Post subject:Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

Hi Fellas,
This has probably been covered before, but with Ruger no longer servicing their earlier Red Label shotguns, has there been any talented gunsmith(s) with access to OEM Ruger factory parts rising to the surface and making a name for themselves doing quality repairs?
With appreciation for any leads..........
Rob Harris

Post subject:Re: Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

If you don't get a useful answer here (which would surprise me), try asking on www.doublegunshop.com/BBS. Some Ruger O/U and SxS haters there but plenty of helpful guys, too.

Post subject:Re: Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

Are you saying they will repair later Red Labels but not earlier ones.
Is there a serial number or date of manufacture cutoff separating the two?

_________________
We inda bidness of killin' mocassins, and cousin, bidness izza boomin'!!!!

Post subject:Re: Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

'Thanks' for providing the link, Mike. It is worth a try even if many there don't think they're worth their bother. The one I have is a second year production 20 ga. with the blued receiver, still fully functional, but nothing lasts forever other than a bad reputation.
Sugar River - I was told at one time that the factory was not repairing the earlier guns, but I've no knowledge if it includes all 'Red Labels' at this point. A call to the factory would likely clear it up, but am primarily looking for qualified 'smiths' with access to Ruger parts, should I need one.
All Best,
Rob

Post subject:Re: Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

Found this on Ruger's website. Shotguns no longer serviced. Red Label Shotguns (serial # beginning with '400-' or '410-'). Woodside shotguns and Gold Label shotguns. Hope this helps.

Post subject:Re: Today's repair options for the early Ruger Red Labels?

If you've got deep pockets, I imagine Connecticut Shotgun Mfg. would do it for you. I have read that they will service just about any double under the sun.
https://connecticutshotgun.co

_________________
'It ain't who shoots first and it ain't who shoots most; it's who HITS first. A corollary - the sooner you kill that SOB, the sooner he'll quit shooting at you. The ability to hit what you're shooting at trumps all others, and hanging 47 accessories from a cheese-grater forearm and having a 30 round magazine won't help that - practice will.' -Rugerforum.com member WWB

Post subject:Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

Thinking about #1's primaraly, is there any differnces, say in accuarcy, quality, finish, wood etc between a red pad #1 and a newer black pad?
Given the choice which would you choose?
Thanks

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

I have a one of each in the Ruger No1. The only difference I notice is that over time that the red pad is almost as hard as the wood behind it, lol.

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

Black pads have barrels made in house that are across the board dependable. The red pads had outside contracted barrels that were mostly good but had enough bad ones to give the #1 a bad name for a very long time.
Wood is usually nicer on the early to mid range red pads and fitted better to the metal.
wunbe

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

I agree, but will add this:
1. Rifles below serial number 130-05000 will have Douglas Premium barrels and are essentially hand fitted rifles. After that number Ruger used Wilson barrels and the QC was not where it should have been. Ditto for stock fitment and other details. All of my rifles below that number shoot really well. After that number it's a mixed bag, with some shooting very well, and some only so-so.
2. Beware of 'salt dried wood'. It shows on some rifles in the 1975-1977 year range. You can tell it by a thin line of rust growing between the stock and action. Other manufacturers including Browning also had problems with it. Salt was used to dry the stock faster, but it's a terrible problem when installed on a rifle. Ruger did not do it, their supplier did it. I don't think they could tell when they installed it. Unfortunately some of the prettiest wood installed on No. 1s was salt wood. Don't get distracted by the gorgeous wood and end up with a rifle that has corrosion in the action and finish. Especially be careful when buying based on pictures.
JMHO
Jim

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

It only set a time line. With that said certainly if the rifle has a red pad versus a black pad but both were made near the time they switched, then there is probably no difference at all except for the pad color.
Basically the #1 has been the same since 1977 with few exceptions that make any difference.
About mid 1984 Ruger changed the angle of the front edge of the receiver. Forearms made prior to that change will not simply interchange onto a rifle wit the new angle nor can you use a 'new' forearm on an old receiver. That said they can be swapped but to do so requires some removal of wood from the early forearm, or filling on the new one.
If you have an older rifle that needs a new forearm and send it to Ruger they will LIKELY send it back along with a free NEW forearm and a letter that says they no longer have forearms on hand to fit your rifle and have shipped one free of charge so YOU can try to make any modifications you would like to try and get it to fit. (I have 3 of these letters)
Barrels changed from Wilson to Ruger about mid 1991. So it is possible to find a Red pad that has a Ruger barrel during the transition. By 1993 and the Black pad they should all be Ruger barrels. As they are hammer forged and then milled to removed the forging marks, you can often hold then up to BRIGHT light from an oblique angle and see the 'twist' on the exterior of the barrel. Think of the Target 10/22 and then think of milling it smooth. Personally I'd prefer they leave them with the hammer forging like my Styers.
There are actually 5 'Red' pads.
The non prefix and early 130s have a thinner pad with rounded edges. It was made by Mershom. That appears on the butt pad just below the bottom screw hole in tiny letters and if the rifle has been carried at all, it's usually worn off. This pad has internal reinforcing on the inside.
About mid 1972 they started installing a pad made by Goodyear. It is thicker and the edges are square. It is also more PINK than red. About mid 1974 they went to the same pad but in the 'Brick Red' color that is most common.
In 1977 for about 6 months in a random serial number range due to the way Rugers are assembled they used a pad with a Peddle Grain surface that was made by Pachamayr that is much the same profile as the original pads. Pachmayr appears on the pad Rather than an 'Eagle' in the middle of the pad the word RUGER appears vertically and under that is are the words MADE IN THE USA BY PACHMAYR in tiny letters. Because the are in the recessed center of the pad with all the lettering they tend to survive intact. This pad appears to be the same shape and profile as the initial pad ad also has the internal reinforcing. Pachmayr log/trademark also appears inside on the black spacer just below the bottom screw hole
In 1978 when they First went back to the brick red Goodyear pad the 'Eagle' in the center of the pad is slightly smaller and sort of 'squashed' short. I have a few that way. The actual Goodyear mold number on the inside has always been the same for Goodyear pads.
By 1979 the Goodyear pad went back to the same as it was the second time around. The size and edges are the same and the Eagle is back to a thinner and taller 'Eagle'. This is the pad used right up till the change to Black pads.
Just as a matter of interest but if you ever doubt that the stocks on #1s aren't hand worked and the recoil/butt pads installed ad ground, just try swapping a pad off a #1. I have a Bunch of Red pads that I get from my smith to repair /replace originals or replace after market pads on earl #1s. Even with 50 or so on hand It's often impossible to find a pad that is of the correct vintage that will fit.
Ross

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

In my direct experience, the black pad #1s I have need less tinkering --- mainly rebedding -- than the later red pads that Ross mentioned. I have also heard far fewer complaints about sloppy chambers since Ruger started using their own barrels. Also, I do not find as many black pad rifles with the ridiclous trigger pull weights that some red pads had.
These develoments suggest to me that Ruger actually has listened somewhat to its customers' unrealistic demands that #1 rifles reliability shoot near MOA -- like Savages do.
Having said that though, it would be nice if they used better iron sights, a more flexible scope mounting system, freefloated barrels, and serious butt pads on their #1s. Especially as the MSRP moves ever closer to $1500.
wunbe

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

While I don't have a gross load of #1's, I think, of the red pads I have owned, the early ones are about as accurate as the black pads. Sometime in the middle years with the Wilson barreled examples, I had some real stinkers as far as accuracy is concerned.
In my opinion, the black pads, from my experience have been the more accurate out of the box while the early red pads are 'purtier' as a rule.
Again, this is just my opinion and experience........
Dave

_________________
Indian definition of a vegetarian.......Bad hunter
Brody's Grampa
Donna's Husband
Mark & Jeremy's Dad (Ruby's too)
Heather’s FIL
USN 1968-72
NRA member
VFW
Arms Collectors of SWW
Oregon Arms Collectors
God Bless America

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

On trigger pulls; I may have lucked out with my red pad purchases. I checked 3 of my 5 black pads and both of my red pads with a Lyman digital trigger pull gauge with the following results, IE: the average pull weight of 20 trigger pulls each:
1977 Red - 3lbs 3oz
1985 Red - 3lbs 8.8oz
2001 Blk - 4lbs 7oz
2005 Blk - 4lbs 4oz
2012 Blk - 4lbs 1oz

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

Is there anyway to tell by looking the difference between a Douglas barreled rifle and a Wilson barreled rifle?

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

There's no way that I know to tell visually, except by serial number range and/or ship date.

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

No way to tell but serial range and time line and that is IFFY when you get to actual points in time when changes are mentioned.
As a GENERAL rule a #1below 130-05000 SHOULD have a Douglas barrel. The closer you get to 130-05000 the more problematic it becomes as changes did NOT take place at a static point. So there are probably some #1s below 130-05000 that aren't Douglas and some above that are.
Certainly the early #1s and 77s have Douglas barrels as that was Rugers ONLY supplier. Pretty safe bet ALL non prefix #1s are Douglas from the factory.
Visually there is no marking on the barrels that distinguish them. There is a SLIGHT metallurgical difference BUT unless you have access to a gas spectrograph (my oldest sister ran a lab) it's a moot point.
THE Most accurate #1 I own is a 22BR in 'B' that started life as a 218 Bee 'S' with a Wilson barrel. Other than a very careful re-chamber job, it's a Wilson barrel. I personally think the Wilson thing is grossly overstated. The faults with Wilson were mostly early and and mostly about chambers and headspace.
For what it's worth the change from Douglas to Wilson took place because Douglas was simply not prepared to make the 10s of thousands of barrels as Ruger popularity took off. The contract was offered to Douglas but they declined and Wilson was chosen out of those that said they could supply the required barrels.
Ross

Post subject:Re: Any major differences in red pad rifles vs black pad

Thanks for responses