ruger blackhawk in 5.56 armalite ctg.

[Bob L]

mustang99, the rear sight is not height adjustable. the 2 screws that you can see are holding the entire rib assy. which includes both sights to the gun there is limited windage adjustment. all the roll markings are as rescribed. they are faint due to excessive polishing prior to rebluing. bisley fan, see rollmarkings above. the reason this post was started was to find the magazine article that was printed in the 70's covering the conctruction/conversion of this gun. it began life as a blackhawk and the gun smith deliberatly kept all the factory markings intact. as I offered before anyone that wishes to can see this, you just have to come to Lower alabama. if desiring to see my e-mail is [email protected] you are entitled to your opinion but can we get back to my original quest someone must remember that article. thanks, Bob

 

[captainkirk]

mustang99, the rear sight is not height adjustable. the 2 screws that you can see are holding the entire rib assy. which includes both sights to the gun there is limited windage adjustment. all the roll markings are as rescribed. they are faint due to excessive polishing prior to rebluing. bisley fan, see rollmarkings above. the reason this post was started was to find the magazine article that was printed in the 70's covering the conctruction/conversion of this gun. it began life as a blackhawk and the gun smith deliberatly kept all the factory markings intact. as I offered before anyone that wishes to can see this, you just have to come to Lower alabama. if desiring to see my e-mail is [email protected] you are entitled to your opinion but can we get back to my original quest someone must remember that article. thanks, Bob

I think that may be one of the problems. Where your gun has the "Southport" rollmark is where the serial # would have been on a Blackhawk. I don't see how that could be original.

I would be very curious to see the article, but have had no luck finding it either. Unless someone has digitized it, it may be diificult to locate on the web.

captainkirk

 

[Ale-8(1)]

It appears that none of the rollmarks are where they would be on a real Ruger, so I'm assuming the builder did them himself or farmed that out to an engraver.

Whether he was attempting to make this look like a modified Ruger or simply expressing his admiration for the Ruger name, we will likely never know. As I mentioned, I think it's kinda tacky, but that's a personal observation.

Would like more, better pictures if possible. I really like this thing on its own merits.

 

[Terry T]

I believe this to be a totally custom gun that simply used a Blackhawk as it's beginning. I would also suggest that the ser. no. is unique to this gunsmith and may be registered with ATF as a custom manufactured gun. I don't think it's a Ruger ser. no. We might have more luck if we could find the name of the gunsmith. Obviously, he is a person of great skill and therefore may be well known. Folks have been known to collect pieces made by some of the more widely known and more skilled gunsmiths.
I wonder if he hid an identification mark of some sort somewhere on the gun, like under the grips or some other out of the way place?
Some of the gun magazines have offered their complete (all years) publications on DVD - might be a place to start.

Bob, you're very welcome. Fun to help out and be a part of an interesting discussion.
Terry T

 

[mustang99]

As Ale-8(1) said, I would like/need more and better pictures to get past the issues I have this thing. Especially a picture showing the cylinder removed from the frame, or the hammer cocked, or any part actually moving. Besides all the rollmarks being in the wrong location, the serial number doesn't have enough digits to be a Blackhawk. It also has no visible hammer or trigger pivots.

Something else I just thought of, if this gunsmith made the cylinder frame himself, he would have to mark the gun as being manufactured by himself. Thus the gun would have to be marked with the name of his company and it's location, not Ruger's. He would also have to be a licensed FFL. This gun would be 100% illegal to sell with the Ruger rollmarkings as it is now. Unless the ATF rules are different for gunsmiths....

 

[Ale-8(1)]

There were six-digit numbers in the Old Model .357 Blackhawks, but none as high as 774433.


The Ruger markings, while appearing to be sorta questionable, may have been an effort to make it appear as if the piece were merely a "modified Ruger" and not a wholly-manufactured piece. Dunno. I'll not comment further on that.



Edited for clarification.

 

[contender]

Very interesting.
By all accounts, I'm sure the Bob L can take more pics, showing the gun with the cylinder open, and all. Maybe Terry T can get on the phone with him & talk him through how to download pics from the camera to the computer etc. (We do like to help others around here with things other than just guns!)
I have seen enough oddities to feel it's a true oddity, and real.

Now, maybe we can help find the magazine article?

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I've exercized my limited "search" skilz and come up empty.

Hope others can do better.

 

[gramps]

The cylinder doesn't open. It loads a la SA, but it shoots DA according to Bob.
gramps

 

[mustang99]

I understand the trend of trying to help all sort that come to the forum looking for help. I certainly hope that more pictures show up some day that put the questions to bed, but I doubt it. I don't want to ruin the fun for others on this discussion. I won't post any other comments on this topic. Good luck finding that magazine article.

 

[Bob L]

I sent better pictures of the pistol dissasembled to Mustang99 in sept. but I guess he hasn't had time to post them

 

[eveled]

Somebody needs to take Bob's generous offer to "take a day trip", and shoot this gun, both with ammo, and with a digital camera. Ed

 

[mustang99]

Bob did send me the better pictures and everything looks legit, and I stick my foot in my mouth once again. The first photos had me fooled. I think someone should go shoot this gun, it would be fun.

One thing I am almost sure of is that this gun was not a Ruger before its transformation. The lockworks are not correct and you all saw that the markings are in some unique positions. Also, the grip area is very similar to a S&W as is the mainspring. Nothing about the size or shape of the frame looks anything like any Ruger frame I know of. But I can't guess anything about this gun without holding it. I'm wrong on all guesses so far from pictures!!

Sorry Bob, I had forgotten about the photos, (they are in my desk at work) I will get them scanned and up into this thread. I am on the road for the rest of this week so it will be a bit longer!!

 

[collectormzornes]

I have done a little searching and all I have found was that someone recalled a Philipino man made and S&W copy revolver back in the 80's. Supposedly there was a wirte up about something of that sort in a magazine called Soldier of Fortune. I have not got any other pics or info at this time but like a bloodhound my nose is down and still looking.

 

[eveled]

Bob did send me the better pictures and everything looks legit, and I stick my foot in my mouth once again. The first photos had me fooled. I think someone should go shoot this gun, it would be fun.

One thing I am almost sure of is that this gun was not a Ruger before its transformation. The lockworks are not correct and you all saw that the markings are in some unique positions. Also, the grip area is very similar to a S&W as is the mainspring. Nothing about the size or shape of the frame looks anything like any Ruger frame I know of. But I can't guess anything about this gun without holding it. I'm wrong on all guesses so far from pictures!!

Sorry Bob, I had forgotten about the photos, (they are in my desk at work) I will get them scanned and up into this thread. I am on the road for the rest of this week so it will be a bit longer!!

Thanks for the follow up. Ironic, when you posted this your post count was 223. Ed

 

[Bob L]

Hopefully Mustang will post the pics before too long. Bob L