TexasCHLforum.com

DocV wrote:Might you be able to post a few pictures?
If so, field strip said pistol and take:

a picture of the pistol showing a Ruger magazine inserted in the magwell.
a picture of the pistol showing a problematic magazine inserted in the magwell.
Shots that show the ramp in relationship to the magazine please? (Probably best if taken from above the frame pointing towards the ramp).

And, one picture where the slide is still removed but with the barrel resting on the frame bed and with the slide stop inserted into the pistol.

Okay, I've got the pictures which were taken with the pistol dirty from the last range session so the marks where the cartridge tips are hitting the feed ramp would show.

Here they are:

Frame with Ruger magazine inserted:


Frame with Wilson Combat magazine inserted:


Frame alone showing feed ramp marks from projectile tips:


Frame, barrel and link:


Frame, barrel and link 2:


Frame, barrel and link with Wilson Combat magazine inserted


Do you see any issues I'm missing?

It looks fine. The dimple on Ruger's follower is for retaining the last round. But if I recall, the issues you have when using the Wilson's occur at random.
Did the gun have any problems in the last range trip?
My only thought is the pistol could want a bit more lube during your session. I do not see any shiny spots on the rails. That seems consistent with a new gun. How many rounds have you run through it?

DocV wrote:It looks fine. The dimple on Ruger's follower is for retaining the last round. But if I recall, the issues you have when using the Wilson's occur at random.
Did the gun have any problems in the last range trip?
My only thought is the pistol could want a bit more lube during your session. I do not see any shiny spots on the rails. That seems consistent with a new gun. How many rounds have you run through it?

The FTF problem with the Wilson mags occurs usually on the first round when the gun is hot and dirty.

I can't use Brownell's or Chip McCormick Power Mags. In both cases, the slide locks back with the last live round lying loose on top of the follower.

The front of the frame rail cuts have their coating worn completely off on the lower surface. The slide moves very smoothly over the frame.

At this point I have around 600 rounds through the gun.

I've now polished the chamber, the barrel throat, and the feed ramp to a mirror finish. We'll soon see if that makes any difference.

The Wilson combat Service mags are good and are only twenty bucks. They are probably rebranded Checkmate mags.
I have had issues with Chip McCormick mag followers.

DocV wrote:The Wilson combat Service mags are good and are only twenty bucks. They are probably rebranded Checkmate mags.
I have had issues with Chip McCormick mag followers.

I'll put another follower in the CMC and see what happens.

AndyC wrote:

Excaliber wrote: You seem to have almost zero space between the frame feedramp and that of the barrel - ideally there should be a small gap of about 1/32". The bullet-nose seems to be striking awfully low on the barrel's ramp, but let's see how your test-fire goes.

Here's my Rock:


Comparing mine to yours:

I should have specified that the pic was taken with the barrel slid as far back as possible against the link. I have more space when barrel is as far forward as the link will allow.

I can't believe anyone would go through this much trouble on a brand new firearm with a lifetime warranty. Ruger has one of the best warranties in the business and would make it right if given the opportunity. seems like a waste of time IMHO.

Specifications vary:

(source: Niemi24s. m1911.org forum, http://forum.m1911.org/showthread.php?1 ... d-Ramp-Gap)

If you pull the slide back with the barrel in the slide and peak through the ejection port and see gap (of about a .03 inch) you should be fine.

AndyC wrote:As in your drawing, Kuhnhausen's recommendation is 1/32" - as I said earlier. Point is, there has to be a gap and I'm not seeing much of one there.

I reshaped the feed ramp a bit (the Ruger tech had done some work, but left it slightly asymmetrical), and I ground a bit off the bottom of the t. hroating on the barrel. I didn't want to remove any more because I would then be taking the end of the barrel out of square.

We'll see if that helps any.

During today's testing I had only two FTF's out of about 100 rounds - one with the first round from a new Wilson mag that was still stiff and one with the last round from a CMC mag that I knew was problematical. All the other Wilson mags functioned fine.

AndyC wrote:Sounds like you're almost there, mate

Thanks much to you, Doc V, and others who have reached out to give me a hand with this!

Well, I took it to the range today and was feeling pretty good after 50 flawless rounds of FMJ and about 20 hollowpoints fed from only Ruger original magazines - until I had the same type of failure to feed I've been experiencing since the beginning.

That's it - no way am I ever going to trust this gun for self defense. Their techs made such extensive modifications to the feed ramp while trying to get this thing to feed that the titanium insert is almost gone. I don't have any confidence in the resulting geometry of the feed system.

I talked to the Ruger folks again and they promised to make it right on its third trip back to the factory. It's now on its way to be evaluated for replacement.

I still have confidence in the design and Ruger is a truly great company that is a great supporter of 2A.

I think I just got one of those lemons that every manufacturer turns out every now and then. I'm looking forward to getting a new fully functional Ruger Lightweight Commander that I can trust for EDC.