since we are talking #3's...

[singleshot]

Here's an early 3, single slotted screw/not d&t... Shipped early in 1973

The tang on this rifle does not fully seat into the buttstock (top or bottom). I've tried other buttstocks with the same exact same results. There are still casting marks on both tangs, so those haven't been shortened...


I had a post when I first got this rifle about the safety also, which appears to be rounded off, but has no tooling marks, nor any other mark on it to indicate that someone messed with it in any way. Fact is, there is a bump on the top that looks like a casting flaw (where the serrations should be). I've measured both the height and length of the safety and came up with pretty much the same exact measurements as a serrated safety.

Any idea what the heck the deal could be?

Casting marks

Top tang

Bottom tang

Safety

Singleshot

 

[mcknight77]

Lunchpail rifle maybe?

 

[wunbe]

That extra space around the tang on a early gun is interresting in that the original .44 mag semi auto carbine was designed so that the only recoil bearing surface was to be the front lug. This #3 stock demonstrates that cocnept to an extreme but why?

It seems to me such glaring misfits would not have slipped through visual inspection before shipment because it was from an early producution run which logical;ly should have had closer than normnal quality control.

But then, it is a Ruger...

wunbe

 

[RugerHound]

I wonder if it shipped as "Barreled action only" ? Perhaps it never WAS fitted to a stock? We know at least one #3 in .44 Magnum shipped that way.

 

[singleshot]

I've tried different stocks, they all fit the same (#3's and #1 stocks). I did send the email off to find out when it was shipped, which was early (can't remember the month) 1973, they didn't specify if it was an AO and I'm not at home to verify the information (which I will when I get home).

I think what I'll do is take some measurements off the bolting surface to the edge of the tang and compare it to one of the #1's I've got. Something is weird about it, that's all I know.

I appreciate the input and ideas...


Todd

 

[mohavesam]

I'd contact Boyd's to see if they offer a semi-inletted stock with enough material in the channel to custom-fit the slots to your metal.
might get lucky?

 

[singleshot]

Rifle shipped as a 45/70 in October of 1973 (so much for my memory :shock: )

I measured the length of the tangs on the #3 and compared them to a #1. Distance from the rear of the receiver to the tip of the tang

#3 Top tang: 3 1/8"
#1 Top tang: 3 5/32"

Difference of 3/32"

#3 bottom tang: 2 3/4"
#1 bottom tang: 2 13/16"

Difference of 1/8"

(measurements were done with a regular tape measure, I couldn't find my calipers, which I blame on my daughter.. I know I didn't misplace it :wink: )

I put a #1 buttstock, measured the gap and it was the same as the #3 stock that was on it.

So I guess the question I have at this point is; is it possible they had some sizing issues with some of their castings and this receiver should not have made it out the door?


Here's the #1 buttstock mated up:

Bottom tang

Top tang

 

[singleshot]

if someone has a No. 1 or No. 3 torn down and could verify my measurement, that would be really cool..

from my years in metal work (welding) I realize tape measure are all off a bit, but a I checked two tapes and both were within a 1/32".


Thanks


Todd