Ruger Standard 22 auto question

[louiethelump]

I just picked up a kind of rough 4 3/4" standard model (pre-MKII) and want to change the grip panels. Does anyone know if MKII grips will work on it or if I have to find the original style grips? I know the MKII has cut outs that are not needed on the standard............. :?:

 

[rugerguy]

you can use the MK II grips on the later (A-100_ frame) but you have to "fill-in" the cutout, use a spacer or some such thing to fill the gap in, so the pin in the grip frame does NOT "walk" ( drift) over and allow the sear assembly to "bind, come off, jam", whatever you may want to call the anomolie when the pin slips out of the frame...the grip panels do keep the pins "in place"....

 

[louiethelump]

OK, thanks much. That is what I was looking for............


Louie

 

[woodpuppy]

Good information I could have used once upon a time. One of my pins walked, but I noticed the condition before it became a problem.

What is actually different between the 54 and A-100 gripframes that preclude interchangeability of grips? Is it just the mag button groove?

 

[wwb]

......What is actually different between the 54 and A-100 gripframes that preclude interchangeability of grips? Is it just the mag button groove?

Screw location is different.

 

[woodpuppy]

Thanks for the response.

 

[rugerguy]

the difference I believe was in "anticipation" of going to a 'hold open lever or device to lock back the bolt on the last shot, Ruger switched the frame around so the 'flat would end up on the left side and the "hump" ( this allows the button on the side of the magazine,to move freely up and down ,inside the grip frame.....once the flat was "in place" ala the A-100 frame and as said above this swapped around the grip panel screw hole locatons, they were now able to place the "lever"(release) on the 1982 Mark II's on the left side, being MOST sooters are 'right handed'.......of course they had to "inlet"(remove material) from the back side of the left grip panel to "clear" this lever (release) well as long as the proper grips were on the "proper gun" there was NO "space' to allow the pins ,used to keep & align the lockwork ( internal parts) the pin could NOT move one way or the other ( drift) during vibrations, recoil, whatever.......
by using a 'spacer' inside the MK II grip panel (left side) this keeps the pin in place...the hole locations of the A-100 and the MK IIs grips are the same, opposite the original A-54 frame....
hope this helps, you an read more on the US Patent application made back in the 1960s I believe it was...we never did, just figured it was "design change" ALL companies do this sort of thing............

 

[woodpuppy]

I've been re-reading Chet's excellent encyclopedia on the Ruger autos, but recently could not find what actually differentiated the frames.

Thanks!

 

[street]

Good information I could have used once upon a time. One of my pins walked, but I noticed the condition before it became a problem.

What is actually different between the 54 and A-100 gripframes that preclude interchangeability of grips? Is it just the mag button groove?

The frame and grip panels are a mirror image of each other. The screw holes for the left grip of the A-100 are located the same as the right grips of the 54 frame. And the screw holes for the right grip panel of the A100 are located the same as the left grips for the 54 frame. "Mirror Image".

The magazine button is located on the oposite side of the frame on the A100 then it is on the 54 frame. "Mirror Image".

Also the medallion is located on the left grip on the 54 frame gun while the A-100 frame has the madallion on the right grip. Again "Mirror Image".

I have no idea why Ruger changed this. None of the old grips would fit the new A-100 frame. They had to redesign the magazine so it would fit not only the new frame but the old frame. I'm sure they had some of the old magazine in stock that would not fit the new guns. This had to have been a mistake by someone at the factory for this to have happened.

 

[rugerguy]

I have no idea why Ruger changed this. None of the old grips would fit the new A-100 frame. They had to redesign the magazine so it would fit not only the new frame but the old frame. I'm sure they had some of the old magazine in stock that would not fit the new guns. This had to have been a mistake by someone at the factory for this to have happened.

not really, you can slot the old magazines and they will work in the A-100, very simple addition and vice-versa, to use back in the A-54..............and as I said well thought out for the future ,they "knew"what they were doing.......truly a 'transition' :wink:

 

[street]

I have no idea why Ruger changed this. None of the old grips would fit the new A-100 frame. They had to redesign the magazine so it would fit not only the new frame but the old frame. I'm sure they had some of the old magazine in stock that would not fit the new guns. This had to have been a mistake by someone at the factory for this to have happened.

not really, you can slot the old magazines and they will work in the A-100, very simple addition and vice-versa, to use back in the A-54..............and as I said well thought out for the future ,they "knew"what they were doing.......truly a 'transition' :wink:

As this change was made in 70 or 71 the future was 10 years away for the MK-II. Why make a change that wasn't needed for 10 years. And if it was known they were going to make the MK-II, being the reason they made this change, why not just start making the MK-II now? No. I think that they just screwed up and 10 years later when the made the MK-II that screw up just fell into place. Even a blind pig can find an acorn and I think this just worked out for Ruger 10 years after the fact. After all, they could have waited 10 years and made this change for the MK-II and it would not have made it cost any more.

As for slotting the old clip to fit into the new A-100 frame. You would need the right tools to do that and the know how. Not many people have the skill that you do to do that and if you get someone else to do it then that would cost more then a new magazine. No. I still thing it was a screw up that worked out 10 years down the road. Although they still had to engineer the MK-II and change the frame and slot the grips for the bolt stop, different then what the MK-I was. I can't see how doing this 10 years early would save them any money.

 

[chet15]

Hmmm....I always figured Ruger made the change so that their eagle logo in the grip (changed to the right side) was on the same side as their receiver address. Makes a nicer pic in advertisments anyway.
Never thought about the hold open device possibility as that didn't happen until 11 years after Ruger went from A54 to A100. Maybe Ruger did put it off (as Dan said) with all the other things going on at that time in R&D (New Model SA, DA production, Mini-14, Red Label, getting #1 production where it needed to be, etc).
Wonder when work began on the on the HO device? I don't recall anything before 1981. You'd think such a major change in late 1971 would have happened all at once with a HO device.
Chet15

 

[rugerguy]

Chad, did they move the medallion over first anyway?? first the black eagle, then the silver one and then went to the A-100?? no reason not to be able to just swap the 'medallions, as the plastic grips were molded, and flat anyway, the hump would not interfer??? I just recall conversations with JC and Mr Howe back in the late 70's and thats what we were told, but no reason "why" it took them so long to make the 'hold open'?? patents?? copy rights,etc but they NEEDED the 'flat' to be on the left side ,bottom line, no matter how one looks at it............................the walnut grips had the medallions on BOTH (either) sides, black eagle, then silver, from left, then to the right.........

Street, a high school shop class student could cut the slot on the opposite of the magazine, using the first slot as a "guide" ,think about it :wink: Again, this is NOT "rocket science"..........very primitive. 8)

 

[street]

Street, a high school shop class student could cut the slot on the opposite of the magazine, using the first slot as a "guide" ,think about it :wink: Again, this is NOT "rocket science"..........very primitive. 8)

Rugerguy, a shop class student has the privilege of having the right tools and training to do this. And yes cutting a slot into a magazine is not rocket science. My point was that when Ruger made this change those clips would not fit the new guns, and yes Ruger could make them fit, as you said a "Shop Class Student" could do this, but that would be an added machine process which cost money. After all a clip only cost $4.50 in 1967 and then increased to $6.00 in 1977. So adding more manufacturing steps to something costing so little in the first place is not something Bill Ruger would want to do.

Rugerguy, when you have the talent that you do to work on guns, most everything is simple and not rocket science. Not everyone has your talent. And the ones that do. I just can't see them sitting down and taking a copeing saw or jewelers saw and taking the time to cut a slot in a magazine and then drilling and tapping the thum piece when a new one in 1972 only cost $4.50.

 

[Bullseye57]

Cutting a secondary magazine slot in the left side of an early style magazine is a relatively simple process that can be accomplished with a Dremel Moto Tool and a high strength cut-off wheel. Just scribe, or mark, the slot onto the magazine body and grind away. If you have a fairly steady hand this is not a difficult job.

R,
Bullseye

 

[rugerguy]

it's ONLY an "extra" step if one redoes another ,one, if doing it in the first place,ones tep, and there is NO drilling and tappng the hole is already in the follower, you simply put the pin in from the other side..................it would NOT cost the company an 'extra' cent to do this, yes, to "redo" ( make an older one fit) but not from scratch.
Besides, Bill would "like" that as it makes use of ONE magazine, and no need to make two different ones,that was his original concept then,making it more practical & useful ...........same went for the MKII later, as well as 'cheapening' it with plastic parts, no weld, no chrome plating of the bottom piece....and still be able to use it in the earlier, MK & RST guns........
these guys are ALWAYS thinking and looking ahead (and counting beans) :roll:
No rocket science at all,good hands on, practicality and ease of manufacturing... :wink:

 

[street]

Cutting a secondary magazine slot in the left side of an early style magazine is a relatively simple process that can be accomplished with a Dremel Moto Tool and a high strength cut-off wheel. Just scribe, or mark, the slot onto the magazine body and grind away. If you have a fairly steady hand this is not a difficult job.

R,
Bullseye

Yes this can be done with a dremel too. It is not an impossible job, but everyone need to read what I said to start out. Here is what I said.

"I have no idea why Ruger changed this. None of the old grips would fit the new A-100 frame. They had to redesign the magazine so it would fit not only the new frame but the old frame. I'm sure they had some of the old magazine in stock that would not fit the new guns. This had to have been a mistake by someone at the factory for this to have happened."

I was not talking about an individual gun owner having an old magazine and it not fitting the new A-100 frame. I was saying that the Old style magazines that Ruger had on hand would not fit the new frames. And any machine work that had to be done to these old and already made magazines would cost Bill money that he would not want to do. That why I said that I believe that this was a mistake when they made the A-100 frame a mirror image of the a-54 frame.

If it is such an easy process to take an old magazine and cut a slot into it then let's see some pictures of them. Just how many members have done this. Yes this is not an impossible job and a lot of people could do it. But how many people have done this??? Let's see those pictures.

 

[street]

it's ONLY an "extra" step if one redoes another ,one, if doing it in the first place,ones tep, and there is NO drilling and tappng the hole is already in the follower, you simply put the pin in from the other side..................it would NOT cost the company an 'extra' cent to do this, yes, to "redo" ( make an older one fit) but not from scratch.
Besides, Bill would "like" that as it makes use of ONE magazine, and no need to make two different ones,that was his original concept then,making it more practical & useful ...........same went for the MKII later, as well as 'cheapening' it with plastic parts, no weld, no chrome plating of the bottom piece....and still be able to use it in the earlier, MK & RST guns........
these guys are ALWAYS thinking and looking ahead (and counting beans) :roll:
No rocket science at all,good hands on, practicality and ease of manufacturing... :wink:

Rugerguy, you need to read my original statement again. I was talking about the old magazines that they had in stock would not fit the new A-100 frames. The ones that would have to be redone to get them to fit. This would be extra labor that Bill would not want to do. I know that some individual could cut a slot into one of the old magazines to get it to fit. I don't think many people did this even though it a simple and easy thing to do as you said, it's not Rocket Science! :lol: :roll:

 

[rugerguy]

I would not believe that Ruger (or any other maker) would go back and redo "inventory" and I did read what you said and in my mind they would NOT have "redone" them, they would just have the maker (vendor) update ,add the new configuration, same design, just slotted on BOTH sides and the cutter would extend "through" to BOTH sides, cut them as ONE, again, NOT an "extra step",just update the design change to be able from that day forward, use the "new" design in BOTH guns, no longer a problem......you're "thinking" a bit too hard & deep...... :wink:

( we hear its pretty hot in some parts of the country, so I hope some of you older folks relax and take it easy ,like us....... :roll:

Oh and by the way, there were LOTS and LOTS of them early magazines made, not only commercially but for the military, and you know how the gorvernment is, they ordered TONS of them I recall hearing about some 55 gallon drums at one of the military depots, FILLED with Ruger mags for training , I know I bought some of them over time....... 8)
then the "aftermarket": copies that Triple K and others also made, TONS of them also,in the white boxes to boot, NOT "factory"......... :shock:

ANYWAY< bottom line is ,'louiethelump', can use the MK II grips and make them work in his gun,as per the OP...... :wink:
Sorry louie, ran off with your "post"...........................................

 

[street]

I would not believe that Ruger (or any other maker) would go back and redo "inventory" and I did read what you said and in my mind they would NOT have "redone" them

That's the point I made when I said "I'm sure they had some of the old magazines in stock that would not fit the new guns. This had to have been a mistake by someone at the factory for this to have happened." Because they would not make the modifications, too costly.

, they would just have the maker (vendor) update ,add the new configuration, same design, just slotted on BOTH sides and the cutter would extend "through" to BOTH sides, cut them as ONE, again, NOT an "extra step",just update the design change to be able from that day forward, use the "new" design in BOTH guns, no longer a problem......you're "thinking" a bit too hard & deep...... :wink:

I didn't say this was an extra step, the extra step would have been if they would have modified the A-54 magazines. I just said that they had to redesign the new clip to fit both frames, which is a good idea. you would have thought , as you said they were looking ahead, they would have designed this new clip to hold 10 rounds like the MK-II clip does. :wink:

 

[Bullseye57]

If it is such an easy process to take an old magazine and cut a slot into it then let's see some pictures of them. Just how many members have done this. Yes this is not an impossible job and a lot of people could do it. But how many people have done this??? Let's see those pictures.

OK, here you go. The one on the bottom is a single right hand slotted M-9 mag modified with a high speed cut-off wheel. You can tell by the narrower follower slot and the slightly rougher appearance to the bottom of it. The one M-9 magazine on the top is one that Ruger produced that incorporated dual slots after they changed over to the A-100 frame. This was not a difficult job, it took me more time to lay out the slot and set up the rotary tool than it did to cut it out.

Ruger went to the A-100 frame after the A-54 frame stamping die wore out. They redesigned the new frame to incorporate the follower button slot on the left side of the magazine for ease of use by the typically right-handed shooter. They did later use the same frame set up for the A10000 frame (which is the Mark II frame with the bolt hold open slot cut in it).

R,
Bullseye