylinder thus allowing the cylinder to rotate. How then would the gun operator rotate his cylinder to load the individual chambers? The loading gate presses down on the top of the spring, the spring pushes down on the stud, and the downward movement of the stud lowers the catch out of the locking notch, and frees the cylinder to rotate for loading/unloading of the individual chambers. We're talking here about Mr. Ruger's original New Model design without the aftermarket half cock notched hammer, or other non OEM parts.

Please stay on track. I can't make this any plainer. The question here is about an original Ruger New Model without aftermarket or altered hammers, triggers, transfer bars etc. Please tell us how removal of the cylinder latch stud on this mechanism can render the gun still able to disengage the cylinder latch from the cylinder to allow rotation, loading etc.

 

[Hondo44]

cadillo, respectfully, what's the point? I'm not proposing any such thing and why would anyone want to screw up a gun by doing that?? You're asking something out of context with and a mis-characterization of the point of this well known Ruger modification.

You clearly do not want to understand it, are just attempting to obfuscate the correction of your erroneous comments, and in effect hijacking the OP's worthy thread. I'll not be a party to it.

The OP will thank you, other members will thank you and I will thank you if you honestly meant: "I'll close...."

 

[cadillo]

cadillo, respectfully, what's the point? I'm not proposing any such thing and why would anyone want to screw up a gun by doing that?? You're asking something out of context with and a mis-characterization of the point of this well known Ruger modification.

You clearly do not want to understand it, are just attempting to obfuscate the correction of your erroneous comments, and in effect hijacking the OP's worthy thread. I'll not be a party to it.

The OP will thank you, other members will thank you and I will thank you if you honestly meant: "I'll close...."

Really?

Then how do you explain this statement that you posted? I merely cut and pasted it. It's still there for your perusing. I think that you posted it on the 24th of this month. Check out the last sentence. Here it is:

"Not exactly Chuck. The cylinder latch has its own coil spring and plunger mounted in the grip frame above the trigger guard.

The heavy 'V' spring is for the loading gate, however, when it is compressed by the opened locking gate it also serves to block the cyl latch from being lowered by cocking the hammer. Therefore the hammer can not be cocked with loading gate open. This can be defeated by cutting off the pin on the cylinder latch that is contacted by the V spring."

Don't try to put it on me. Not my idea; yours, and there is no reference to half cock hammers etc. Given that Old Models do not have "V" springs, well you know where that leads.

You might find reading your own posts to be helpful. I find no need for you to further embarrass yourself, and will thank you not to. I could go on with this forever, but would rather not. Just let it go.

 

[jlinz]

I had a gp100 apart today, the hammer dog cross pin slides around, but theres a lot less space between hammer and frame on the double action from what I can see. Can anyone confirm or deny if the hammer plunger cross pin slides right out with limited force on ruger single action which has not been mucked with already? My experience is so far that it doesn't but would like to hear some others input.

You just need to take the grip frame off and position the hammer so u can get at the cross pin. Push lightly from the side opposite the plunger so it doesn't go too far and jam the plunger if it moves. Else you might be taking the hammer out to align the plunger and pin and cursing me probably.

 

[Hondo44]

Can anyone confirm or deny if the hammer plunger cross pin slides right out with limited force on ruger single action which has not been mucked with already?

The short answer is yes: "...the hammer plunger cross pin slides right out with limited force on ruger single action..."
The pin is designed with a slip fit, however one must recognize that when the hammer is at rest or out of the gun, the plunger is in contact with the pin maintained by the plunger spring tension on the plunger!

When the hammer is cylcled, the spring tension is transferred to the cyl latch. So during hammer cycling the pin will not have tension on it and is retained in place by the sides of the hammer channel and then the 'ears' of the grip frame. If the hammer is cycled with the grip frame removed, the pin will come into view and can easily be pushed out and some may even fall out. Some pins take more pressure to push them out but pins are designed as a slip fit with the usual tolerance variations of mass produced parts.

 

[jlinz]

I checked my bisley 45 convertible today. It's given me no trouble at all, however the fit left something to be desired when i got it new. The hammer was dragging terribly on the frame, basically didnt look too good. And the hammer pin was rotating, could not stop it, even tried loctite on the pin, still no good, frame to hammer pin fit was very ,very sloppy. Tried different hammer pin and different extended grip frame screw and still no good. I actually had to drill and tap the frame, and put in a set screw to prevent the hammer pin from rotating, and still used the extended grip frame screw. The mag research BFR I have uses a set screw like this, which is where I got the idea from.

Regardless the hammer cross pin does slide right out, however once again i find the end furthest from the plunger making contact with the frame opposite the plunger and this side of the pin was smaller diameter and appeared to be worn and rounded. I think the location of the plunger (being offset in the hammer) may tend to push the pin toward the other side of the plunger but im not sure about this. I do think on a double action the problem will likely be non existent as the hammer dog is centered in the hammer. Anyway, I again beat the pin with hammer a few times on a pair of pliers to increase the diameter on one side, and pushed it in from plunger side of the hammer. If you choose to do this, just remember in the event you have to remove the pin, push it out from the correct smaller diameter side.

There is enough play and side to side movement in some situations of the cross pin within the hammer (in my opinion) over time to potentially wear the pin and bind the plunger if it gets misaligned. Mind you we are talking about the hammer falling thousands if not 10's of thousands of times in my estimate to ever cause a problem in the worst cases, but in my opinion the risk is still there over time.

I'd say the pin itself needs to slightly longer in all the hammers Ive seen to make this event more unlikely or possibly to prevent this from ever happening. Increasing the diameter of the pin on the side closest to the plunger and pushing/hammering it in from that side might be better idea. This way it is very unlikely if not impossible to ever cause problems with binding the hammer plunger as it cant push through to the other side of the hammer (after wearing or whatever) and misalign or snag the plunger. The wear of the cross pin will likely be much worse if the frame to grip frame fit is off at all, especially the side opposite the plunger as this gives the pin a surface to catch on.

There might be other problems that lead to failure of a ruger single action prior to this happening, but I dont see many other possibilities. The only other big improvement id like to see on ruger single action would be to use heavier (where it meets trigger) or forged pawl, I think both would be big improvements and both changes would make an already excellent design nearly indestructible, and this post/poll would likely not even exist.

Edit...and fitting the transfer bar to the hammer better, so the hammer hits the frame at the same time it hits the transfer bar to avoid pinching and over stressing the transfer bar. Ive seen that mentioned probably on this forum, an excellent idea.

 

[Hondo44]

jlinz,

I think you may be on to something there. Especially about the transfer bar fit. I would rate the trouble areas in this order from most prevalent to least:

Broken Transfer Bar
Broken hammer plunger
Cyl base pin not properly retained (large calibers only)
Loading gate spring popping off loading gate

That's about it in my experience.

 

[jlinz]

Hondo, I would agree with your trouble areas. The newer mag research BFRs addresses the base pin issue with the set screw into the barrel off the base pin, i didnt like it at first, but I think its a really good addition for guns with heavy recoil. Heck i think my single six might benefit from it or at least a heavier base ping spring. Actually the ruger design with an optional set screw off the base pin like the BRF might be ideal, so you dont always have to use it all the time, but i dunno how it would look to be honest.

Its off topic but the BFRs are pretty nice, really nice actually especially in the accuracy dept. Im not that good of a shot and ive done 1.5-2 in groups of 3 with my 45-70 10 in bbl at 50 yds off a rest, no scope. I just wish theyd get rid of that dopey uncle mikes grip and put a real grip on, and maybe round the grip frame. My guess is ruger makes the castings anyway through their pine tree division or whatever its called.

I dunno why they dont do it, but who wouldnt want to see a a 5 shot 454 casull blackhawk roaming around? I think id buy one pretty quick, how about this a convertible with acp cyclinder, 45 acp, 45 LC, 45 LC +P, and 454 casull, while we're at it why not a 460 S&W, but lets not get greedy, first things first :lol:

edited, i think the short cylinder 454 casull would be perfect, with the acp cylinder. 5.5 in or maybe 6.5 even...,. heat treated 5 shot cylinder of usual blackhawk dimentions, might not even need the heat treatment, both bisley and regular grips

 

[jlinz]

I just would hope they'd get the cylinder right and it dont need to be reamed. With 454 casull this might be why the ruger blackhawk 454 doesnt already exist, unexplainably and dangerously high pressures with 454 as the cylinder throats are way too tight with the current assembly line thats been putting out 45 LC cylinders for years from what i hear. I wish i had or ran ... or had and ran.. a company I could only really complain about a few issues like these though.

 

[ski4]

thank you guys . this post has been most informative.

i have gone through this single six trying to figure out why it was binding up. it was this plunger pin.
oddly it bound up after i replaced it again.
i think the pin hole in the hammer is out of round causing some issues .
will need a new hammer i think

 

[flatgate]

The Ruger hammer plunger is a "good" design and the only one's I have replaced because of breakage were an extremely "gunked" up plunger hole where the plunger did not have "free" movement or when an "oversize" plunger was put in by someone trying to get rid of the cylinder ring in the new model SA's. Then usually, the cross pin gets broken or bent in most cases........................Dick :wink:

A-Men!

I've bent them during my "experimental days" while chasing a 1/2 cock modification........ :roll:

flatgate