Ruger Single Nine


PDA






Dain Bramage
September 6, 2012, 12:06 PM
Just got the email from Ruger announcing their new Single Nine. Nine shots, .22 WRF, 6.5" barrel, fiber-optic sights.

Ruger Site (http://www.ruger.com/products/newModelSingleSixSingleNine/models.html)

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Single Nine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BCRider
September 6, 2012, 01:42 PM
Well, I guess that answers the questions about the Single Ten shoppers that were wondering about the .22WMR cylinder....

CraigC
September 6, 2012, 02:03 PM
It's as I suspected, there just wasn't enough room for ten of the .22Mag's larger rims.

19-3Ben
September 6, 2012, 03:32 PM
Very interesting. I'm really impressed with the quantity of new guns that Ruger has added to their lineup in the last 3 years or so. They used to be really limited, but now they have just diversified their product line and maintained good quality standards. thumbs up to them!

bergmen
September 6, 2012, 04:12 PM
They should have started with a nine in the first place and made it a convertible.

Dan

35Rem
September 6, 2012, 07:28 PM
they should have started with a nine in the first place and made it a convertible.


exactly!!!

BCRider
September 7, 2012, 12:15 AM
I have to agree. A "Single 9 convertable" would have solved the issues and they could have laid the venerable old Single Six to rest with a clear conscience.

gpb
September 7, 2012, 09:00 AM
Are the barrels for the Single-10 designed for the 22 LR and are the barrels for the single-9 designed for the 22 Magnum? One of the concerns with the Single-6 is that the barrel is designed for the 22 Magnum and that accuracy when shooting 22 LR was not as good as it could have been.

Dain Bramage
September 7, 2012, 10:06 AM
They can still do a convertible version of the Single Nine. It doesn't negate the Single Ten for those that want .22 LR only.

35Rem
September 7, 2012, 10:11 PM
But it can't make sense to be tooled up for both, especially when it would have been easy to start with 9.

theautobahn
September 7, 2012, 10:20 PM
Talk about timing. My father in law was looking at Single Six convertibles because he wanted a .22 magnum. He said he didn't really want the .22 LR cylinder (I told him I would be happy to exercise that one for him on occasion) and just wanted a .22 mag. A week later, what appears in my inbox? It's perfect for him, but I'm wondering if they'll do a 9 shot convertible (would sort of be competition for Taurus's DA convertible).

musicman10_1
September 7, 2012, 10:22 PM
What is the deal with the goofy front sight? Will it hold up to holster use? The gun looks great but I just don't know about he sight.

theautobahn
September 7, 2012, 10:39 PM
What is the deal with the goofy front sight? Will it hold up to holster use? The gun looks great but I just don't know about he sight.

I don't know if they'll fit, but there are a bunch of aftermarket sights for the Single Six (and if they don't fit, I'm sure the sight makers will start rolling them out for the nine/ten).

That being said, the fiber optic "pipe" is protected at both ends and it appears to be protected in the middle as well in this case. It would be difficult (although not impossible) to break the FO pipe.

musicman10_1
September 7, 2012, 11:28 PM
I don't know if they'll fit, but there are a bunch of aftermarket sights for the Single Six (and if they don't fit, I'm sure the sight makers will start rolling them out for the nine/ten).

That being said, the fiber optic "pipe" is protected at both ends and it appears to be protected in the middle as well in this case. It would be difficult (although not impossible) to break the FO pipe.
Ok, thanks for the info.

marksg
September 7, 2012, 11:36 PM
I added a FO site on my GP100 and did break the orignal. They are easy to replace. You can get the rods at Midway,just make sure you get the right diameter. Haven't broke another in over 2 years.

W.E.G.
September 7, 2012, 11:47 PM
Fiber optic sights spoil the classic look.

But if you are ever shooting one in poor light, you will understand why Ruger puts them on this inexpensive sporting pistol.

Matt Dillon would have had fiber optic sights on his thumb buster if they were available then.

Drifting Fate
September 8, 2012, 03:21 AM
No good reason to own one, but I want one all the same - maybe that's the best reason of all?

ArchAngelCD
September 8, 2012, 04:06 AM
Very interesting. I'm really impressed with the quantity of new guns that Ruger has added to their lineup in the last 3 years or so. They used to be really limited, but now they have just diversified their product line and maintained good quality standards. thumbs up to them!
The answers is, Bill Ruger... (both of them)

Since Bill Ruger Jr. retired in 2006 (or 2007?) the company has improved their product line immensely.

theautobahn
September 8, 2012, 09:14 AM
No good reason to own one, but I want one all the same - maybe that's the best reason of all?

I'm a little afraid to ask my FIL why he wants a .22 mag revolver, but he wouldn't buy a gun without a specific purpose in mind (we agree to disagree on that view). I'm thinking it's to carry hunting as a backup to apply the coup de gras if needed (.22 mag is legal on deer here but I know he would never use it as a primary - he thinks the .357 is too little gun for deer). I suppose he might want it for pests around the house, but he has a bunch of .22 rifles for that purpose.

bergmen
September 8, 2012, 11:14 AM
Fiber optic sights spoil the classic look.

But if you are ever shooting one in poor light, you will understand why Ruger puts them on this inexpensive sporting pistol.

Matt Dillon would have had fiber optic sights on his thumb buster if they were available then.

I'm at the age (63) where the "classic look" is less important to me than seeing the sights. I put them on my 36 year old Single Six, my GP100 and my S&W 617 (+ all the Glocks). They are fantastic.

Dan

Jaymo
September 8, 2012, 01:35 PM
I don't have much use for a gun chambered in .22 WRF. Ammo is scarce/obsolete.
Now, if it's .22 WMR, I can find space for it.

I love .22 mag, but it's not impressive out of a handgun. It loses a lot of velocity with the short barrel.

Dain Bramage
September 8, 2012, 01:42 PM
But it can't make sense to be tooled up for both, especially when it would have been easy to start with 9.

I would have to agree. Asking whether the Single Ten would accept an upgrade to WRF should have been done during development. They either:

A. Forgot to do that, screwed up, didn't plan. Easy to not think ahead in a business setting, misread the market, etc. I see it every day. Sometimes I'm guilty of it as well.

B. Decided to optimize each package for the respective round, with development and tooling costs accepted as reasonable.

One thing may have played a factor. I'm sure Ruger has heard the comments about Single Six barrels biased for .22 WRF use, and not optimal for .22 LR. I don't know if that's true, or if there's any difference between the Nine and Ten barrels, but they might have seen value in separating the two lines. At least from a marketing prospective. I'm guessing what we're looking at now will direct Single (Six, Nine, Ten) development for a long time to come, amortizing costs along the way.

CraigC
September 8, 2012, 02:17 PM
I see a bunch of references to the .22WRF. The sixgun in question (or is it ninegun?) is a .22Mag or .22WMR. The .22WRF is a different cartridge, kinda of the .22Mag's "Special" papa. Shorter and compatible with .22Mag guns and all but obsolete.


I love .22 mag, but it's not impressive out of a handgun. It loses a lot of velocity with the short barrel.
Or you could say that the .357Mag, .41Mag and .44Mag gain a lot of velocity from longer barrels. Which does not make them useless out of revolvers, quite the contrary. It's no different and the .22Mag still runs 300-400fps faster than the .22LR with a heavier, real jacketed bullet.

Dnaltrop
September 8, 2012, 02:52 PM
My daughter loves the FO's on her Single Ten... They work well in low light.

Ugly as sin though

Dain Bramage
September 8, 2012, 04:44 PM
The sixgun in question (or is it ninegun?) is a .22Mag or .22WMR

Thanks. Ruger lists the caliber as "22 WMRF". I must have dropped a letter, and kept copying the mistake.

jp9mm
September 8, 2012, 06:12 PM
For some reason Ruger decided to use the formal name "WMRF", when they just use "WMR" with the others... donno why.
They mean the same thing

Jaymo
September 8, 2012, 07:50 PM
Yes, but the OP posted .22 WRF, which is the obsolete .22 Winchester Rim Fire. Looks like a shorter .22 mag.

I looked at the Single Nine on the Ruger website, and I like it, but I just bought a 1978 Single Six at the local fun shop, today.
I like it a lot, but the factory rear sight is a shiny black anodized aluminum and glares too much. I think I'll install a set of Williams FireSights.
I also want some thicker grips. I don't like the thin wood factory grips.
I'm thinking about sending some mahogany, sweetgum, and/or micarta to CLC and/or Private's and have some grips made.
I guess I could make my own, but it would take me a lot longer than the 6 weeks it takes for Private Schultz to make them.

Noticing how much space is between chambers on the Single Six, I better understand why Ruger started making it as a 10 shot.

As much as I love Taurus revolvers, I'd buy the single Nine over the Taurus in a heartbeat. What's not to like about a 9 shot Ruger .22 mag revolver?
I just wish Aguila would make a 60 grain, wide/flat-nosed .22 mag load.
That would be a bit of a thumper out of the revolver.
Just imagine a 60-80 grain jacketed (or hard cast) soup can projectile.

TrailWolf
September 8, 2012, 07:59 PM
I'd like to know how long until the Single Nine "convertible" 22lr/22mag comes out... I will buy one.

Jaymo
September 8, 2012, 08:07 PM
It would be cool to have a 9/10 shot Ruger .22 Mag/LR.
I think I'll have to wait till they start hitting the used gun market.
My wife had a cow over the flattop .44 special.

theautobahn
September 10, 2012, 02:19 PM
So here's a question for you... three extra shots in the "Single-9" equal out the the same cost as an entire second cylinder in .22lr in a Convertible? The Single-9 has the same MSRP as the stainless 6.5" convertible. We'll have to wait to see what they actually retail for, but what is up with that?

CraigC
September 10, 2012, 03:19 PM
Rugers tend to go for 70-80% of MSRP.

theautobahn
September 10, 2012, 09:30 PM
Rugers tend to go for 70-80% of MSRP.

Thank you, but my question was why they were priced the same when to me, the additional cylinder adds more value (and theoretically should cost much more) than an extra three shots.

BCRider
September 11, 2012, 10:33 PM
Because the tooling costs on the 6 shot convertable were paid for long ago. The Single 9 is just staring out with new development costs.

I'd lay odds that 99.99% of all the convertable Single Sixes were used for one box or less of "the other ammo" and from that point on were exclusively used with LR or WMR depending on the needs of the owner. So to me it makes perfect sense to go with separate guns for each caliber so folks can choose and get a gun which, hopefully, uses barrel bore size and twist rates to work best with each ammo.

bergmen
September 12, 2012, 12:47 AM
Because the tooling costs on the 6 shot convertable were paid for long ago. The Single 9 is just staring out with new development costs.

I'd lay odds that 99.99% of all the convertable Single Sixes were used for one box or less of "the other ammo" and from that point on were exclusively used with LR or WMR depending on the needs of the owner. So to me it makes perfect sense to go with separate guns for each caliber so folks can choose and get a gun which, hopefully, uses barrel bore size and twist rates to work best with each ammo.

I bought my Single Six new in 1976 and I have swapped cylinders dozens of times. To me it is two guns in one and that is one of the reasons I bought it.

I would think the same on a Single Nine if it was a convertible. I see no reason to have to buy two guns when they could easily do a 2-for-1 with a convertible. As a result, they can keep 'em, I'm not interested.

Dan

CraigC
September 12, 2012, 09:41 AM
As a result, they can keep 'em, I'm not interested.
Yet folks buy K-22's all the time for twice as much money and they do not come with extra cylinders. Yet you turn up your nose at a non-convertible Single Nine or Ten? Fact is, most .22 handguns are not convertibles and Ruger built their .22 Bisley for over 20yrs as a .22LR-only, so it seems silly for folks to get bent outta shape about this one. :rolleyes:

jp9mm
September 12, 2012, 11:46 AM
Yes, but the OP posted .22 WRF, which is the obsolete .22 Winchester Rim Fire. Looks like a shorter .22 mag.

Yes, but OP corrected that in post #25. This is what i was responding to.
The source of confusion is Ruger suddenly calling it a .22 "WMRF"

CraigC
September 12, 2012, 01:15 PM
There's nothing incorrect or confusing about WMRF. What is confusing is when you say WRF but mean WMR, WMRF or .22Mag. It's the "M" that makes all the difference.

460Kodiak
September 12, 2012, 02:19 PM
They should have started with a nine in the first place and made it a convertible.


Agreed

Are the barrels for the Single-10 designed for the 22 LR and are the barrels for the single-9 designed for the 22 Magnum? One of the concerns with the Single-6 is that the barrel is designed for the 22 Magnum and that accuracy when shooting 22 LR was not as good as it could have been.

This is why I didn't buy a single six. It's also why I didn'y by a single ten. It's my understanding that the Bearcat and the new SP101 are the only two revolvers with bbls specifically designed for the .22 lr. All the others will lack accuracy, but many people are perfectly satisfied with their single sixes. I'm probably just being nit picky.

CraigC
September 12, 2012, 02:57 PM
IMHO, the issues with the bore diameter are greatly overblown. There are other factors affecting accuracy but the bore is always the one that gets the blame. Unfairly, if you ask me. It's a mass produced rimfire sixgun, not a target pistol. That said, I have had no problem finding loads my Single Sixes (four of them) will pile into 1.5"@25yds.

bergmen
September 12, 2012, 08:27 PM
Yet folks buy K-22's all the time for twice as much money and they do not come with extra cylinders. Yet you turn up your nose at a non-convertible Single Nine or Ten? Fact is, most .22 handguns are not convertibles and Ruger built their .22 Bisley for over 20yrs as a .22LR-only, so it seems silly for folks to get bent outta shape about this one. :rolleyes:

Not bent out of shape at all, I just find the advantages of having a convertible in a single action a wonderful advantage. In DA, I have spent ten times what I paid for my 1976 Single Six for a new 617 and absolutely love it as a dedicated .22 S,L,LR, no complaints at all.

I just have a personal opinion that a convertible Single Nine would have been a smarter product and within the context of the single action series in general, that's all.

Dan

bergmen
September 12, 2012, 08:29 PM
IMHO, the issues with the bore diameter are greatly overblown. There are other factors affecting accuracy but the bore is always the one that gets the blame. Unfairly, if you ask me. It's a mass produced rimfire sixgun, not a target pistol. That said, I have had no problem finding loads my Single Sixes (four of them) will pile into 1.5"@25yds.

I agree, I have never found there to be an accuracy problem at all with having .22 LR and .22 Magnum shot through the same barrel. I think this is much more of an academic issue than a real one.

Even though they are not considered "target pistols" I do find mine to be exceptionally accurate and always have.

Dan

gazpacho
October 16, 2012, 07:44 PM
FWIW Gallery of Guns now has them in stock and is taking orders. I ordered mine, as I am a freak for 22 WMR and Ruger single actions.

Of course, this new friend will have to have its own leather rig.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger Single Nine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!