Please explain about "new" old models. I'm confused

[rboineau]

I bought my first Ruger in 1968, wouldn't take a post-1972 Ruger single action as a gift, but now see what appear to be new Rugers tagged as "Old Models". Is this some sort of return to the old cocking action but with modifications to allow 6 rounds safely loaded? Any info would be appreciated. Regards, Ralph Boineau in central South Carolina.

 

[Rclark]

Is this some sort of return to the old cocking action

Oh, how I wish ... but ... no...

Where did you see this? Three screw pre-72 are Old Models. And all going forward are two pin transfer bar New Models .... Period. Whether medium frames or large frames... All New Models.

The only 'confusion' (that I am aware of) concerns the New Vaquero and the original Vaquero which some still insist on calling New Models and Old Models which really isn't correct Ruger lingo as there were never any Old Model Vaqueros.

 

[SATCOM]

Ralph,

My introduction to Ruger is similar to yours. A Single Six in 1966 and in 1973 upon return from 3 years in Germany found the new Rugers completely unsatisfactory. Ruger had been manufacturing single action revolvers (Single Six/Super Single Six/Blackhawk/Super Blackhawks) when future regulations forced a design change to allow six rounds loaded and if dropped on hard surface on hammer with no discharge.

Ruger called this version the "New Model". Said so right on the gun. We then called the pre 73 guns Old Models. NM and OM simple and no problems. Years later the Blackhawk anniversary models which of course are NMs, were made and an OM term flattop was used to describe these guns. Just a NM with a OM term.

The Vaquero, of course a NM gun, was introduced with a cylinder frame that years later changed size. So we had two versions (sizes) of the NM gun; Vaquero. Somebody said OM Vaquero to describe first version. Somebody else said NM Vaquero. Did we have a OMNM and/or NMNM Vaquero? No we disagreements!

When the NM Blackhawks were made in a Flattop configuration the term became an official Ruger term for NM guns. Now we had NM gun with a NM&OM term.

Of course you can have your OM "reconfigured" to a safer :roll: version by Ruger. We all got that one right, Converted OM.

Somebody please add to this for me.

SATCOM

 

[Chuck 100 yd]

If anyone tries to give you one, tell them Chuck would like to have it.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Dane, that entire subject just gives me the willies.

I have decided to ignore it altogether. I know what I like and I know the differences and I'll just let the others wrangle over it for the forseeable future.

You're a braver man than I am for even making that excellent attempt . . .

 

[DPris]

The 1973 "new" action came about entirely because a brilliant Blackhawk owner won a huge lawsuit against Ruger after shooting himself with a pre-'73 single-action.

William B. didn't bring about the transfer bar because of "future regulations".
We can thank stupidity and the American legal system for Ruger's current single-action guts today.
Denis

 

[contender]

Actually, the lawsuit where an idiot sued Ruger was after Bill had introduced the NM action. It was the only lawsuit ever lost by Ruger because the judge ruled that Ruger knew he had a defective design because he changed the design to a safer design. The result was the warning billboard on the guns after that.

 

[rugerguy]

its ALL the the use of the word "new", and its proper place in any sentence...yes, you can have a "New model" (noun) as that is what it is, the "New Model" ( ala 1973)....then you have folks who buy a current, or much later version of the "New model" and the "newer" one, replaced the "older one"...yes, as noted above the example of the Vaquero, (older, or first version) and the later "New Vaquero" , yes a registered trademark name.................
Okay? no there will NOT be a 'test'...class dismissed :roll: 8) :wink:

just remember, nouns versus adjectives :lol:

 

[DPris]

Con,
That's the first time I heard it that way.
Back in '73 I first heard the new action was the result of a 6 million dollar lawsuit against Ruger where an old model Blackhawk was involved.
Bill Ruger brought about the transfer bar as a direct result.
Same ever since.
Denis

 

[SATCOM]

Bob,

I tried this explanation as it is so much easier than trying to explain the first convertibles by model numbers.

Besides, Ralph is new to the RF seems to be a nice guy.

:wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[rboineau]

Boy, I sure wish I had bookmarked the listing I saw. I'll try to go back through gun auction sites and find it. I wasn't drunk/stoned when I saw it--I don't think. I was searching "Old Model Ruger" and came upon a picture of a new blued Ruger single action, 22 I think, propped up against its box with the factory instruction sheet alongside. It headlined something like "New Ruger with old-style cocking action" or some such. I figured at the time it was a new mechanism that would ape the earlier cocking action in feel but be safe to carry with 6 rounds. I'm NOT talking about a converted pre-'73 gun.

Gosh, now that several of you have replied with no knowledge of this, I'm beginning to doubt my sanity(something others have done for years).

 

[Ale-8(1)]

With Ruger, NEVER SAY NEVER . . . stranger things have turned up.

 

[contender]

Actually, DPris, if you study the evolution of the NM, you will find that Bill started working towards a transfer bar system as far back as 1966 if my memory is correct. And, I think it was originally intended for the DA revolvers. And,, I think it was in 1970 that he got the patents for the Security-Six, followed by the NM SA in 1972.
It wasn't until later on that the idiot sued Sturm, Ruger & Co. After the NM's had been in production a while, the judge decided that Bill knew he had a "defective" design. It was in the judges findings that "since he'd built a safety transfer bar system, he knew his original SA revolvers were defective." The judge disregarded the SA design going back over 100 years in his decision.
So, the "warning" models appeared, followed by the offering of the safety transfer bar conversion.

 

[SATCOM]

:idea: How about a Ruger with one of these installed;

http://powercustom.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=136

SATCOM

 

[street]

As far as the Vaqueros go, just remember this!!!

ALL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS EVEN THE OLD MODEL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS.

Remember this and you won't go wrong. :x :roll:

 

[DPris]

You're saying the barrel warnings came before the transfer bar?
I must be reading you wrong.
Earliest warning stamps I saw were in '76.


I Googled for about five minutes on the lawsuit/transfer bar issue, I find numerous references to the transfer bar coming about as a result of litigation.
All these years I've been wrong on all that?
Denis

 

[Ale-8(1)]

:idea: How about a Ruger with one of these installed;

http://powercustom.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=12&products_id=136

SATCOM

That's very likely what's being referred to here. I had read about those somewhere but couldn't find the link.

Thanks for posting that.

 

[Hondo44]

Boy, I sure wish I had bookmarked the listing I saw. I'll try to go back through gun auction sites and find it. I wasn't drunk/stoned when I saw it--I don't think. I was searching "Old Model Ruger" and came upon a picture of a new blued Ruger single action, 22 I think, propped up against its box with the factory instruction sheet alongside. It headlined something like or some such. I figured at the time it was a new mechanism that would ape the earlier cocking action in feel but be safe to carry with 6 rounds. I'm NOT talking about a converted pre-'73 gun.

Gosh, now that several of you have replied with no knowledge of this, I'm beginning to doubt my sanity(something others have done for years).

Ralph,

Don't doubt yourself, you saw what you saw. And the phrase you quote has a very familiar ring to it; "New Ruger with old-style cocking action". Several custom sixgun smiths make parts such as a new model hammer with extra notches so when it's cocked, it has the familiar clicks of the old model action.

But I think what you may have seen was a Ruger ad for the transfer bar safety, free retrofit kit for the old models that Ruger will install on any old model free including shipping and return your original action parts (if they are in safe working condition).

OR one other possibility: the currently made Ruger Bearcat .22 was reintroduced about 1991 as a new model with a transfer bar safety action but still maintains the "old-style cocking action". It's a different system than all the other NM Rugers.

 

[k22fan]

In the mid 1990s the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published one of their in depth articles on the law suits Ruger lost over accidents involving OMs. Under its former ownership the WSJ was famous for allowing its writers to spend months or in some cases over a year researching a long article before publication. IMO they were also the best paper at balancing conservative points of view against liberal ones. Business was their specialty, not politics or crime.

There was not just one OM law suit. The law suits continued into the 1990s. The article named multiple law firms who’s specialty was suing Ruger over OM accidents. Examples were drawn from numerous cases. In his or her ruling one of the judges compared OMs to an automobile manufacturer refusing to make seat belts standard equipment after it was established that seat belts reduce fatalities. It would be futile for an auto maker to argue their vehicles were safe enough without seat belts because there had been a tradition of making vehicles without seat belts.

I doubt many of you like the judges’ rulings but you’ll never buy enough OMs to pay those judgments. Ruger’s management owes their first duty to their share holders, not collectors.

I don’t intend this to be critical of OM collectors. I like my OM SBH and hope there is an OM .45 in my future. I just thought I could add a little to what members know about OM law suits.

 

[Hondo44]

k22fan,

I read the same article and one thing that really impressed me was that Ruger had a routine budget line item during that period of a couple of million bucks annually just for litigating the issue.

 

[contender]

Dpris, you read it wrong.
The transfer bar came along first, then the warnings, then the safety conversion where you can send in your OM Ruger for the upgrade.
The first gun using the transfer bar was the Security-Six, introduced in 1971, patents date to 1970. Then the use of the transfer bar in the SA's came about in 1973, with the patent dates in 1972. (Reference "Ruger & His Guns, by Wilson & Dougans "Pistols & Revolvers, the Vintage years") The design concept came about as a result of some law changes in 1968 about drop tests, and this (Pages 126, 127, & 130 in Wilsons book,) for the SA's. And you can look in Dougans book, pages 331 & 332 about the patent dates for the transfer bar system. Nowhere in all that is a mentioning of a lost lawsuit being the reason. The 1968 GCA was a factor in designs as they were looking at what COULD happen if they got caught behind regulatory changes, by not having a product deemed safe by stupid laws.
But here is the part about lawsuits.
Pages 141 & 143 in Wilsons book. I quote; "In July 1976 the company was found liable for injuries sustained during the use of an "old model" Blackhawk in the case of Day vs Sturm, Ruger (Alaska), with an initial award of 2.3 million. The case was remanded for a new trial, but the ensuing publicity opened floodgates of litigation. Unfairly, the innovative Ruger New Model single-actions, using the patented transfer bar safety mechanism for the first time in any single-action revolver, were used by the plaintiffs attorneys to imply that the pre-1973 "old models" were "defective." This litigation peaked around 1979, and has decreased steadily ever since."
That is part of the information in Wilsons book.
You can get more on the lawsuit information from Wilsons book, OR the Stockholders annual report form 1978. (Page 154 in Wilsons book.) I can dig out a copy of the 1978 report but it's easier to check in Wilson's book.
So, the "internet rumors" of the transfer bar being developed because of lawsuits is wrong. The transfer bar did cause them to lose the case in 1976.
Personally, I'd like to find the SOB that filed the suit, AND his attorneys & do a Charlie Daniels on them. Take 'em out in swamp, tie 'em to a stump, let the alligators, rattlers & bugs have them. I've often wondered who was "Day" and where is the SOB now? To me, he was stupid in NOT learning how to safely carry a SA revolver that's design was known for over 100 years. Oh well!

 

[5of7]

The only 'confusion' (that I am aware of) concerns the New Vaquero and the original Vaquero which some still insist on calling New Models and Old Models which really isn't correct Ruger lingo as there were never any Old Model Vaqueros.

It is correct that there was never an Old Model Vaquero, but there was an old model Vaquero.

The same thing is true of the Blackhawks, there never was an Old Model, but there certainly were a lot on old models made. 8)

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Sigh.

:roll: :wink: :mrgreen:

 

[5of7]

Sigh.

:roll: :wink: :mrgreen:

I know...... :roll:

I am just trying to explain the difference between an adjective and a proper noun. I wonder about he people who get upset about the use of the "proper name" for things and at the same time don't realize that capitalization changes the meaning of the very words that they are crying about. 8)

 

[CraigC]

It is correct that there was never an Old Model Vaquero, but there was an old model Vaquero.

The same thing is true of the Blackhawks, there never was an Old Model, but there certainly were a lot on old models made. 8)

I am just trying to explain the difference between an adjective and a proper noun. I wonder about he people who get upset about the use of the "proper name" for things and at the same time don't realize that capitalization changes the meaning of the very words that they are crying about. 8)

100% correct. I've made this point numerous times. Since when do you and I nitpick about the same thing???

As far as the Vaqueros go, just remember this!!!

ALL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS EVEN THE OLD MODEL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS.

Remember this and you won't go wrong.

You should probably be quiet. This confusion is caused by people like yourself.

 

[5of7]

It is correct that there was never an Old Model Vaquero, but there was an old model Vaquero.

The same thing is true of the Blackhawks, there never was an Old Model, but there certainly were a lot on old models made. 8)

I am just trying to explain the difference between an adjective and a proper noun. I wonder about he people who get upset about the use of the "proper name" for things and at the same time don't realize that capitalization changes the meaning of the very words that they are crying about. 8)

100% correct. I've made this point numerous times. Since when do you and I nitpick about the same thing???

As far as the Vaqueros go, just remember this!!!

ALL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS EVEN THE OLD MODEL VAQUEROS ARE NEW MODELS.

Remember this and you won't go wrong.

You should probably be quiet. This confusion is caused by people like yourself.

Craig, I am not at all confused on this issue, as you shouldn't be since I have explained to you so many times. 8)

 

[CraigC]

Uh, I believe it's the OP that's confused, smart guy. That comment was directed at "street" anyway but I know that reading comprehension is not your thing.

You're the only person I've ever debated with who will still argue when someone agrees with you. Which is.....interesting.

 

[5of7]

Uh, I believe it's the OP that's confused, smart guy. That comment was directed at "street" anyway but I know that reading comprehension is not your thing.

You're the only person I've ever debated with who will still argue when someone agrees with you. Which is.....interesting.

Well what makes you think that I thought you were talking about me?

All I am saying is that I am not confused on this issue and neither should you be, after I explained it to you. 8)

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Get a room, you two!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[CraigC]

At least it's entertaining.....somewhat. :lol: :shock: