Pics of new Ranger?

45flint · October-03-17 07:10

I've seen them posted but can't find the latest?

gofishr · October-03-17 09:10

Here's a couple pictures I found

OV-1D · October-03-17 09:10

Sure would like to see the whole gun before I make my decision , left side , fully opened , top view , back view , so I can see what I'm buying . I already have two of the best top-breaks by NAA .

gtgoldsmith · October-03-17 10:10

Interesting location of the cylinder latch. If I remember correctly the original Ranger had the latch on the barrel side of the pistol while the Ranger II has it on the frame/hammer side.

OV-1D · October-03-17 10:10

You see something I can't ? Where .

gofishr · October-03-17 10:10

The Ranger l and the Ranger ll same opening point just a new latching system

gofishr · October-03-17 10:10

Here's a couple pictures of the Ranger one

OV-1D · October-03-17 10:10

I thought you were referring to the cylinder release , sorry .

Ruger · October-03-17 10:10

From an engineering point of view, the forces (moment) created by the rotation of the barrel/cylinder around the pivot point would incline one to design the opposing (or holding) force of the latch perpendicular (or tangential) to the rotating force. The change in the latch would lead one to believe that there may have been a concern with the Ranger model of future latch failure. Just a guess. But loving the new Ranger II EB offer!

45flint · October-03-17 13:10

I'm assuming there is cartridge ejector sprocket like the Ranger I?

OV-1D · October-03-17 13:10

That's what I mean 45Flint we can't get any actual pictures or exactly what were buying and that bothers me . I gotta know how this piece is compared to the original but the good thing is it has both cylinders and myself I'll wait for longer barrels personally . I'll see how you other fellas think and give their opinions .

MtGoat · October-03-17 15:10

The latches are opposite for the I and the II.

The Ranger latches to the grip frame (the moving part is on the cylinder side of the break).

The Ranger II latches to the cylinder side of the gun (the moving part is on the grip frame).

That is assuming the prototype is the final configuration. $:-\$

A lot of time, trial and error and thought went into this with lessons learned from the Ranger.
I expect the Ranger II will be a bit of an upgrade to the Ranger as far as design is concerned.

Pat

Don73 · October-03-17 18:10

+1 " is cartridge ejector sprocket like the Ranger I"?

Bj · October-03-17 19:10

Thanks for pictures.

45flint · October-04-17 04:10

I know many of you like a longer barrel but I think the short barrel to me is the most pleasing. NAA really just went back to the old breaktops to get their latches? Schofield for the newest and the first copied the most common latch of the turn of the century. I think the first latch was more elegant, the new one more robust? The availabilty of the conversion cylinder is pretty compelling. I think the break top makes a nice 22 lr. Firing a mag in my Ranger just seemed too powerful. I would have loved to have a shorter 22 lr cylinder, to make the design more balanced, and compact.

grayelky · October-04-17 05:10

Quote from: Ruger1628 on October-03-17 10:10
From an engineering point of view, the forces (moment) created by the rotation of the barrel/cylinder around the pivot point would incline one to design the opposing (or holding) force of the latch perpendicular (or tangential) to the rotating force. The change in the latch would lead one to believe that there may have been a concern with the Ranger model of future latch failure. Just a guess. But loving the new Ranger II EB offer!

The original production was halted due to the high cost of manufacturing. If there was any concern about future latch failure, it was never made public.

OV-1D · October-04-17 05:10

Quote from: Ruger1628 on October-03-17 10:10
From an engineering point of view, the forces (moment) created by the rotation of the barrel/cylinder around the pivot point would incline one to design the opposing (or holding) force of the latch perpendicular (or tangential) to the rotating force. The change in the latch would lead one to believe that there may have been a concern with the Ranger model of future latch failure. Just a guess. But loving the new Ranger II EB offer!

OOHHHH REALY . Do you know P.T. Barnum by chance ?

Ruger · October-04-17 06:10

Quote from: grayelky on October-04-17 05:10
Quote from: Ruger1628 on October-03-17 10:10
From an engineering point of view, the forces (moment) created by the rotation of the barrel/cylinder around the pivot point would incline one to design the opposing (or holding) force of the latch perpendicular (or tangential) to the rotating force. The change in the latch would lead one to believe that there may have been a concern with the Ranger model of future latch failure. Just a guess. But loving the new Ranger II EB offer!
The original production was halted due to the high cost of manufacturing. If there was any concern about future latch failure, it was never made public.

I wasn't implying that manufacturing was halted due to some secret concern. I was referring to the discussions of the new design where the latching forces are now clearly directed differently (at least from the prototype photos released). Engineering design reviews always contain discussions of possible failure modes that may never realistically occur, and the manufacturing costs to abate them. And believe me, with our litigious culture of today, especially in the firearms industry, there was plenty of safety discussion concerning our new Ranger II.

OV-1D · October-04-17 08:10

Ruger nothing personal but you can't possibly believe what you said . Not because its a cheaper way of getting their new gun out , they reintroduced this Ranger because of its obvious step up for not removing the cylinder that has kept the older designs from really taking off and flying off the shelves . Less moving parts means less hands on , less farming parts out , yes less of a chance of failure because of more moving parts thus lower costs , its a simpler design that's all . I also believe NAA had lots of parts left over from the first design but as they said it costs too much to continue , had to come up with a model that all these extra parts would be useful for minus the expensive latching design so here it is . Sandy please correct me if I'm that far off .

MtGoat · October-04-17 08:10

Quote from: OV-1D on October-04-17 08:10
Ruger nothing personal but you can't possibly believe what you said . Not because its a cheaper way of getting their new gun out , they reintroduced this Ranger because of its obvious step up for not removing the cylinder that has kept the older designs from really taking off and flying off the shelves . Less moving parts means less hands on , less farming parts out , yes less of a chance of failure because of more moving parts thus lower costs , its a simpler design that's all . I also believe NAA had lots of parts left over from the first design but as they said it costs too much to continue , had to come up with a model that all these extra parts would be useful for minus the expensive latching design so here it is . Sandy please correct me if I'm that far off .

I would like to think that it was a combination of all of the above.
They needed to lower the cost of production as OV would not buy a $1k Ranger

Assuming they had parts left over it would make a lot of sense to use those in the development of the R2 as much as what was practical.
Hopefully they learned some lessons from the Ranger and applied those to the R2 to make it not only cheaper but better.

It may have just been a latch change to lessen the hand fitting required but I would not be surprised if other parts changed to make them easier to manufacture and make the gun more robust.

Time will tell and I bet those that have a Ranger will be comparing them closely to an R2 when they get them.

The really great news is the availability of a 22LR cylinder for the R2...to me that is already an upgrade.

Of course the new watches have the date on them which is an upgrade to a fine old jeweled watch that only told you the time but it does not lessen the quality, craftsmanship or art put into those fine old watches.

Pat