Two Piece Bolts

[SGW Gunsmith]

If any of you folks who own Ruger Mark II stainless steel pistols, and you have a pistol with a two piece bolt, this may interest you. How do you tell if you have a two-piece bolt? The bolt ears are tapered and they only have "three" rings around the ears. There is a very visible "line" between the bolt ears and the bolt body. I have found the two piece bolts to be accompanied with the "one-piece" mainspring housing, rather than the three piece laminated mainspring housing. So, what's the big deal? Well, I've discussed this issue with Rugers Customer Service Manager, and while it's not an everyday event, they do get inquiries for bolt replacement at the tune of, from 2 to 4 per year. This is what can happen:

If the above catastrophe occurs, your only alternative is to install the replacement bolt Ruger sends you. Now, if this happens to your two-piece Ruger Mark II bolt and you send it to Ruger to get a "deserved" replacement Mark II style bolt, you will get a Ruger Mark III bolt instead. Why? Because they don't have any Ruger Mark II bolts left in stock. I asked if they would do a special run to cover any of the Ruger Mark II two-piece bolts that separate during normal firing and use. Nope, not cost feasible, is what I was told. OK, so then what? Once again, I called and talked with Joe, the customer service manager at Ruger. What if I were to come up with a method that would prevent the bolt head from separating from the bolt body. I then described what I had in mind, and he thought it would be a sure-fire method to prevent bolt head separation. So far, I've done 14 Ruger Mark II bolts and two from pistols that I own, because I want to KEEP my Mark II bolt, and none of these bolt heads have separated after the preventative fix. The cost to do this is very reasonable, and it will keep your Ruger Mark II complete with all its original parts, as a Ruger Mark II. Contact me for more information if you find that you have one of the Ruger Mark II Stainless Steel pistols with the two-piece bolt and the fix just might interest you. For your information, here are what the three Ruger Mark bolts look like:

 

[SATCOM]

D A Wood,

Excellent information. Thanks for the post. Two piece bolts meant Korean War steel shortage bolts for me.

SATCOM

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

D A Wood,

Excellent information. Thanks for the post. Two piece bolts meant Korean War steel shortage bolts for me.

SATCOM

Yes, and you sure are correct in your statement about bolts of that period. The Ruger Mark II pistols are of the concern here.

 

[Danjet500]

Sent you a PM.

 

[pharmer]

Thanks, learned something new. Bottom 2 have 2 piece bolts, the KMK 512 has 20-30K rounds through it, I'm not going to worry about it. The Slabside is the only one with one piece bolt. Joe

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Thanks, learned something new. Bottom 2 have 2 piece bolts, the KMK 512 has 20-30K rounds through it, I'm not going to worry about it. The Slabside is the only one with one piece bolt. Joe

Yah, the guy who owned the bolt in the top picture didn't worry about it either.

 

[Bullseye57]

Yes that is true, but that bolt in that picture is from a thread on another forum back in 2010. The original poster [OP] didn't even know he had a two-piece bolt when it broke. Here's a link to the thread http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/showthread.php?419451-Broken-bolt-ears-on-Ruger-MKII. Replacement with a newer, one-piece, Mark III bolt from Ruger was the remedy.

R,
Bullseye

 

[triton186]

Thanks, learned something new. Bottom 2 have 2 piece bolts, the KMK 512 has 20-30K rounds through it, I'm not going to worry about it. The Slabside is the only one with one piece bolt. Joe

I thought based on the original post on this thread that the straight eared bolts are all one piece. all the bolts in this pic appear to have the straight ears...

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I thought based on the original post on this thread that the straight eared bolts are all one piece. all the bolts in this pic appear to have the straight ears...[/quote]


Every one of the two-piece bolts that I have pinned were exactly like the bolt in the left-hand side, picture as posted above. I have personally, never seen a two piece bolt with the rear end having straight, four-ringed bolt heads. The two piece bolts, that I've seen, ALL have tapered ears with only three rings for finger purchase. If anyone has any pictures to prove differently, please post those so I can become better educated. At this point, it doesn't matter where the picture of the "separated" bolt came from, it's a depiction of what can happen when somebody has a Mark II with a two-piece bolt. Owners of pistols with that situation can certainly choose to "roll the dice" and gamble that their two-piece bolt will stay intact until the next millennium, and I sure don't have any problems with that. This is just to inform folks that there is an option available, to keep their bolt operational, until the grandkids inherit that pistol.

 

[Bullseye57]

I don't have a problem with using the broken bolt photo as a depiction of the problem - I knew from the start that I had seen that picture before. What I do take issue with was this disingenuous and flippant comment:

Yah, the guy who owned the bolt in the top picture didn't worry about it either.

It implies the owner of the pictured pistol chose to ignore a problem with his bolt he knew to exist; that was false. I know this because I was directly part of that discussion in 2010. You've created a solution to a design problem - good on you! Just don't tarnish the fix with misrepresentation. Present the solution and let folks decide on their own to either go with it or not.

R,
Bullseye

 

[blume357]

As said, this is good information.... but even though I don't own a MKII, with a two or once piece bolt, I don't think I would be too worried about it either... 2-4 a year out of 10s of thousands ... and if it breaks... just send it back to Ruger and they will make it better than right.

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

I don't have a problem with using the broken bolt photo as a depiction of the problem - I knew from the start that I had seen that picture before. What I do take issue with was this disingenuous and flippant comment:

Yah, the guy who owned the bolt in the top picture didn't worry about it either.

It implies the owner of the pictured pistol chose to ignore a problem with his bolt he knew to exist; that was false. I know this because I was directly part of that discussion in 2010. You've created a solution to a design problem - good on you! Just don't tarnish the fix with misrepresentation. Present the solution and let folks decide on their own to either go with it or not.

R,
Bullseye

Your words, not mine. It doesn't imply anything of the sort, so you're wrong there. Obviously, if somebody doesn't know about the issue, it's awfully hard to "worry about it", isn't it. I agree, 2-4 bolt separations a year aren't all that many, unless of course it happens to one of yours. Yes, I know, Ruger will make it right, but it won't be with a Mark II stainless steel bolt, it will be with the only style bolts they now have. Ruger Mark III bolts with smaller diameter ears and the LCI cut-out in the left side of the bolt. That's OK with some people, but I have found that others want to keep and safely use their original Ruger Mark II bolts. Just so those folks know, there is a fix available before it goes as far as it did in the above picture, no matter where that depiction came from. Nothing has been misrepresented here.

 

[DUNTOV]

If any of you folks who own Ruger Mark II stainless steel pistols, and you have a pistol with a two piece bolt, this may interest you. How do you tell if you have a two-piece bolt? The bolt ears are tapered and they only have "three" rings around the ears. There is a very visible "line" between the bolt ears and the bolt body. I have found the two piece bolts to be accompanied with the "one-piece" mainspring housing, rather than the three piece laminated mainspring housing. So, what's the big deal? Well, I've discussed this issue with Rugers Customer Service Manager, and while it's not an everyday event, they do get inquiries for bolt replacement at the tune of, from 2 to 4 per year. This is what can happen:

If the above catastrophe occurs, your only alternative is to install the replacement bolt Ruger sends you. Now, if this happens to your two-piece Ruger Mark II bolt and you send it to Ruger to get a "deserved" replacement Mark II style bolt, you will get a Ruger Mark III bolt instead. Why? Because they don't have any Ruger Mark II bolts left in stock. I asked if they would do a special run to cover any of the Ruger Mark II two-piece bolts that separate during normal firing and use. Nope, not cost feasible, is what I was told. OK, so then what? Once again, I called and talked with Joe, the customer service manager at Ruger. What if I were to come up with a method that would prevent the bolt head from separating from the bolt body. I then described what I had in mind, and he thought it would be a sure-fire method to prevent bolt head separation. So far, I've done 14 Ruger Mark II bolts and two from pistols that I own, because I want to KEEP my Mark II bolt, and none of these bolt heads have separated after the preventative fix. The cost to do this is very reasonable, and it will keep your Ruger Mark II complete with all its original parts, as a Ruger Mark II. Contact me for more information if you find that you have one of the Ruger Mark II Stainless Steel pistols with the two-piece bolt and the fix just might interest you. For your information, here are what the three Ruger Mark bolts look like:

Thanks for the heads up, if it saves ONE PERSON from an injury when a bolt separates, it was indeed worthwhile.

 

[9x19]

Huh?

You mean from the "ears" falling on their toe?

The bolt stop pin will still, well, stop the bolt... even without the ears.

 

[DUNTOV]

Huh?

You mean from the "ears" falling on their toe?

The bolt stop pin will still, well, stop the bolt... even without the ears.

It wont stop the loose ears section from flying back at the speed of bolt recoil with your eye directly behind the flying missle

 

[9x19]

Huh?

You mean from the "ears" falling on their toe?

The bolt stop pin will still, well, stop the bolt... even without the ears.

It wont stop the loose ears section from flying back at the speed of bolt recoil

OK... :roll:

 

[SGW Gunsmith]

Huh?

You mean from the "ears" falling on their toe?

The bolt stop pin will still, well, stop the bolt... even without the ears.

It wont stop the loose ears section from flying back at the speed of bolt recoil

You sir, are absolutely correct! But, that's not the main reason as to why I bring this up here, despite some negativity on the part of a very limited few, sour balls, :roll: most folks, who do find that they have a "two-piece" bolt and have been apprised of what "could" happen, are, at least thankful that it's, at least, been brought up. I thought, maybe that the folks around here might at least like to see that information. The decision to do what they want is THEIR'S, and their's alone. It doesn't seem to matter which .22 rimfire web-site you land on, there's always one or two, "negative Nancy's" who just don't seem to like informative, posted issues, but would rather "pee" on the campfire, than contribute, or partake of, the warmth of that campfire. :shock:

 

[pharmer]

It wont stop the loose ears section from flying back at the speed of bolt recoil

Good point. However if this was a critical danger, Ruger would have had a recall (Like the OM models) because if I was injured by a bolt separation, after the lawyers were done, the company name would be renamed "Pharmer." Joe

 

[OVERLOADDED]

Thanks to Dennis' when I recently purchased Kmk 6 7/8 heavy barreled tapered model MK II I did notice the 2 piece bolt that it came with. The 211 pre fix alone would not have helped me at all but having seen the photos displayed by Dennis I was immediately wear of the possibilities. He has posted on Rimfirecentral for years,and there are others that want to pick a post apart for no good reason. Thanks Dennis, Overloadded

 

[pharmer]

and there are others that want to pick a post apart for no good reason.

After rereading my posts, you are absolutely right. I would have contributed more by shutting up instead of commenting on someone who was being helpful. My sincere apologies. joe