Have you checked your chambers lately???

[G. Freeman]

So here I was last night cleaning my KGP-161, which I've had for 8 months now, the same gun I returned to Ruger for cylinder binding (which Ruger fixed). Have shot 800 rounds though it--200 magnum rounds, and 600 BBWC's.

So I looked at the chambers and this is what I saw!

Another view:

My jaw dropped! I never saw these tool marks when I first got the gun. I don't think this happened from the way I was cleaning the gun, or from the ammo I was shooting. It must have been there all this time without me knowing. It's only present in a couple of chambers.

The gun groups well and I'm sure it won't affect the accuracy or longevity of the gun.

But is this just normal w/ Rugers?? What the hell is this?? This ain't quality man and I'm sick of this s#$%!

I'm not sending the gun back to Ruger, but my heart sank last night. Just wanted to know if your chamber looks anything like mine.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Koveras]

I don't think my guns' chambers have ever been clean enough to see tool marks -- definitely never that clean. I think the angle of the light is making them look worse than they really are.

Unless they are causing the brass to stick in the chambers, I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[cwegga]

Well, mine don't look that bad.

Here are the best pictures I could get of my SP101. They are a little messy because I just did a quickie cleaning and I don't have the proper sized brush for the chambers. there is a little gunk and oil sitting in there. They all seem uniform though and if there are tool marks they aren't as drastic as the ones in your chambers.

 

[NMCB3]

Mine were five times as bad as that on my SP 101 22 Cal, I could barely extract the cases...Ruger replaced the cyilinder.

 

[Boge]

Go buy a yellow "lead clean" cloth. Cut it into strips large enough to go around a .38. cal. bronze brush. Chuck into a cordless drill and clean real good. Then take a .50 cal. bronze brush (w/o the cloth) and clean the heck out of the chambers using your favorite cleaner. Short of that you'll need to send it off to have the chambers flex honed or finish reamed.

Yes, it's poor QC but they will probably tell you it's "in spec".

 

[Arms]

Hello,

the Rugers that I've been inspecting have shown that most of the double action revolvers have pretty decent chambers and throats what comes to the tool marks. But with single action revolvers I've seen some pretty horrible chambers and throats with tool marks all over.

I've been thinking that it's left on the factory this way because with SA you empty the gun with ejector rod which pushes the empty shell out and there shouldn't be any problems. Well I haven't encountered any. But with DA revolvers the ejector star pulls all the empty shells all at once out of the cylinder and with rough chambers there might be some problems. Mostly because the ejector star might slip away from the small rim of the case.

I don't think there is going to be any problems with accuracy with marks like your pictures show. Chambers might be a little sticky with hot loads or not.

-Arms

 

[jpickar]

What do you expect - it's a production gun.

John

 

[Cordite]

You can have the cylinder throats reamed to dimension by this person:

http://www.cylindersmith.com/

That should clean up the cylinder nicely and ensure that the throats are correct to spec.

 

[EarlFH]

Wow. You scared the heck out of me with those pictures! I just broke out all of my SRH's, and none of them have anything like that showing in my chambers. They are all smooth, and shiny.
I don't blame you for being upset. I think I would send those pictures to Ruger, and see if they offer to fix them.
Good luck,
Earl.

 

[sasu]

Here are chambers from another major manufacturer. This gun is going back for warranty work as the throats are grossly undersized, they probably skipped the finishing reamer.

 

[cas6969]

You can have the cylinder throats reamed to dimension by this person:

http://www.cylindersmith.com/

That should clean up the cylinder nicely and ensure that the throats are correct to spec.

It won't do anything for the chambers... heck his throats are the nicest part!

 

[marlboro man]

just dug out my new GP and it has the same marks in each of my chambers, not as bad as the one in the OP but still there. fire casing say MAY 2009.

 

[JB696]

I'm going to get the jump on all the Ruger apologists this time. Just so we don't have to read their excuses once again.

"What do you want, a Freedom Arms?"

"Sure, some bad ones are going to slip by once in a while."

"It's a production gun. They're all going to have something wrong with them. I've seen 'em even worse than that."

"What do you expect for $600?"

"It's just cosmetic."

"Just send it back. They'll fix it for you."

"I bought a dozen of those and they were all perfect."

"How does it shoot?"

 

[Knuckles]

Do you have buyer's remorse?

Are you thinking of dumping the gun now?

Do you feel like you paid for a virgin and got a ............. oh' wait... I can't say that. :shock:

What'll you take for it? :twisted:

 

[cas6969]

I had a barrel that looked like that.

 

[win85shooter]

I had a barrel that looked like that.

What did you keep in it, rainwater?

Mike

 

[Saguaro Kid]

Looks like chip load up to me? From the picture it looks like all the galling is at the bottom of the cylinder hole next to the throat? Sure wouldn't be happy with it and I will defiantly be inspecting any future purchases.

 

[welder]

Checked my GP and SP, both very smooth. The GP is 7 years old ans the SP is 1.5 years old. I had a Tracker once that had 2 chambers so rough the brass hung up, they were much worse than the OP posted though. Still these are unacceptably rough.

 

[Rick Courtright]

Hi,

My GP's four or five yrs old, and the chambers are quite nice, for a Ruger. Which means they're at least uniformly smooth, though not as nicely burnished as my early-'80s production RH (which is still a ways from even a current production S&W.) A friend bought a GP about a year ago, and hers is a hair nicer than mine.

OTOH, take those marks at the front of the chambers in the OP's pix, extend them the entire length of the chambers (all six of 'em) and you've got my Bisley! It was so bad it would stick .38 Spls when it was new! After a few years of shooting, cleaning, and lots of polishing paste on steel wool wrapped around a bronze brush, the chambers are now at least smooth enough that MOST .357s come out ok.

What would it cost to properly burnish a chamber? A buck? So it costs six bucks a gun--charge me $12-$15 extra! I've wasted far more than $15 worth of time knocking cases out of my Bisley w/ my "Ruger tool": a dowel rod and plastic mallet. My brother in law's made good use of that "Ruger tool" w/ one of his BHs, too!

I no longer put any money down for a Ruger until I've seen it in person. 'Nuff said?

Rick C

 

[oldgoat46]

That looks like the work of some three level in the machine shop and certainly got overlooked through QC. The gun companies of today are literally nothing other than mass production machine shops. Contact Ruger, ask for an RGA (return goods autorization) and get a number so that when it comes in it will be in the computer. they will probably replace the cylinder and check the fit. I requested a test fire with one and they did it. Ruger is reputable and they will make it good.