Single-Six & Super Wrangler comparison

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Yaworski

Blackhawk
Joined
May 22, 2016
Messages
856
I had mentioned elsewhere that I wanted to get a Super Wrangler. It's intended mission is to replace my Single Six which is supposed to go to my son if he ever tells me that he's jumped through California's hoops.

I wanted a black Super Wrangler but no place locally had them so I hit Gun Broker. I found one and wound up winning the auction. Even with shipping and transfer fees it wound up being less than Rural King's Black Friday price.

The gun that I bought was "used" but had never been fired. No oil, no drag marks on the cylinder.

I'll admit that I went after a Super Wrangler without ever seeing one. I figured it would just be a Wrangler with adjustable sights so I was surprised that the barrel is an inch longer than my Single Six's. It has plastic grips which will get replaced and the Ceracoat finish is expectedly unattractive but "it is what it is." Also the top strap does is squared off around the rear sight instead of the attractive milled edges.

I did notice that the Super Wrangler felt heavier than the Single Six so I put them on my kitchen scale. The Super Wrangler weighed in at 2 lb 5 3/8 oz, 5 3/4 oz more than the Single Six. That seemed like a lot for just an extra inch of the barrel so I started looking at the weights of different parts.

My scale weighs to the nearest 1/8 oz so this is not as precise as it could be.

The wooden grips and plastic grips weigh the same at 1 1/4 oz.
The unfluted SW cylinder is only 1/8 oz heavier than the SS's fluted cylinder.
The base pins are the same weight, no surprise there.

I didn't take the sights off or remove the grip frame. The SW's hammer has some relieving visible but that would make it lighter. Both frames are steel, as are the barrels. The ejector rod housings and grip frames are assumed to be aluminum on both guns

So my question remains, why is the Super Wrangler so much heavier? Ceracoat is supposedly very light so that can't be it.

Any thoughts?
 
Ruger spec page says Super Wrangler has steel frame. :)

Also says Wrangler weighs 34oz while the Super weighs weighs 37.7oz. I understand the Zamak grip frame is heavier than an aluminum one.
 
Last edited:
I had mentioned elsewhere that I wanted to get a Super Wrangler. It's intended mission is to replace my Single Six which is supposed to go to my son if he ever tells me that he's jumped through California's hoops.

I wanted a black Super Wrangler but no place locally had them so I hit Gun Broker. I found one and wound up winning the auction. Even with shipping and transfer fees it wound up being less than Rural King's Black Friday price.

The gun that I bought was "used" but had never been fired. No oil, no drag marks on the cylinder.

I'll admit that I went after a Super Wrangler without ever seeing one. I figured it would just be a Wrangler with adjustable sights so I was surprised that the barrel is an inch longer than my Single Six's. It has plastic grips which will get replaced and the Ceracoat finish is expectedly unattractive but "it is what it is." Also the top strap does is squared off around the rear sight instead of the attractive milled edges.

I did notice that the Super Wrangler felt heavier than the Single Six so I put them on my kitchen scale. The Super Wrangler weighed in at 2 lb 5 3/8 oz, 5 3/4 oz more than the Single Six. That seemed like a lot for just an extra inch of the barrel so I started looking at the weights of different parts.

My scale weighs to the nearest 1/8 oz so this is not as precise as it could be.

The wooden grips and plastic grips weigh the same at 1 1/4 oz.
The unfluted SW cylinder is only 1/8 oz heavier than the SS's fluted cylinder.
The base pins are the same weight, no surprise there.

I didn't take the sights off or remove the grip frame. The SW's hammer has some relieving visible but that would make it lighter. Both frames are steel, as are the barrels. The ejector rod housings and grip frames are assumed to be aluminum on both guns

So my question remains, why is the Super Wrangler so much heavier? Ceracoat is supposedly very light so that can't be it.

Any thoughts?
Actually my comment is kind of silly, but Yaworski's next to last paragraph about the relieved hammer identifies something I don't like about the newer Ruger revolvers. I just don't like the looks of the relieved hammer, maybe it's just a MIM part versus cast part, but I prefer the former. Having said that, the Super Wrangler is a fantastic value, IMO.
 
You'll find that Cerekote will add some weight, as it's a paint on type hard coating that sits on the metal's surface, while bluing is a metal's reaction to salt/acid chemicals that impregnate the metal and will not alter the measured dimensions.

I believe this is one aspect of why when looking for new fiber optic front sights for the SW, that the makers (when called and spoken to) will say that the Single Six's front sight won't fit the barrel contour of the Super Wrangler, which is a fraction larger due to the Cerekote, so it won't ride tight and flush to the barrel. Remember, they're just the manufacturer and just selling what they know works for a certain model, while we as DIY'ers test and try all sorts of things to know if it works or not.

I don't know for a fact as I don't have a fiber optic SS sight on my SW, however honestly, will a millimeter or two really make that much difference in noticing? Lots of guys have already changed out their front sight for fiber optic and they don't seem to have problems that's come up with radius of the two barrels.

Also, the SW having MiM trigger and hammer could also account for being heavier over the SS trigger and hammer. MiM parts, at least for the SW's are injected molded using a steel powder and special epoxy to make more parts quicker for a manufacturer, so that epoxy must be strong(er) to hold up over time. Especially since the back side of the trigger is slotted out and the hammer is thinner on the front side area. I really like the SS's trigger and hammer machined sides look much better, but I don't have either component to compare to how similar or different to the Super Wrangler's part.

I will say, whether heavier or lighter, there's many parts on the Single Six that will interchange with the Super Wrangler's parts, as I've done just that using Single Six polished stainless-steel parts to put onto my SW to give it a very nice duo-tone look. I call it the "Super Wrangler Six".
 
I *think* the super Wrangler uses a steel alloy frame. Possibly the grip frame is a different alloy as well.
Does the Super Wrangler use them same zinc alloy (Zamak?) GRIP FRAME as the original Wrangler?

Both the SW and the SS have frames that are magnetic so I presume that they are steel. However, I don't know what the grip frames are made of. I assumed that both were aluminum. Zinc might explain some of the weight difference.
 
Found some data . . .

A stainless steel XR3-RED type weighs 7.93 oz, an aluminum alloy XR3-RED weighs 3.11 oz, and the Wrangler's zinc alloy grip frame weighs 6.97 oz. There's the weight difference, the grip frames. :)

So the Single-Six has an aluminum grip frame and the Wrangler's is zinc. I did not know that until just today. I suppose that zinc is cheaper.

Thanks for the info. Another of life's great mysteries is solved.
 
Last edited:
Makes me wanna weigh my non-Super 4-5/8" Wrangler. Unsure why.

30.1 ounces with the safety flag still in.

IMG-0065.jpg
 
Last edited:
My Super Wrangler in only a few ounces heavier than my favorite Single-Six. Not enough to even notice, let alone worry about...
20231007_142342.jpg
 
Speaking of gun weights, I always got a chuckle when looking at the old Ruger catalogs when they showed the weights of especially the Single Sixes for example. They listed the same weight for Borh the blued model and the stainless model. I never under stood that as the stainless gun is noticeably heavier by far....can't beleve everything you read I guess......but it is what it is though.
 

Latest posts

Top