Stoots":cf4uvcit said:What's the reason for the stamp? Does that stamp affect collector value of an OM that was converted, then unconverted?
T.A. WORKMAN":2abjyk71 said:
need[/i] to mark the frame as having been converted?
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.
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".
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.