[8Ring]

Greetings!

I took delivery of my new Ranch Rifle in February and immediately took it to a respected gunsmith for a trigger job, bedding in a new, longer stock, and an adjustable gas port.

The shop called me the other day and said they fired a few rounds through it before starting their work and had many failures to eject. They did some more investigation and disassembly and found out that the chamber is undersized and either their "go" or "no-go" gauge did not fit. Not only was the chamber tight, but it wasn't cut deep enough. They also found that someone at the factory opened the gas port from .052" (the spec measurement) to .070". They speculated as to why someone at the factory might have done this.

This shop has a good relationship with Ruger and will send the rifle back there to get this problem fixed. While this is frustrating, I'm glad a shop found it with their ammo and can provide a "professional" explanation to the factory.

I will be patient and hopefully the rifle will return in a few weeks with a new barrel so the rest of the work can be completed.

Chris

 

[Texan]

Sorry to hear that. Luckily, there are good Minis coming out of the factory too.

I got a new Ranch Rifle (582) a month ago and have put a few hundred rounds through it without a single failure of any kind. In fact, I just got back from putting a hundred rounds of Winchester 5.56 through it tonight and it performed flawlessly.

Hope Ruger does right by you and soon, so you can start enjoying your Mini.Good luck.

 

[dave_g]

Intresting. There have been a few people postng here with failue to extract problems recently, including this one.

http://www.perfectunion.com/vb/ruger-mini-14-mini-30/93155-brand-new-mini-14-problem.html

I don't remeber anyone else having their chamber spec'd before sending it back to Ruger. Wonder if they had a bad run and are dealing with it as the problems are reported instad of trying to do some sort of recall?

Anyway, seems like a good idea for anyone else with a simlar problem to ask a local gunsmth to check the chamber before sending it in. I've been pretty happy with Ruger CS, but it's fair to say they aren't real communicative about what was wrong and what they fixed.

 

[COBrien]

I've been pretty happy with Ruger CS, but it's fair to say they aren't real communicative about what was wrong and what they fixed.

That seems to be the norm with Ruger CS... They don't call except to let you know either that (1) you owe them some money (say, for fitting a replacement firing pin), or (2) your rifle has been shipped out, fixed.

Send rifle, wait for call, look for box.

 

[mwood]

Interesting. I'm one of the ones with the failure to eject problem, I sent it back and they fixed it but they didn't give me a report as to what the problem was. I'll give them a call and see if I can find out.

 

[mwood]

Got ahold of CS and they tell be the bolt was replaced and the chamber repaired. I'm sending it back again for the sight issue they missed the first time.

 

[slazykz]

WOW another FTE mini 14. No wonder Rugers repair department is swamped. Somebody needs to be fired.

Hopefully the get mine fixed right the first time(including the sights) so I don't have to send it back like mwood.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

improperly set-up or worn chamber reamer most likely
good qc would seem to check the chamber.

 

[mwood]

And you'd think they would announce a recall on all the affected serial numbers.

 

[mwood]

On the bright side I'm not burning any ammo.........

 

[8Ring]

I suspect my chamber problem was caused by a worn reamer. They might replace these tools whenever instead of according to a schedule.

For example, I bought a Ruger GP-100 years ago that had two cylinder throats that were .356", two at .357", and two at .358". Rather than sending it back to the factory, I had a machinist open them all to .3585 and it shot much better thereafter.

Chris