Frame Marking

Help Support Ruger Forum:

3 Screw

Bearcat
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
13
Location
Arkansas
How are the frames marked on the old model that have been sent back to the factory for the conversion?
Thanks
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
3,972
Location
MANSFIELD, OHIO USA
003-17.jpg


002-17.jpg
 

Stoots

Buckeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,465
Location
Carolina Beach, NC
What's the reason for the stamp? Does that stamp affect collector value of an OM that was converted, then unconverted?


Just curious.

:wink:
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
3,972
Location
MANSFIELD, OHIO USA
Stoots":cf4uvcit said:
What's the reason for the stamp? Does that stamp affect collector value of an OM that was converted, then unconverted?


Just curious.

:wink:

It shows that the gun had the safety conversion done by Ruger. As to value part of your question I will defer to the OM experts.
Terry
 

flatgate

Hawkeye
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
6,784
Location
Star Valley, WY
I don't think the conversion "R" effects the value much, if at all, IF the gun has the ORIGINAL parts either installed or "kept with" the OM.

JMHO,

flatgate
 

Stoots

Buckeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,465
Location
Carolina Beach, NC
T.A. WORKMAN":2abjyk71 said:
Stoots":2abjyk71 said:
What's the reason for the stamp? Does that stamp affect collector value of an OM that was converted, then unconverted?


Just curious.

:wink:

It shows that the gun had the safety conversion done by Ruger. Terry

Sorry, I should've been more specific. Why is there a need to mark the frame as having been converted?
 

AKGrouch

Bearcat
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
89
Location
Anchorage, Alaska
need[/i] to mark the frame as having been converted?

This is based upon speculation on my part, tempered with a bit of
experience in the "legal way of thinking community". I imagine that Ruger, who started making the conversion in response to threats of liability in a lawsuit to begin with, decided that they wanted a way to physically id any weapon that had already been converted. In that way, if someone got hurt with a accidental discharge on deconverted weapon and Ruger was sued, Ruger could loudly argue that it did what it could by installing the conversion and that it should not be held liable because other person(s) unknown undid their safety conversion. I think it's all about Ruger attempting to shield Ruger (and effectively its stockholders) from liability from a products liability standpoint.
 

Stoots

Buckeye
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,465
Location
Carolina Beach, NC
AKGrouch":3skl53zo said:
This is based upon speculation on my part, tempered with a bit of
experience in the "legal way of thinking community". I imagine that Ruger, who started making the conversion in response to threats of liability in a lawsuit to begin with, decided that they wanted a way to physically id any weapon that had already been converted. In that way, if someone got hurt with a accidental discharge on deconverted weapon and Ruger was sued, Ruger could loudly argue that it did what it could by installing the conversion and that it should not be held liable because other person(s) unknown undid their safety conversion. I think it's all about Ruger attempting to shield Ruger (and effectively its stockholders) from liability from a products liability standpoint.




Makes sense, I should've thought of that.

Thanks!

:D
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,343
Location
Kentucky
I completely agree with that reasoning.

It does, however, make one wonder why Ruger didn't make the "conversion" parts difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Yes, I realize it would hinder any further service/repair work.

I suppose it was a compromise to provide a "safer" gun without offending all the Rugerphiles who would have objected to a "permanent" conversion and thus been unlikely to have the "conversion" performed in the first place. Bill Ruger walked a pretty narrow path in this instance.

:)
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
2,202
Location
Alexandria, LA USA
I'll add that Ruger offers the conversion for free and once the gun was converted and so marked, the free shipping and conversion would no longer apply.
And it also goes to show to some degree that since the old parts are being guaranteed to be returned, they are no longer that concerned about defending the lawsuits, and maybe recognise the colectable value of the firearm with the OM parts included?
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
11,343
Location
Kentucky
Oh, they're aware of the collector aspect of this. As their "safety conversation offer" states . . .

"This mechanism can be factory-installed
without any further alteration. The frame and
other major parts will not be affected by this
Conversion. The value of the gun will not be
impaired, and we will return your original
parts for collector’s purposes."

I'd say it's a pretty good bet that their acknowledgment of the collectors among us had considerable impact on the decision to produce the various "anniversary" guns and the recent "New Model Flattops".

JMHO, of course.

:)
 

flatgate

Hawkeye
Joined
Jun 18, 2001
Messages
6,784
Location
Star Valley, WY
Ale-8(1)":o8n3kdj6 said:
I'd say it's a pretty good bet that their acknowledgment of the collectors among us had considerable impact on the decision to produce the various "anniversary" guns and the recent "New Model Flattops".

Boy, oh Boy! I'll say.......... :D

flatgate
 

chet15

Hawkeye
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
5,728
Location
Dawson, Iowa
Wyandot Jim":33d2uh7b said:
Like stated most have the R. I think the real early ones were unmarked.
I had a 357 convertible that was unmarked. Also had the papers from Ruger that it was converted.
Jim

The first one we sent back was real early in the game...right after we received our shipping box. Got it back and it had a small eagle logo stamp on the bottom of the frame. That's still the only one I've ever heard of that was marked like that.
Chet15
 

Latest posts

Top