Ross Gun- thanks TA Workman-Ivory added

[Robb Barnes]

Beg is the key word here Chet15. I have hit up all the parts stash guys I know and so far no luck. Hopefully one will show up one of these days. It would be kind of neat to have the correct style ER on it with full disclosure about the parts swap. You hear of one I wouldn't mind hearing about it.

Robb

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Just so's we don't overlook it, I'm going to remind everybody of the "screwdriver variation" scenario. We can never (well, almost never) be 100% certain of a gun's history.

We have no way of knowing FOR SURE how these old guns were shipped. Any time an easily-swapped component of later vintage shows up on an earlier gun, we must recall that it's just possible -- possible -- that this newer part has been substituted sometime in the gun's long history.

I am by no means saying that this has occurred on the gun in question here. I'm not even hinting at that. But it is possible, in any similar case.

A Type 1A ROSS? Oh, man. Can of worms?

JMHO

 

[Robb Barnes]

That was like my comment to Flattop44. It seems that unless a person was the original owner or recipient of one of these old guns, it would be extremely hard to prove exactly how it came out of the factory. 6 1/2" old model Supers, transition guns, Mr. Rugers business decisions to use available inventory rather than waste it. Not trying to make a case for this gun being sent out from the factory with the dimpled rod, just commenting on the ease of variables entering many "collector" situations. Still, I am happy with it and for a simple minded guy like me, that is enough.

Robb

Hey it looks like I found a serrated button ER for this gun. We will know for sure in a few days when it arrives and we check to make sure it is not a single six round style rod but the correct angle cut rod.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

And therein lies the rub. In such a case, does one try to find the "small, serrated" button and install it to "make the ROSS right" or leave the round button in place as a "rarity" if it's at all possible that the gun originally shipped that way?

Fun, huh?

 

[chet15]

And therein lies the rub. In such a case, does one try to find the "small, serrated" button and install it to "make the ROSS right" or leave the round button in place as a "rarity" if it's at all possible that the gun originally shipped that way?

Fun, huh?

It all depends on the ship date. June 1956 is too early to have a large dimpled button rod.
Will be interesting to see how the first "late" shipped Ross gun looks when it is found (other than 15023).
Also, I think we all understand the thought about "screwdriver" variations...but aren't they all screwdriver variations? There are just too many "identical" guns out there for some variations to be a screwdriver variation (and again...depends on the mfg. and/or ship date). Heck...a person can change barrels if he wants, so tecnically every part can be changed that isn't a part of the cylinder frame.
Type 1 .44 flattops can't be proven either, but there are enough guys out there who believe what they have are the real thing.
Another example would be all the RSSE that were finally completed with later parts...and I'll make a bet some of the current owners have changed parts around because they didn't think a large button, or unengraved round loading gate (all blue RSSE) shouldn't be on their particular gun...because the sn is too early.
#200100 roundgate tri-color Single-Six is another example eh flatgate?
Chet15

 

[Robb Barnes]

I will put the serrated button rod on the gun but keep the dimpled rod it came to me with marked as such in the parts box. If and when the gun goes to a more deserving collector, it will go with both rods and full explanation of the situation. An interesting little exercise in Ruger history all the same from my standpoint.

Take care gents,

Robb

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I should know this, but cannot put my finger on it right this minute . . .

When was the first dimpled button shipped, on any variety of gun whatsoever? Can this be documented?

And Chet15 you know what I meant by "screwdriver variations". Specifically, I was referring to the intentional swapping out of easily-changed parts such as ejector components, grip frames, and even internals. This is done all the time by folks who simply happen to like one variety of stuff more than another. The hassle comes after the gun has changed ownership a couple of times, and the current owner cannot really determine the original configuration. This is particularly an issue on guns that happen to number right in a transitional period for any feature/component.

I'm not saying that the generally-accepted types/variations are the result of parts manipulations after shipment from TheFactory. But to deny that swapping occurs is just, well, "denial" of a commonly-known fact. We have to face it and deal with it or we're just kidding ourselves.

As always, JMHO. I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

Robb, I apologize for my part in hijacking your thread.

 

[Robb Barnes]

No hi-jacking occuring here, just more ideas and knowledge being passed on for general learnings sake. My thought is that when a person buys a gun they just need tomake full disclosure of the information as they know it about that particular gun. Unless you bought it new, it seems to be real tough to say exactly what happened to the gun over the years.

 

[chet15]

Ale-8(1), yes I know what you meant. Not denying parts swaps don't happen. As an example, there are a lot of people who had the ejector housing fly off during shooting, so replaced with later parts. I'm just saying parts swapping for the millions of Rugers produced would be a very small minority. I know, some may disagree with this, but on the average, the common man just isn't going to go parts swapping....so I tend to go with the law of averages there.
I know of a Type 1 .44 flattop in the correct low 3 digit range that was bought that had just such a swap made. The good thing was the orig. owner kept the small button rod with the gun. Then the consecutive sn to that gun, also bought as a Type 1, came from a dealer who didn't know the difference between any of the flattop variations.
For large button Type 1A .357 Blackhawks, our #6580 was shipped 9/56. That one came to us as a regular old flattop, but NIB...so have no reason to believe that one was swapped out (it came from Jim Goergen whom I also bought a NIB XR3 RSS4 and NIB blackwreath LWSC for $200 each...so good for me, he never had much Ruger knowledge ). 6592 is reported as a true Type 1 and it has a shp date of 8/56. 6523 is a 1A with large button, but it was also shipped 7/57.
Maybe Gary has some .357 FT dates he would share with us??
I also have the following dates on Type 4 flatgates (large button)...45539 12/56, 49052 10/56, 51094 10/56 and 51133 10/22/56.
For the Type 3 flatgate with small button I have 51494 noted as 10/56.
Doing a lot of research ont he RSSE I also determined that Ruger did not start installing large button ejector rods on those guns until late 10/56.
Also bear in mind that the change to a large button ejector rod coincides with .44 flattop production and bringing that model to market. Serial number 14 .44 flattop was one of the earliest guns shipped from the factory (if not the earliest), going to the American Rifleman staff and appearing in the October 1956 American Rifleman with a large button ejector rod and walnut grips. Granted...to make the 10/56 Rifleman, that test report would have had to have been submitted in September 1956...so I'm thinking 9/56 as the earliest possible moment for a large button.
Yes, the difference between 6/56 and 9/56 isn't much, but if there were many Ross flattops originally made with large ejector buttons, somebody surely would have reported them by now. That and the 1A's start showing up about sn 6266 which was produced about 800 guns after the Ross numbers.
Chet15

 

[Ale-8(1)]

"I'm thinking 9/56 as the earliest possible moment for a large button."

And if that's true, then any of the guns shipped after that date COULD POSSIBLY have a dimpled button. Won't argue with that possibility at all.

For instance, any of those "late" guns in Dougan's supplement/addendum COULD have had such a button. Question is . . . he calls them ROSS guns, so what was he using as the definition of a ROSS gun? Front sight for sure, I'd think, but how about ejector components? I'd hazard a guess that they had the serrated button.

Nothing I've seen so far justifies the creation of the ROSS 1A variation, but I also don't believe we know all the facts yet.

 

[rugerguy]

I recall that Bill Ross made the point originally as to the front , "squigqley" sights.and a possible barrel change OR that Ruger "jumped" number sequences ahead like they did with other models , translate that to " a type one, THEN that brings in the other noted features of that type, which would kinda stand to reason.....
Now what about when an owner got the small serrated buttons ,complained about their finger slipping off during ejection and then returned the gun to the factory for remedy.....all plausible and again very subjective...'
But as Chad has been documenting, kinda gotta go with whats 'reported" as ONLY the original owner knows for sure, and thats all water under the bridge.
If you have the proper rod, I'd just put it on as thats the way it "should have been, ignore the switch........"

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Might as ell ask the other question . . .

Did a few serrated buttons continue to trickle out of The Factory thru 1957 and 1958 . . . maybe even 1959?

Yeah, I know, how could we ever tell they were original to the gun?

Same old story, isn't it?

 

[chet15]

Might as ell ask the other question . . .

Did a few serrated buttons continue to trickle out of The Factory thru 1957 and 1958 . . . maybe even 1959?

Yeah, I know, how could we ever tell they were original to the gun?

Same old story, isn't it?

J.M.O., but I have reason to believe that if a certain new design component helped saleability of a gun, then Ruger may have even retrofitted the guns in stock to have the new component. That was done with the RSSE that were in stock when Ruger made the switch to engraved round loading gates and engraved screwheads. AFter a certain ship date, there just aren't any more "old" parts on those guns.
From my sn notes...once those small buttons disappeared on the Single-Six and .357 Blackhawk, and heck....even include the .44 flattop, they're gone.
I had a note around here that you could still purchase flat loading gates as late as the early 1970's, which means that Ruger just didn't use them till they were gone. When the Single Six contoured loading gate came out, that was it for the flat gate. Same thing may very well have happened with the large button ejector rods, because small button rods have not been reported on later sn'd guns.
Chet15

 

[chet15]

Oh yes, one other thing to consider. H.W. "Bill" Ross made the discovery of the 14684 to 15483 sn range of flattops, unusual at the time because the guns in that sn range should have had later features. Checking a few ship dates he found that something unusual did in fact happen. I think it was flattop collector Mike Johnston that managed to find the actual high and low sn of the variation, possibly with the help of the RCA, and these findings were printed in an old Faulks Collectors Service issue circa 1980 to 1984.
Obviously, if Mr. Ross had known it at the time that some of the guns in this sn range would have been shipped with a large button, or even a later front sight, he may very well lumped the "out-of-sequence" group as a certain name, whatever.
It was other collectors who gave the variation the name the "ROSS" variation since he is the one who discovered it, and it will be other collectors who determine what to call the late shipped "out-of-sequence" guns.
Myself, I like the idea of calling those late shipped guns, "late shipped ROSS" guns just for the fact that it identifies that something did indeed happen in the way of Ruger's production for that entire 14684 to 15483 sn range. Maybe that designation would make them worth a little more, maybe it wouldn't, but our entire collecting fraternity would decide collectibility of such late shipped guns.
As mentioned in a previous PM to Ale-8(1), there are late shipped two digit .357 flattops also that have large ejector rod buttons...in fact, there probably a much larger percentage of those early flattops that have large buttons...but the two variations of these early guns really haven't caught the interest of collectors because, well....two-digit guns is two-digit guns...and finding an example of each is beyond the realm of most collectors, let alone one collector having an opportunity at one two-digit example.
That's kind of interesting there...nobody really calls a two-digit .357 flattop with correct large button a 1A.
Chet15

 

[Ale-8(1)]

For what it's worth, Bob has always categorized the first issues of flattops as . . .

"Type 1: 1/4" wide front sight. All are 4-5/8" barrels. Most have small grooved ejector rod button. Some of the late ones and some of the first 100 have round dimpled ejector rod button."

"ROSS: Shipped in 1956 with Type 1 parts, but numbered in 1958 with Type 2 guns."

"Type 2: 3/8" wide front sight, offset ejector rod housing."

Thus, he acknowledged the possible presence of the dimpled rod button on the first variation, and used the change in front sight as the demarcation point for the Type 2's.

Courtesy of Mr. Dougan we now know about the "late shipped" guns that apparently meet the ROSS definition with the potential for dimpled buttons.

 

[Robb Barnes]

Well we were lucky enough to run down one of the early serrated button ejector rods this week so now this gun should have all the proper pieces in place. Man but those buttons are little, I see why some guys took them off and replaced them with the dimpled version. Type 2 ER's are much easier for my fingers to manipulate.

 

[rugerguy]

Robb, try it with "stuck' (sticky) cases ( 357magnums) some time, you''d remove it too in a hurry if you used it as a shooter and shot it LOTS.........
plus those early ones and the way they were 'staked' on ,would come loose too,even on the Single Sixes..........AND we've seen them "broken' in fact got one coming in to us this week I was told,broke clean off on a .22..........you'll often see them 'brazed' on and it will not take a color ( blue)

 

[Robb Barnes]

This one won't get used much Dan. I usually don't have "safe queen" type guns and I am already starting to feel like this is too nice a gun to live here. I just shoot and hunt with revolvers, not collect them for collecting sake so this may get sent away to someone who is more "respectful of it's uniqueness" than this simple guy is. :?

 

[rugerguy]

OK, boys and girls as Robb notes as to his ship date, no doubt his gun should have the 'serrated' button, BUT now that we see those 'late shipped (JD addendum guns) are they too as Bob c noted on his list for #15023 in fact actually type 2 guns, 3/8 in non squiggley front sight) ???
Does anyone KNOW, anyone who owns any of these noted "late shipped guns"??? do they have the 'squiggley" front sights or NOT?? if not, then they are NOT "ROSS" variation, but just type 2's, just as the same vintage shipped #15023......... BUT, if they are "squiggley", then by gosh, we certainly have a Ross 1A, with the later round button ejector......alas this is as Bob C notes, a possible "screwdriver variation', as those can be swapped ,where-as barrels, NOT so easily done..........
the owners of any of these "addendum" guns ,needs to at least report or tell Chad or Bob C .............to me, the numbers listed as to the 'addendum' more likely just came off a list of late shipped guns, and NO clue or idea as to what"parts" are on them,,,,just like 15023, random, among the Ross numbers, and NOT a ROSS variation.............

Good stuff guys...... :wink:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Agree with Dan.

We need to know what kind of front sight and ejector rod is on each of those "late shipped" guns shown in the list on Page 1 of this thread.

None of them are included in Bob's List because, quite frankly, I have not been certain how to classify them . . . for the reasons mentioned here.

The serial numbers fit nicely within the ROSS number range, but the ship dates certainly don't.

We need hard data on the actual configuration/components.

Anybody?