Ross flattop serial numbers

[chet15]

Several years ago there was a thread on the Ross Variation .357 flattops.
Within that thread there were several RF members who provided closeups of the serial numbers on their guns.
Trying to recreate that with this new thread...
Lets see those Ross numbers!
Chet15

 

[Valmet]

Chet- I'm unfamiliar with the "Ross" variation. Can you shed a little light for a Ruger noob?

 

[El Numero Uno]

Valmet,
There is an extensive article on the Ross variation 357 Blackhawks in the Ruger Owners & Collectors Society( ROCS) Fall Digest that was just mailed to members last week. Guess you are not a member, or just haven't looked thru the Digest yet.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

The so-called ROSS .357 Flattops are 800 examples from 1956 that are strangely serial-numbered.

They are Type 1 Flattops in everything except serial number. The serial numbers would put them in Type 2 classification.

The reasoning for this seeming aberration has been argued and discussed ad infinitum since the oddity was noticed and published by Bill Ross (hence the nomenclature applied).

Some folks believe they were accidentally made, others believe they were an intentional number-jump to confuse competitors. Always good for a discussion.

:mrgreen: :wink: :mrgreen:

 

[Valmet]

Thank you for the info gentlemen.

 

[jussbad]

 

[Hashknife Hartley]

Here's 15032 with the photo I have of the number.

HH

 

[chet15]

Here's 15032 with the photo I have of the number.

HH

Can you post a closeup of just the serial number?
Chet15

 

[rugerguy]

as can be seen in some of the pictures and was often on the guns we had and sold over the years, the serial number "set up" (sequence)?? seemed like the first digit was always off kilter ?? above or below the line of the others which kind of lent credence to ,was the first number (digit) "added" at a later date or just sloppy fixture (jig) set up,,,,YOU be the the judge..............we will NEVER know as the 'players' are all dead and gone, sadly, Mr Ruger seldom ever wrote ANYTHING down, just told the folks at the factory "do this or do that....." 8) :roll: :wink:

 

[chet15]

Jussbad:
Can you post a little clearer picture of the sn on 14795...I see a little jiggle in the pic.
Anybody see anything else different with those numbers? I DO!!
Chet15

 

[JCW64]

Here's one that shipped in June 1956.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

as can be seen in some of the pictures and was often on the guns we had and sold over the years, the serial number "set up" (sequence)?? seemed like the first digit was always off kilter ?? above or below the line of the others which kind of lent credence to ,was the first number (digit) "added" at a later date or just sloppy fixture (jig) set up,,,,YOU be the the judge..............we will NEVER know as the 'players' are all dead and gone, sadly, Mr Ruger seldom ever wrote ANYTHING down, just told the folks at the factory "do this or do that....." 8) :roll: :wink:

Interestingly enough, Dougan's book shows the numbering device in use at the time, and it required that the digits be incremented MANUALLY for each number . . . so there's a whole 'nother set of possibilities here.

Havin' fun yet?

:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Hashknife Hartley]

Here 'ya are, about as close as my not too good camera can get.

HH

 

[jussbad]

Jussbad:

Anybody see anything else different with those numbers? I DO!!
Chet15

Appears the 1 is double struck. Also, most all I've seen/owned it appears that the 1 is spaced further out than the other digits.

 

[chet15]

Jussbad:

Anybody see anything else different with those numbers? I DO!!
Chet15

Appears the 1 is double struck. Also, most all I've seen/owned it appears that the 1 is spaced further out than the other digits.

Hmmmm....all good stuff here!!!


OK...Going on a limb here....here's what I'm seeing with these pics.
Numbers 14795 and 15167 have a different shaped flag at the top of the "1" digit than do numbers 14698, 14986.
To me it doesn't make sense to change number wheels in the midst of an 800 gun-run.

The theory on the ROSS guns is that when the employee was at serial number 4683 he accidentally turned the 1st spanning wheel to a "1" effectively creating a run of 800 out-of-sequence .357 flattops ranging from 14684 through 15483, then when the error was noticed, the employee went back to 4684 and continued numbering upward from there. The problem is, from the dates in J.D.'s addendum and the additional mfg/shipping dates I have in my notes, serial numbers 4684 through 5483 for the most part have a testfire/inspect/mfg. date in the April 30 through May 1956 time period with a few stragglers coming after that.
The ROSS serial numbers 14684 through 15483 have testfire/inspect/mfg. dates generally in June 1956 with some stragglers after that.
These dates contradict the theory that the ROSS serial numbers were done first.

Also, for the examples above...14698 has a flat serif on top of the "1", 14795 has a curved serif on top of the "1" with Jussbad also saying "the 1 appears to be double struck", 14986 has a flat serif on top of the "1" and 15167 again has a curved serif on top of the "1". Just received a pic of 15359...it is back to the flat serif on top of the "1".

Something else that I need to check back on J.D.'s addendum...in the normal scheme of things, according to the original theory, 4683 and 14684 should pretty much have close to the same testfire/mfg/inspect date if they were produced one gun apart from each other. The same should be true of 15483 and 4684. More on this when I double check.

I.M.O. and my opinion only...I am as convinced as ever that these are duplicate guns and the "1" in front of every ROSS serial number was added to the original four-digit number, apparently by hand stamping the digit. I used to think these might have been fed back through the serial numbering machine to have the "1" added, but having two different style's of "1" (and the "double stamping" of the "1" on Jussbad's 14795 when the other digits don't appear to be doubled), tells me the 1 was added, so are indeed one of Ruger's earliest known forms of "duplicate" serial numbering.
Chet15

 

[contender]

I'll get a pic of mine up later.

 

[chet15]

Still need more pics if anybody else would like to submit some.
I'm not sure now that 14795 has a different sized font....maybe the "double stamping" made it look that way.
But the first "1" on 15167 sure looks different to me.
Chet15

 

[contender]

Here is mine.

 

[radicalrod]

Well I would post pics of 15483 and 15484 but I haven't done anything to replace photo crapbucket yet.....

They sure screwed the world with that move....RR

 

[Robb Barnes]

Imgur is REALLY easy Radical!