[maddmatter1970]

Yes, you should contact Ruger ASAP. Would not reccomend cycling your weapon until after you show them the picture.

 

[maddmatter1970]

Called Ruger this morning, entire rifle must go back due to head space requirement.
Since the gun is over 2 years old I get to pay shipping. Hopefully Ruger will own up to the part being defective and cover that at least.

Never been a big fan of Ruger, except for the 10-22 rifle.

I do thank all of you for the post and assistance.

sparx

There are two considerations in the plus column.
1st you stated you purchased it or picked it up used.
2nd sending it in they do a complete function test.
I think for the price of shipping that ain't a total loss. But I understand the frustration.
I been around firearms a long time. I love them. I hate worrying about headspace. Both from the rifle side, and the reloading side. Somethings I just like trusting others with. And headspacing is one of them.
Hope it comes back quick!

 

[maddmatter1970]

I am not concerned about function test. Since I have re-barrelled many M1 Garand rifles, which of course includes checking and cutting chamber/head space I have no concerns there either. I think Ruger has built an excellent rifle with the PCC, but going with a MIM bolt head is not one of the outstanding ideas Ruger incorporated. This component of the bolt was most likely used to reduce costs and allow change from 9mm to .40 cal. Anyway this rifle having very light use should not have a failure like this.

Ruger has let me down in the past several times, just another incidence here. This is my own fault for purchasing a used example, I highly doubt the PO even noticed this flaw.

Sparx

I agree, sorry if it came across wrong, I was tring to think of bright sides...