Ruger Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
I'm presuming that the firearm has been thoroughly cleaned, and properly lubed. I also don't know if this is "normal" wear or not.

Suggest you take good pix on all sides/places of the bolt where this deformation is taking place, and save pix. Suggest you also take good pix of the part(s) that are causing the deformation as well.

Suggest you send pix to Ruger for advice and possible service. Picture is worth 1,000 words. Don't mess with it until you hear back with them. See what they say.

The following might well affect your Ruger Warranty: If you can FULLY SUPPORT the area DIRECTLY behind the "raised" bit of metal (I presume the metal is deformed/raised on both sides of the bolt body, I suggest using a small hammer with a flat face to gently tap the raised metal and force it back down a bit. You are just "moving" the metal a little bit, and forcing it back nearly into original position. Don't expect perfection, just an improvement. Suggest you examine the rest of the bolt body for other possible flaws; for example, the screw in the picture above seems to have some raised metal at the circumference of its recessed hole. Sometimes such things can be "moved" back into original configuration, sometimes it is best to gently remove such imperfections

Keep an eye on things, and see what happens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Here is my bolt from my PC Carbine that I have put 200 rounds through. I do not know the total through the gun since I got it used.

View attachment 173408

View attachment 173409

I measured the deformity and the first bolt I posted has .009 inches and the second has .004 inches.

Now that I am aware of this I will pay attention each time I take the guns apart. I have sent Ruger a question about this through their online support page contact form.
It appears that the deformation of the bolt is occurring at the side (edge) of the bolt, which seems to indicate a force exerted on the bolt in a relatively small area. It is possible that if the same force was "spread-out" in area, the deformation of the bolt would be reduced, perhaps eliminated. I'm not familiar with the construction of these firearms, but if it is possible to obtain the part that is causing this deformation, and if it is possible to re-shape the part in order to widen the impact area on the bolt, the issue could be resolved. If this procedure is possible, suggest getting a number of the required part, as some "trial and error" fitting will be required. Some "Prussian Blue" compound applied to the relevant surfaces will quickly show the wear pattern, It may be that it is possible that vigorous hand-cycling may be sufficient, in lieu of actually firing the firearm, to reveal the wear pattern, Maybe not. There is no way of telling (without some experimentation) if this procedure will "solve" the problem, or if the proposed "re-shaping" will cause other problems.

Peening-down the displaced metal was proposed as a possible "interim remedy" to the situation, as doing so will likely work-harden the metal, thus making it a bit more resistant to being displaced again. One could certainly file-down the displaced metal, but removal of metal in this area would serve to reduce the amount of metal resisting the force applied on the bolt, thus likely increasing future wear. Submit that if it is possible to modify the part that is impacting the bolt, and assuming that that particular part is both inexpensive and easily replaceable, doing so would likely be a much better solution to the problem, in theory, such "theory" needing to be confirmed by experimentation.

It's also possible that the particular part impacting the bolt is not of "correct" configuration which would allow this proposed solution to work at all; the proposed re-shaping" of the part impacting the bolt will only work if the part has enough metal on it to allow the "re-shaped" part to fully contact the impact area on the bolt, and so spreading-out the impact area to place the impact force over a wider area.

Just submitted as a proposal, and as a point of departure for discussion. It would not surprise me that some engineer at Ruger will look at these pix, and come to the conclusion that some parts were not originally and correctly configured, saying "Yep, if we had made [Part X] a little differently, this wear would not be occurring." Sometimes it takes a lot of use for such issues to become apparent. The question is: will Ruger deem the issue to be serious enough to be worth the expense of re-designing the part causing the deformation?

It may well be that the wear seen in the pix above progresses to a certain (acceptable) point, and does not progress further. Who knows?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
If you desire, you can call and tell then date/time the pix were sent to them. CS Rep ought to be able to access them, although perhaps not while you are on the phone with them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
@RIBob, thanks for the well thought out response.

The part that interacts with the bolt is the lever which is activated by the mag follower to activate the last round hold open.

I have had no operational issues with my guns, but contacted Ruger to ask if this was normal.
I understand. Without actually seeing the firearm and how the parts interact, along with their configuration, I can only offer general suggestions. Take what I have said is very general advice, and not specific suggestions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Regardless of "official" Ruger comments, I stand by my previous comments. It would not surprise me to see "improved" parts used/substituted in new firearms, and perhaps a "gentle" recall.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top