Ruger Single Six: After ACCURATE REVOLVER SUGGESTIONS?

[22-rimfire]

I am no gunsmith or expert shooter, but in my humble opinion your gun is fine as is. It is a Single Six, not a target gun. If you want a target gun, buy a target gun. Then complain.

I view it as sort of like buying a no-name flannel shirt at Walmart for $12. The price is very appealing when you see shirts at other stores for $25-$30. The more expensive flannel shirt is less likely to shrink beyond use after two cold water washings. IF you want quality, you pay the price. That has never changed. If you pay the price and have problems, you return it, or contact the manufacturer in the case of things like firearms.

Can you tell I am not a huge Ruger fan? But I do own more than a couple Ruger firearms. They work.

 

[BCRider]

I had Jack shoot the gun, since he's got a place to do it, and, he's a WAY better shot then I am. I'm only useful for testing heavy caliber guns no one else wants to shoot. and even then, it helps if it's a sandpile at 20 feet.

Freedom Arms cuts the throats to .2225- .2235".

If FA cuts their chambers to a stepped form then it would appear that they are the only revolver maker that does this in .22LR. As I posted in my previous reply even my S&W K17 has non stepped and non tapered chambers in the cylinder. I can insert a round just as easily from the front of the cylinder as the rear. And we don't see many folks complaining about how those guns shoot. So I'd suggest that you're chasing down a problem which isn't there other than by comparison to the FA gun.

How accurate is "good enough" for you? I understand that you want the gun itself to shoot as well as it can so that the size of any resulting groupings is based on YOUR abilities. But at some point you need to stop and realize that it's still just a mechanical device with mechanical tolerances. And once it is able to shoot groups from a Ransom rest that are half to one third the size that we can hold the gun trying to achieve tighter results is purely an acedemic exercise that will cost lots and produce little. And by your own admission you're in the same boat as many of us with having less than Olympic class ability.

On a good day I can shoot groups that are about 2.5 inches at 15 yards. Others can certainly do better but I'm stuck with old guy eyes and old guy nerves.... Any reasonable .22LR gun should be able to manage about a 3/4 inch grouping at that range easily from a Ransom Rest. Most of the better ones would likely manage to keep all the rounds in about a 3/8 to 1/2 inch size group.

So how much tighter would my groups be if I were able to get the gun to consistently shoot 3/8 inch groups from a rest? I know that it's not a linear thing where you just reduce the group size by the difference. It's centered around statistics and means and other fancy calculations which I don't care to learn about at this point. But the bottom line is that even if you can get the gun to tighten up the groups by 100% from a 3/4 inch group down to 3/8 you won't see the whole 3/8 inch reduction in the size of YOUR groups. It'll be at best something closer to around 1/4 inch difference in group size.

And by your own admission it certainly sounds like you're in the same boat as many of us with being an average shooter. So why the obsession with trying to turn the SS into an Olympic class gun?

 

[Old Fuff]

If FA cuts their chambers to a stepped form then it would appear that they are the only revolver maker that does this in .22LR.

They don't, but they follow match chamber dimensions:
.2225" (+.0010"/-.0")

Fitting cylinders (in single action revolvers): If you measure the distance from the back of the ratchet hub cut-out in the frame's cylinder window, to the front of the window just under the barrel, you will get a certain dimension that should match the distance measured from the back of the ratchet to the front projection (called a "hub") on the cylinder. If the hub is short the cylinder can move back and forth, a condition called "end shake."

A large manufacturer, such a Ruger does not fit each individual cylinder, but instead pick a cylinder that has a hub length at or close to the required length and then serial number that cylinder to the gun. This is less then perfect, but it will do for government work, especially on a mass-produced/plinking class revolver. Usually a custom 'smith will fit a hub (that comes oversized) to the particular frame before installing a barrel and adjusting the barrel/cylinder gap. This is better but if you want this kind of work you'll need deep pockets.

So far as improved accuracy is concerned, you are not likely to see much unless you buy the whole package - including a custom cylinder, cylinder pin, barrel, and all required fitting and adjustments. Keep in mind it won't come cheap, and may not beat out a target grade Smith & Wesson or Colt double-action revolver - especially an older one - by a substantial margin. Some improvement, yes! A big difference is unlikely.

In fairness to Ruger - they never intended an out-of-the-box Single Six Convertable to equal the accuracy available from the best target revolvers.

 

[CraigC]

Again, I want to know the name of a gunsmith who will reline chambers.

There's nothing magical about older Smith's and Colt's. A properly built Ruger with a linebored cylinder, tight lockup and a match grade barrel will certainly shoot circles around any box stock S&W or Colt. Figure $750 for a scratch-built linebored cylinder and $200 for a barrel. Unless you find a hack that will reline chambers.

 

[robctwo]

I'm real happy with the S&W 18-3, 17-3 and 4" 617 I own. I don't shoot the Ruger Stainless single Six much any more. Not as accurate and a pain to load and empty compared to the swing out hand ejectors.

My neighbor likes his 6" 617 real well. I think it is front heavy. I just put a Burris FastFire red dot on the 617 and it is nuts accurate with my 60 year old eyes.

 

[BCRider]

They don't, but they follow match chamber dimensions:
.2225" (+.0010"/-.0")

But that implies that the chamber has to be stepped or at least tapered at midpoint. The cases on .22LR ammo measure out at .224 for one and .225 for a half dozen others I checked with the selection being from three different brands of ammo.

 

[Old Fuff]

Think of a straight hole, same diameter at both ends, between .2225" to .2235" - this may not be exactly true as there might be a slight taper, but you should be able to see what I'm saying.

 

[CraigC]

I would have the chambers bored out and lined

Again, I want to know the name of a gunsmith who will reline chambers.

Quoted again to correct this misinformation. It's obvious that ole fluffer has little or no knowledge on this subject. He has stated in several threads that chambers can be relined but when pressed, never produces the name of a gunsmith who will do this. I am a veritable single action nut. Have had four custom Ruger single actions built and am familiar with the work of all our major sixgun building talent. This has been a passion of mine for 25yrs and I have accumulated more books and articles on the subject than I can count. I know of ZERO credible gunsmiths who will reline chambers. So for all of you who are reading this and wondering (present and future), relining chambers is NOT the proper method. Cylinders are either procured in smaller chamberings and rechambered or they are built. Either entirely from scratch or from rough blanks with pilot holes small enough to be bored to any possible chambering. Existing cylinders are NOT relined. This may have been standard practice many years ago but building cylinders has become a staple process among custom sixgunsmiths.

 

[Prosser]

No need to beat a dead horse, Craig.

As soon as you start trying to find someone to do this, it becomes real apparent
what the situation is. Considering the pressure of .22lr, and the size, it might have been an easy fix 20-40 years ago. However,
in this world of CNC machines, cylinders can be mass produced, quickly. See my links to Story's cylinders. 100-120 dollars, and, he says they are .224".
That would be a large improvement from .226", which is what the Ruger cylinder is at.

Come to think of it, I know a few folks that can do ANYTHING with guns,
and, putting in a relatively soft sleeve, and boring it with the right size drill might not take anytime at all.
Fact that the cylinder is stainless might be a bit of a problem.

It would have been easier if this gun started life as a .17. Then I suspect
boring out the existing cylinder would be no big deal, and, a match grade barrel, and your driving tacks. Sort of like buying a Ruger .44 to make a good .45.

 

[BCRider]

Think of a straight hole, same diameter at both ends, between .2225" to .2235" - this may not be exactly true as there might be a slight taper, but you should be able to see what I'm saying.

On on track with that but it still doesn't alter the fact that the casing diameter on the sample of .22 ammo that I checked is sized at .224 to .225 isn't going to fit into a chamber sized to .2225 to .2235 without the aid of a hammer. So they must be using a chamber reamer that is "fat" out to around .226 for the portion that cuts the rear 5/8 inch of the chamber then flares down to their chamber mouth spec.

Come to think of it, I know a few folks that can do ANYTHING with guns,
and, putting in a relatively soft sleeve, and boring it with the right size drill might not take anytime at all.
Fact that the cylinder is stainless might be a bit of a problem.

With respect I'll suggest that you truly do not know much about metal machining if you think it's that easy. Trust me, it's far from it. Even if you found someone that does this sort of job on a regular basis to the point that he built up the extensive sort of jigging required to do the job easily he would only be able to do so based on many countless hours of prep work making up the jigs that make it easy to do in the future. And he'd be crazy not to charge for the job based on amortizing out that high initial time outlay. On the other hand for a one off job the smith would not have all that fancy jigging available. Drilling and reaming for the plugs would not be hard but once that's done there's no registration for the new chambers. And besides, the smith would be crazy not to install and index the new chambers to the lock points of the cylinder in the actual gun to ensure that he was able to accurately locate the chambers to be inline with the bore. None of this is easy to do to the sort of accuracy you are insisting on for your Match Grade SS project. So such work is going to be tedious and require much skill and knowledge to ensure that the final chambers are located accurately and sized accurately. And this sort of time, skill and knowledge do not come cheap.

 

[Prosser]

I've watched a cylinder being drilled for a .500JRH by JRH. Your right, it does take time, but, he makes it look easy.

I was just amazed at how he had a solution for a number of things, and, made it look easy.

I was just thinking that compared to drilling custom cylinders, plugging a 22lr cylinder, and drilling it, metal wise, would be easier then cutting a .500 JRH, or any of the big bores. Course, I might be wrong. The rest of the crew is if not that gifted, excellent gunsmiths in their own right.

 

[BCRider]

If he's doing those conversions on even a semi regular basis you can bet that he put many hours into the jigging and setup methods before he drilled and reamed his first cylinder in anger for a customer. When you're talking about setups where the thickness of a human hair is considered a gross amount it's the small things that you can't even see which need to be addressed. And stuff like that just isn't apparent to someone looking over the shoulder.

I've had metal setups where it took me literally an hour and a half to set up and check so that I could do a 2 minute cutting operation for just one step in a one off job. Usually the setup to cutting time isn't as bad as this but it shows you where the knowledge and skill part comes in. In pretty much any case the actual drilling, milling or turning is the small part of the step. Layout, measurement and jigging to ensure accuracy of the cutting operation is where the machinist earns their money. Not the actual cutting step.

 

[CraigC]

However, in this world of CNC machines, cylinders can be mass produced, quickly.

I would be willing to bet that if a gunsmith 'would' reline chambers, it would take just as long and cost just as much as building a new cylinder. If not more.

There was a guy on RugerForum that ordered a Story cylinder and was unimpressed enough to return it.

Trust me, it's far from it.

Believe me, they spend a lot of time building jigs, fixtures and tools. I've been in Jim Stroh's shop a couple of times and there is no telling how much money he has in tools and machinery. Not to even mention his education. What it costs to build a truly amazing custom revolver is really a bargain, all things considered. Not to mention how much quality and precision you get with a Freedom Arms.

 

[Prosser]

Jack Huntington has had one goal in his life, work wise, and, he's been doing it pretty much his entire life. That's to be a gunsmith.

He is a master at it, and, I have little doubt that what I don't see is as you and BC describe. He also took his time, drilling, cooling, drilling some more, etc.

He's also really good at making double rifles, and having them regulate.
He's also scary fast and accurate with a double.

When I bought the Ruger I was hoping that they had made it to tighter specs.
The quality is really impressive, and it's a beautiful gun. The barrel is tighter then I expected. However, the cylinder with .226" throats is kind of hard to deal with.

CraigC:
Can't find the Story stuff in the Ruger forum. Do you have a link?

I think I'm going to shoot it a bit, and leave it alone. Or sell it, and buy something else for more money that's more accurate.

Anyone have a favorite ammo for their Single Six, late model?

 

[PowerG]

Mine really likes the white box Winchester, but I haven't tried much else. I just bought mine a few weeks ago and have been very pleased with it, my grandson and I have shot it a few times and we hit coke caps (from plastic bottles) most of the time at 25-30 feet, just shooting offhand...haven't tried any groups or anything with it but it seems plenty accurate enough for just fooling around.

 

[Prosser]

CraigC:
Story link???????

 

[Old Fuff]

...think I'm going to shoot it a bit, and leave it alone. Or sell it, and buy something else for more money that's more accurate.

Accuracy, like beauty, is what is seen in the eye of the beholder.

In other words you need to specially define what accuracy you expect.

For example, when .22 revolvers were still used in bullseye match shooting a popular standard was a 1"-5 shot, machine rest group @ 50 yards. This would insure that in theory all of your shots could fall inside the X-ring of the NRA 50 yard slow fire target. It was expected the test would be conducted using several brands of match grade ammunition. The two principal makers of target revolvers - Colt and S&W - strived to meet this requirement. Thus they had a goal, based on a specific reason.

Freedom Arms, as well as some of the guns advocated by CraigC can meet and beat this standard, but only at about 3 times what one of the old target revolvers of yesteryear would cost today. The question is, "are you a good enough marksman to be able to take advantage of the superior accuracy?" If not you are wasting your money, even though you would end up with a very fine handgun.

The Ruger Single Six is combo with two cylinders, one in .22RF, and the other in .22 WRM, The barrel is bored and rifled to .22 Magnum specifications, and oversized for the .22 LR. At 50 yards it is unlikely to meet the target revolver test, and shouldn't be expected to. That said, it is more then accurate enough for the intended purpose, and within what most shooters can hold.

I have no idea what your marksmanship abilities are, but ultimately they are what will define the best hand-held accuracy you can achieve, not what a particular handgun can do in a machine rest. The best, most expensive revolver is only as accurate as the person shooting it.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

This thread has caught my interest. Just out of curiosity do the Ruger Bearcats & Single Tens have their cylinders and barrels specs closer to 22lr than the Convertables? I looked on Ruger's website and could not find any info other than they say 22lr. It would be interesting to find out. Any Bearcat or Single Ten owners care to comment.

 

[Old Fuff]

You need to call Ruger, but if it's a .22 RF model for which no .22 Magnum option is available I would expect the barrel to be bored and rifled to .22 RF specifications.

I need to check, but I believe the Super Bearcat does have a Magnum option and unless specified otherwise would have a Magnum barrel.

 

[ECVMatt]

Problem here is between Obama and the Kali DOJ list, the number of options are not like other states. Finding used guns as you describe are difficult.

The new options I see are:

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Take a look for .22lr. Isn't much.

P

I believe that most Single Actions are exempt from the CA DOJ roster.

 

[Prosser]

You are correct. Most of the guns mentioned prior are DA/SA revolvers. They would have to be on the DOJ list.

I also wonder if the Single 10 has different specs.

 

[Prosser]

Got off my butt and called Ruger Tech support.

I'm interested in buying a Ruger with a .22lr spec barrel.

Here's the information I got back:
ALL of the single six's come with barrels spec .224-.225" So, I actually have a tight one.

The only guns that come with barrels speced for .22lr only are the new SP 101, and the Bear cat: .222-223"

I may need to get a second opinion on my .22 Single Six. If the barrel is really that tight, then a cylinder with .224" throats might do the trick.

The funny part about all this is it doesn't seem to really matter, as each gun
appears to be it's own animal.

The person I talked to got to shoot the Single 10 Jeff Quinn tested, and, despite the really .22 Magnum barrel, both she and Quinn got outstanding accuracy from the gun.

I thought it might be that being a new cylinder, it might be cut tighter then the single six. It's not.

Apparently the ammo is the Holy Grail on these guns, and maybe my Accurizer will help as well. It has with other .22's I've used it on.

 

[Zaydok Allen]

So does that indicate that they will come out with a Single Ten that has a swappable cylinder?

 

[Prosser]

It sure looks like they can, and I suspect probably will.

My guess there. It also means fitting a .22 Magnum cylinder, ala a Story cylinder, might be an easy solution.

 

[OldCavSoldier]

I love my S&W M617...very accurate, even with the 4-inch barrel!