OM Blackhawk converted ?????

[wormey]

a question i never thought about till i recently saw a pic on gunbroker got me to thinking. so when i see an OM with pics and the description doesnt imply converted or not but has a pic with the hammer cocked to the loading/undoading position can i assume if its at the L/UL it hasnt been converted. doesnt have a pic where you can see a bar or absence of a t bar. from seeing pics of converted guns with the parts sent back i assume the new hammer wouldnt have all the position "notches".
i own OM & NM blackhawks but have never handled a OM thats been converted so i assume the converted OM would cock simular to a NM and would be no half cocked loading position.
i get tired of asking sellers if its converted .i think they should list it as such either way converted or unconverted but i guess maybe some dont know. one guy said he was selling for a client and didnt know much of this type of gun.
And please dont chastise me for all my assuming...i know all too well assuming can quickly make an ass of ones self but assuming is part of my thought process,thanks

 

[GRAMPS 51]

Hi If the face of the hammer is flat it is original if it has a step in the face like your NM then it has been converted

GRAMPS

 

[wormey]

Hi If the face of the hammer is flat it is original if it has a step in the face like your NM then it has been converted

GRAMPS

ok,i didnt notice that,,thats helpful too,thats almost a dead givaway. easier than tryin look at some that are fully cocked to see the bar,, thanks gramps ,that is most helpful

 

[Bob Wright]

Here is photo or right side of the hammer as well:



Also another tell-tale sign as far as Super Blackhawks go is that the hammer is not the beavertail hammer of the Super.

Bob Wright

 

[contender]

Bob & Gramps have both given good info here. Of course, this only works if you can see the hammer when it's cocked. (Unless it's a Super Blackhawk & missing the wide spur.)
Also, depending upon the pics available, you can look to see if the if the trigger return spring plunger is still in the gripframe. If it is, it hasn't been converted. But all too often, good pics of that area are not shown.
Many times, some folks selling a Ruger have no clue about the transfer bar conversion on an OM. Of course, these same folks often think the OM they are selling is the rarest variation listed when they look one up.

 

[wormey]

good info to know, lots of good tips to help me, much appreciated,thanks,worm

 

[Hondo44]

wormey,

You have great info so far, but one clarification that you brought up; a converted OM still requires the loading-1/2 cock notch on the hammer, but no safety or 1st notch. The New models have no 1/2 cock or safety notch. Although they provide about the same level of safety, the conversion system and NM system are different.

Go here to see the super strong loading notch on the conversion hammer:
http://0.tqn.com/d/hunting/1/0/X/I/rugerblackhawk3579mm_04w.jpg

 

[wormey]

wormey,

You have great info so far, but one clarification that you brought up; a converted OM still requires the loading-1/2 cock notch on the hammer, but no safety or 1st notch. The New models have no 1/2 cock or safety notch. Although they provide about the same level of safety, the conversion system and NM system are different.

Go here to see the super strong loading notch on the conversion hammer:
http://0.tqn.com/d/hunting/1/0/X/I/rugerblackhawk3579mm_04w.jpg

hey,thanks for that insight, having never held a converted OM i didnt know they still loaded from the 1/2 cocked pos. after the conversion. even with all the good info on tell-tell conversion signs it didnt click that the OM still loaded 1/2 cocked, and thanks for the link to the pic. i better understand now. i was looking for signs but learned even more. love it when that happens.

 

[WIL TERRY]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR : It is a firearm and you ASSUME nothing, EVER, or it'll be more that your ass that is bit.

 

[wormey]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR : It is a firearm and you ASSUME nothing, EVER, or it'll be more that your ass that is bit.

yes i know it is a firearm,and as with any you show great respect. The question was only for possible signs to determine if an old model has been converted if the only sure way (to see a transfer bar) is unavailable.
thats is why one asks questions when unsure which is what i was doin.
also if you READ the post it says "can i assume" in one portion, which is a question. i would think the subject line of the thread which included 5 question marks would also be a clue that the post was a question and that if any of my assumptions were wrong i wanted to know and get clarification.
your comment has been duly noted and i appreciate your contribution to the question.

 

[street]

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SIR : It is a firearm and you ASSUME nothing, EVER, or it'll be more that your ass that is bit.

yes i know it is a firearm,and as with any you show great respect. The question was only for possible signs to determine if an old model has been converted if the only sure way (to see a transfer bar) is unavailable.
thats is why one asks questions when unsure which is what i was doin.
your comment has been duly noted and i appreciate your contribution to the question.

Touche!!! :wink:

 

[cadillo]

Bob & Gramps have both given good info here. Of course, this only works if you can see the hammer when it's cocked. (Unless it's a Super Blackhawk & missing the wide spur.)
Also, depending upon the pics available, you can look to see if the if the trigger return spring plunger is still in the gripframe. If it is, it hasn't been converted. But all too often, good pics of that area are not shown.
Many times, some folks selling a Ruger have no clue about the transfer bar conversion on an OM. Of course, these same folks often think the OM they are selling is the rarest variation listed when they look one up.

What????

Please explain the highlighted portion of your statement. I have owned a converted Old Model Blackhawk, and have held several others. They all did in fact contain the trigger return spring and plunger that came in them from the factory as there is no other provision for forward pressure on the trigger.

Currently there is a converted Old Model listed in the classifieds. The photos of that gun show the plunger in place. If that's not convincing enough. Kuhnhausen has a good book on Ruger Single Actions, and pages 30, 31, and 36 show illustrations of the components of the converted Old Model. The original trigger return spring and plunger are there.

Perhaps someone has come along and improved upon William B Ruger, and Roy L. Melchor's design of the conversion mechanism as listed and defined in Patent # 4,449,312. If they have, I'd sure like to be enlightened.

 

[Hondo44]

Hi cadillo,

You misunderstand contender. By this: "...trigger return spring plunger is still in the grip frame."; he is referring to seeing a difference in the hole vs. plunger location between a converted and unconverted old model if one observes with careful scrutiny.

The fact is that on an unconverted old model, the trigger sits farther back and the plunger is mostly in the hole in the grip frame and less visible. In a converted old model the conversion trigger is shaped such that it extends farther forward allowing the plunger to protrude out of the grip frame hole farther and is therefore much more visible.

Hope that helps,

 

[cadillo]

If that is what he meant, it surely is not what he wrote. I have an excellent command of the English language, which is the first of my two languages, and the language in which I was educated. I responded to exactly what he conveyed in writing. The fact is that his statement was incorrect, and needed to be corrected in the interest of accurately answering the OP's question and request for correct information.

And yes, I know that the trigger of a converted Old Model Blackhawk sits noticeably farther forward when the hammer is at rest as compared to one that is not converted, but again, I responded to what he wrote. Either he simply does not know, or he can't seem to put his thoughts into words that adequately represent those thoughts.

If anyone misunderstood what he wrote, it was not me. His statement was quite clear, though incorrect.

I come to this forum regularly, and like so many others, have learned a lot here. In that regard, I feel an obligation to give advice that is correct, or simply sit back and learn what other knowledgeable people have to offer in the way of accurate information. I also feel an obligation to question others when they state something that I know to be wrong, regardless of what they felt in their hearts. It's the product of the written word that is on display here, not the heart.

 

[wormey]

Hi cadillo,

You misunderstand contender. By this: "...trigger return spring plunger is still in the grip frame."; he is referring to seeing a difference in the hole vs. plunger location between a converted and unconverted old model if one observes with careful scrutiny.

The fact is that on an unconverted old model, the trigger sits farther back and the plunger is mostly in the hole in the grip frame and less visible. In a converted old model the conversion trigger is shaped such that it extends farther forward allowing the plunger to protrude out of the grip frame hole farther and is therefore much more visible.
Hope that helps,

If that is what he meant, it surely is not what he wrote. I have an excellent command of the English language, which is the first of my two languages, and the language in which I was educated. I responded to exactly what he conveyed in writing. The fact is that his statement was incorrect, and needed to be corrected in the interest of accurately answering the OP's question and request for correct information.

And yes, I know that the trigger of a converted Old Model Blackhawk sits noticeably farther forward when the hammer is at rest as compared to one that is not converted, but again, I responded to what he wrote. Either he simply does not know, or he can't seem to put his thoughts into words that adequately represent those thoughts.

If anyone misunderstood what he wrote, it was not me. His statement was quite clear, though incorrect.

I come to this forum regularly, and like so many others, have learned a lot here. In that regard, I feel an obligation to give advice that is correct, or simply sit back and learn what other knowledgeable people have to offer in the way of accurate information. I also feel an obligation to question others when they state something that I know to be wrong, regardless of what they felt in their hearts. It's the product of the written word that is on display here, not the heart.

i think yall both have valid points, when i first read Also, depending upon the pics available, you can look to see if the if the trigger return spring plunger is still in the gripframe. If it is, it hasn't been converted. i too was a little confused for a minute and had to reread it and think about what he meant.sometimes my thought process is slow so i have to "analyze" whats been said. i just considered that he may have thought it would be understood amongst the ruger masses that it would be more so in the frame and not protruding out so much as it would be on a converted. it think the state of mind your in when you read it might contribute to confusion.if you just buzzed through it while the dogs were barking and the baby was crying and the wife was on your ass you might not get what was the intended meaning and cadillo i am certainly not saying this was your case but maybe somebody could have that situation.
BUT i could see someone unfamiliar with these older guns to read it to mean literally gone. if i were new to these i would probably think no plunger meant converted. however i dought contender intentionally meant to confuse or mislead anybody.

 

[contender]

Ok, I'll be the FIRST one to admit that my typing of a statement, an explanation, or other stuff can sometimes be a bit confusing, or (gasp, wrong & yes, I admit my mistakes.)
Hondo understood what I meant, as well as a few others. Even though, when I go back & read what I wrote, it can be ms-understood.
I am not an engineer.
I am not an English teacher.
I am not a good typist.
And I am human, & sometimes can't convey in typed words what I'm thinking.

But I do try hard to help the folks who ask serious questions about Rugers. Do I know everything? NO!!!! Do I make mistakes, YES!!!!
Do I admit my mistakes? YES!
Can I please everyone who visits here? NO!!!!!

To those of us who do spend a lot of time with our Rugers, we study, read, learn, ask questions, study more, make mistakes, discover new stuff, etc. But those of us who truly love our Ruger collecting, we try & share our knowledge.
Just look at the pic Bob posted above, trying to help answer the OP. An excellent pictorial showing an EASY way to see if the gun has been converted. Alas,,, many pics on the internet are not done as such, so determining things just from pictures can be a hard thing to do.
It wasn't my intent to mis-lead anyone, nor mis-inform them. I'll go ask God for forgiveness for my sins of not being perfect.

 

[jimbo1096]

This is quickly and unnecessarily turning from an informative thread to an example of how rude replies and criticism can ruin an otherwise good discussion. I apologize to any readers, new and old, that may not be use to some of the discourses that occur here, if this be the case.

 

[wormey]

This is quickly and unnecessarily turning from an informative thread to an example of how rude replies and criticism can ruin an otherwise good discussion. I apologize to any readers, new and old, that may not be use to some of the discourses that occur here, if this be the case.

yes and i asked and got some good advice from some knowledgable people for which im very much appreciative. but i didnt mean to start any war of words. as usual with forums this is always the way it is. thought i had found a good one here. i wish people would just play nice.