radicalrod
Hunter
Hey that was easy.....but maybe too big....sorry this was the first pic I had
Ross flattop serial numbers
- Thread starter chet15
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
Hey that was easy.....but maybe too big....sorry this was the first pic I had
contender
Ruger Guru
Yeah RR,,, you have to resize the images. I use 864x576. Not hard to do either.
Considering the neat work on that gun, I kinda like the big pic.
radicalrod
Hunter
Ale-8(1) said:Considering the neat work on that gun, I kinda like the big pic.
Ya some guy names SAWMILLER scratched it all up then another guy named OLOF coated it in the shiny stuff.....turned out to look pretty good.....RR
Here is another one they scratched up too.....and I resized it a little better...
chet15
Hawkeye
contender said:Here is mine.
I thought that sn looked familiar. :shock:
Just looked at 15394 tucked away in Perry, IA two days ago...a strong 98%
Chet15
radicalrod
Hunter
chet15 said:contender said:Here is mine.
I thought that sn looked familiar. :shock:
Just looked at 15394 tucked away in Perry, IA two days ago...a strong 98%
Chet15
Tyrone you need to get this done....I almost can't stand knowing you guys haven't got things worked out.....I have an extra I would trade to get into the game :lol: :lol: :lol: RR
Heeeere we go . . .
:lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :mrgreen:
contender
Ruger Guru
CGDustDevil
Buckeye
Here's mine... Shipped June 56 according to the paper!
Sure looks like the "1" is elevated slightly.
Regards, Pete
Sure looks like the "1" is elevated slightly.
Regards, Pete
chet15
Hawkeye
Finally found the pic of the close 1st digit on a Ross flattop.
I'll send the pic to somebody who can post it for me.
Chet15
I'll send the pic to somebody who can post it for me.
Chet15
contender
Ruger Guru
Send it to me, I'll post it.
chet15
Hawkeye
contender said:
It's on the way. Thanks Tyrone!
contender
Ruger Guru
I'm having operator error issues. Miss Penny will have to help me get the pics here tonight.
Steve H
Bearcat
Chet here's another one. 14764
Steve
Steve
contender
Ruger Guru
Ok, here are the pictures Chad sent to me to be posted.
chet15
Hawkeye
Thanks Tyrone!
That's a magical moving "1" !
Here is a link to what a serial number stamping head looks like.
https://www.durable-tech.com/numbering-heads-press-style
That's a magical moving "1" !
Here is a link to what a serial number stamping head looks like.
https://www.durable-tech.com/numbering-heads-press-style
Ale-8(1) said:
Chet, care to address these older comments? I'm not arguing with you, but there remains certain doubt about the whole thing and I'm as curious about this as anyone . . . maybe a little more so.
:mrgreen:
chet15
Hawkeye
Sure.
Keep in mind that I'm not out to disprove anything that any one person says. But I do like to add comment if the written word just doesn't fit the scenario.
The common idea behind the ROSS variety flattops is that the employee errantly turned a wheel on the serial numbering head to a 1 making the numbers that were rolling off into five digits, from 14684 to 15483.
Sounds logical...but what if the other scenario would be that these 14684 to 15483 guns were really duplicates? And since Ruger's first known "D" marking for a duplicate serial number didn't happen until a few years after these ROSS guns were made, perhaps Ruger fixed the error by stamping a 1 in front of the second batch of guns that were numbered 4684 to 5483? What seems to fit this scenario is that the guns that are known to be numbered 4684 to 5483 is that they mostly mfg. and shipped a full month before the ROSS numbers 14684 to 15483. It is also significant to note that 4684 to 5483 and 14684 to 15483 were produced pretty close to each other, not months and months or even years apart. In fact, from the known mfg. and ship dates, each series of numbers was probably produced one right after the other...I think everybody can agree on that.
Keep in mind that Ruger only produced somewhat over 6,000 .357 flattops in 1956, an average of 500 per month for the year...they were nowhere near the capacity of today's production, especially in the small confines of the Red Barn complex.
If it was a duplicating error, why not just stamp a 1 in front of the serial number to keep the books and the feds happy? Get them out the doors as soon as possible because backorders were heavy in the forseeable future and there was no room at the facility to hold on to 800 guns until something could be figured out on what to do with them.
I really believe Ruger stamped a 1 in front of those serial numbers.
The smoking gun is the picture with the 1 nearly touching the 2nd digit in the serial number pictured above, as compared to all other known ROSS guns....
If you look at the way a serial numbering head works, digits CANNOT move side to side with any difference noticeable to the eye, although those digits can move north to south in positioning.
Chet15
Keep in mind that I'm not out to disprove anything that any one person says. But I do like to add comment if the written word just doesn't fit the scenario.
The common idea behind the ROSS variety flattops is that the employee errantly turned a wheel on the serial numbering head to a 1 making the numbers that were rolling off into five digits, from 14684 to 15483.
Sounds logical...but what if the other scenario would be that these 14684 to 15483 guns were really duplicates? And since Ruger's first known "D" marking for a duplicate serial number didn't happen until a few years after these ROSS guns were made, perhaps Ruger fixed the error by stamping a 1 in front of the second batch of guns that were numbered 4684 to 5483? What seems to fit this scenario is that the guns that are known to be numbered 4684 to 5483 is that they mostly mfg. and shipped a full month before the ROSS numbers 14684 to 15483. It is also significant to note that 4684 to 5483 and 14684 to 15483 were produced pretty close to each other, not months and months or even years apart. In fact, from the known mfg. and ship dates, each series of numbers was probably produced one right after the other...I think everybody can agree on that.
Keep in mind that Ruger only produced somewhat over 6,000 .357 flattops in 1956, an average of 500 per month for the year...they were nowhere near the capacity of today's production, especially in the small confines of the Red Barn complex.
If it was a duplicating error, why not just stamp a 1 in front of the serial number to keep the books and the feds happy? Get them out the doors as soon as possible because backorders were heavy in the forseeable future and there was no room at the facility to hold on to 800 guns until something could be figured out on what to do with them.
I really believe Ruger stamped a 1 in front of those serial numbers.
The smoking gun is the picture with the 1 nearly touching the 2nd digit in the serial number pictured above, as compared to all other known ROSS guns....
If you look at the way a serial numbering head works, digits CANNOT move side to side with any difference noticeable to the eye, although those digits can move north to south in positioning.
Chet15
All sounds pretty good. A question remains, however, addressed by your comment "If it was a duplicating error . . . "
As you present the sequence of events, backed up by ship dates which I support, a duplication does seem likely. The question then remains: how/why the duplication occurred.
Two possibilities: intentional or unintentional.
If intentional, I'd like to know why it was seen as a good idea. The old "let's play with the competition" always comes up here, but I'm kinda cold on that one in this instance.
If unintentional, I'd like to figure out how the guy running the numbering stamp managed to do it without realizing it. Perhaps more than one guy involved, different shifts perhaps? The numbers weren't recorded until the guns were shipped, right? Didn't they have to keep some kind of daily record at the point of stamping, like the start/finish numbers? I guess I could see confusion there.
We may never know for sure. Your scenario makes as much sense as any other, at least given the currently-known facts.
But I'm open to suggestions.
:mrgreen:
As you present the sequence of events, backed up by ship dates which I support, a duplication does seem likely. The question then remains: how/why the duplication occurred.
Two possibilities: intentional or unintentional.
If intentional, I'd like to know why it was seen as a good idea. The old "let's play with the competition" always comes up here, but I'm kinda cold on that one in this instance.
If unintentional, I'd like to figure out how the guy running the numbering stamp managed to do it without realizing it. Perhaps more than one guy involved, different shifts perhaps? The numbers weren't recorded until the guns were shipped, right? Didn't they have to keep some kind of daily record at the point of stamping, like the start/finish numbers? I guess I could see confusion there.
We may never know for sure. Your scenario makes as much sense as any other, at least given the currently-known facts.
But I'm open to suggestions.
:mrgreen:
chet15
Hawkeye
I don't believe it was intentional at all (to fool competition). The running theory initially on the alphabet Bearcats was that it was to fool competition but running 1,000 of each alphabet was was really for making manufacturing easier (probably to match the guards up with the frames after they both went their separate ways - gold anodation and black anodation), then a list of year by year manufacturing totals came out which pretty much settled the Alphabet Bearcat question...they just produced one heckuva lot of alphabet Bearcats from 1958 to 1962.
Who knows on the Ross flattops...there were 800 guns...800 exactly by the serial numbers...was that a day's worth of production for putting on those serial numbers?
I don't know that Ruger has another serial number record at the factory that is pre-manufacture date, you'd think they would in order to keep the feds happy through the mfg. process...or at least keep some kind of running tally somewhere close to the serial numbering machine. The manufacture date is when the gun has reached final inspect and has been testfired...that's the first date that goes in the day book. The only other date in the day book is the ship date.
In 1961 there were roughly 1,000 "D" Single-Sixes in a batch, in 1962 there were 600 T678 autos duplicated, 1966 roughly 1,000 duplicated RST4's just to name a few...and the real biggie was over 5,100 Single-Sixes in 1968 although this can be attributed to the thought that somebody forgot the 500000 range had already been used for the Super Single-Six a few years earlier.
I think the Ross guns exist they way they do because of simple human error like the first three examples above.
Who knows if they are a days production, but they could be.
Say the employee gets to running late on the day and just gets the guns numbered (the first run of 4684 to 5483) and figures he'll get them noted (in whatever record) the next day. Doesn't happen, he doesn't show up for work or who knows. So the next time a batch of guns gets serial numbered they start again at 4684 and do 800 guns. At some point somebody realized the mistake....was it when they were seeing duplicated numbers finally in the day book???
So by that time you would already have the 2nd batch of guns 4684 to 5483 that may have even been blued and going through their testfire...then when they go to the day book....OOps! The answer...somebody forgot something, eh???
Who knows when it was discovered...but I do not believe it was to fool the competition.
Thinking about this I am also reminded about the 500 .41 Blackhawks that were duplicated in 1967 as well as the two batches of Single-Sixes in 1967 (a batch of 100 and another 1,100+) that actually got out of the factory without having a "D" stamped at the serial number. The factory covered their butts by putting the "D" in the books though. :roll:
Yes, you can be sure that as long as humans are involved, something is bound to be messed up.
Chet15
Who knows on the Ross flattops...there were 800 guns...800 exactly by the serial numbers...was that a day's worth of production for putting on those serial numbers?
I don't know that Ruger has another serial number record at the factory that is pre-manufacture date, you'd think they would in order to keep the feds happy through the mfg. process...or at least keep some kind of running tally somewhere close to the serial numbering machine. The manufacture date is when the gun has reached final inspect and has been testfired...that's the first date that goes in the day book. The only other date in the day book is the ship date.
In 1961 there were roughly 1,000 "D" Single-Sixes in a batch, in 1962 there were 600 T678 autos duplicated, 1966 roughly 1,000 duplicated RST4's just to name a few...and the real biggie was over 5,100 Single-Sixes in 1968 although this can be attributed to the thought that somebody forgot the 500000 range had already been used for the Super Single-Six a few years earlier.
I think the Ross guns exist they way they do because of simple human error like the first three examples above.
Who knows if they are a days production, but they could be.
Say the employee gets to running late on the day and just gets the guns numbered (the first run of 4684 to 5483) and figures he'll get them noted (in whatever record) the next day. Doesn't happen, he doesn't show up for work or who knows. So the next time a batch of guns gets serial numbered they start again at 4684 and do 800 guns. At some point somebody realized the mistake....was it when they were seeing duplicated numbers finally in the day book???
So by that time you would already have the 2nd batch of guns 4684 to 5483 that may have even been blued and going through their testfire...then when they go to the day book....OOps! The answer...somebody forgot something, eh???
Who knows when it was discovered...but I do not believe it was to fool the competition.
Thinking about this I am also reminded about the 500 .41 Blackhawks that were duplicated in 1967 as well as the two batches of Single-Sixes in 1967 (a batch of 100 and another 1,100+) that actually got out of the factory without having a "D" stamped at the serial number. The factory covered their butts by putting the "D" in the books though. :roll:
Yes, you can be sure that as long as humans are involved, something is bound to be messed up.
Chet15
