Carry_Up
Single-Sixer
I just slogged my way through a tedious thread on another forum which can be read here:
http://www.rugerforum.net/showthread.php?t=13337
I've never seen so much fussing over what seems obvious to me. Even seasoned professionals weigh in on this topic and seem to draw the wrong conclusions. A small divet appears between the barrel and the frame, just underneath the forward cylinder lock - photos show it clearly. Most people believe this mark is some sort of chip caused by metal stress. Metal does not act like this under stress, but that is beside the point.
All of my Ruger revolvers (GP100's and SP101's) have this divet. It is clearly made by a tapered rotary grinder or rasp attached to a hand-held dremel tool.
The purpose is obvious to me. When the barrel is installed at Ruger, a large majority of them are not screwed in all the way. If they are not, a ridge or step will remain right underneath the forward lock, and it will interfere with the closing and locking of the cylinder. A quick blast with a tapered grinder removes the inconvenient ridge. What bothers me is that this procedure is apparently the norm at Ruger - in other words installing the barrel a few degrees shy of square. Looking carefully through the sights reveals that the front sight leans slightly to the right, which it would not do if the barrel were square to the frame. And, if the barrel were square, there would be no nasty ridge to dremel out.
Sure enough, all my revolvers are a few degrees shy of square. At least Ruger has the ability to be consistent on something. The question is not what the divet is, or if the metal has "fractured" (not!) but will Ruger make it right with a smile, or will they keep the gun at their facility for months evaluating and discussing the situation? The dremel tweak allows the cylinder to close and lock, but what's wrong with screwing on the barrel correctly in the first place?
Carry_Up
http://www.rugerforum.net/showthread.php?t=13337
I've never seen so much fussing over what seems obvious to me. Even seasoned professionals weigh in on this topic and seem to draw the wrong conclusions. A small divet appears between the barrel and the frame, just underneath the forward cylinder lock - photos show it clearly. Most people believe this mark is some sort of chip caused by metal stress. Metal does not act like this under stress, but that is beside the point.
All of my Ruger revolvers (GP100's and SP101's) have this divet. It is clearly made by a tapered rotary grinder or rasp attached to a hand-held dremel tool.
The purpose is obvious to me. When the barrel is installed at Ruger, a large majority of them are not screwed in all the way. If they are not, a ridge or step will remain right underneath the forward lock, and it will interfere with the closing and locking of the cylinder. A quick blast with a tapered grinder removes the inconvenient ridge. What bothers me is that this procedure is apparently the norm at Ruger - in other words installing the barrel a few degrees shy of square. Looking carefully through the sights reveals that the front sight leans slightly to the right, which it would not do if the barrel were square to the frame. And, if the barrel were square, there would be no nasty ridge to dremel out.
Sure enough, all my revolvers are a few degrees shy of square. At least Ruger has the ability to be consistent on something. The question is not what the divet is, or if the metal has "fractured" (not!) but will Ruger make it right with a smile, or will they keep the gun at their facility for months evaluating and discussing the situation? The dremel tweak allows the cylinder to close and lock, but what's wrong with screwing on the barrel correctly in the first place?
Carry_Up