Category: All About Guns
A single-action .22 is about as basic as a gun gets, but it might be one of the most fun. The old model Ruger Single-Six has stood the test of time and is one of the more sought after and revered .22s in existence. While Ruger still produces the Single-Six today, many enthusiasts consider the three-screw, four-click originals to be the high-water mark of the model.
Quick Summary: Styled after the “gun that won the west,” the old model Ruger Single-Six is of the finest rimfire revolvers ever built, combining the classic Single Action Army design with Ruger’s reputation for durability. Plus, it’s affordable to buy and shoot.
Table of Contents
Brief History
Initial Thoughts
Specs
Range Review
Pros & Cons
Parting Shots
Brief History
Bill Ruger introduced the first Single-Six in 1953 in the aftermath of World War II and the Western Boom. John Wayne reached his peak during this period, and there was great demand for Single Action Army-type revolvers. Colt had ceased production of the legendary Single Action Army during the second world war and had no intentions of bringing it back.
Ruger decided to fill the void, first with the Single-Six, and a few years later with the Blackhawk.
While these looked the part, the hallmark for Ruger revolvers has always been durability. The Single-Six looks more like the Colt than any of the revolvers that came after and even features the classic three screws in the frame and four clicks from the hammer. This mechanism was tried and true, resulting in a smooth trigger pull and distinct audible cues. Ruger used coil springs that were much more durable than Colt’s delicate leaf springs.
Early versions had notable differences, but in a pinch looked the part for TV and movies. The first versions had a flatter loading gate that was later rounded to more closely match the Colt aesthetic.
About 10 years into production, Ruger offered the convertible package that included both a .22 LR cylinder and .22 Magnum, like the model I have in for review. The convertible package became one of the Single-Six’s most attractive features and helped cement Ruger’s reputation for practical value.
Ruger introduced the transfer bar system in 1973 to prevent accidental discharges if the revolver were dropped. Earlier models relied on the traditional practice of carrying the hammer over an empty chamber, making the revolver effectively a five-shooter when carried safely.
Initial Thoughts
I’m familiar with the Ruger lineups, having owned several of my own over the years. I’ve always felt the brand delivers incredible value for your money, though some of the offerings can feel second fiddle to the original – like Ruger single actions compared to the Colt standard.
What I found upon opening the box was an old model Ruger Single-Six. Based on the serial number, it’s from 1970. For a gun that is 56 years old, it’s aged amazingly well. The gun has a classic even blue, with some wear and a turn line from what was likely years of use. I did notice some softer edges around the fixed rear sights and typical spots from a holster. Overall, the gun is in great shape.
Before I dug into some of the research, I had been doing my own recon for my next single action. I was deep into the clones as a shootable version of the Colt Single Action I already own. The first thing I did with this model was slowly pull back the hammer. I can tell you that these days prioritizing safety is a good thing, but it’s hard to explain the satisfaction the four-click noise brings. It just feels more legit.
While I won’t be keeping this one, I did consider it. The gun is slightly smaller dimensionally than the big-bore guns, much like the 7/8-scale New Frontier is to the Colt lineup. This makes more sense, as it is a smaller caliber and can easily be carried afield for the day when plinking or small game might present itself. Despite its smaller size, it has quite the heft to it and nearly deletes all the recoil when at the range.
Range Review
I brought a decent selection of CCI Quiet, Federal 36-grain box ammo and some CCI .22 Magnum rounds for some range testing. Though I was only loading six at a time, I emptied the 50-round cases rather quickly and shot who-knows-how-many rounds from the box ammo. Single-action shooting can be a tiresome, but overall it’s an absolute blast.
The fixed sights are entirely serviceable, though they are harder to pick up in low light and demand more concentration at longer distances than modern adjustable sights. I kept most of the shooting to 10 yards and in, though I did put a few cylinders through at 15 yards. Throughout testing, I experienced no malfunctions and no stuck cases. The gun has essentially no recoil, which added to the fun.
The magnums heat up a little faster due to the pressures involved, so the ejector was a little sticky after a few rounds. What was fun, though, was doing some modified Bill Drills where I was shooting as fast as I could and then unloading and reloading while imagining myself behind a barrel for cover at the OK Corral.
Pulling the trigger to the second click notch, opening the loading gate and hearing the audible click as you rotate to each new open chamber is cathartic these days, but must have been incredibly chaotic in the past. It is apparent as you load and unload just how good we have it nowadays for actual defense and combat. I can’t fully imagine what this would have been like while in real peril, but suffice to say, those who got good at this likely won the gunfights.
The Single-Six proved capable of respectable accuracy, though I couldn’t produce groups as tight as those I’ve shot with more modern revolvers such as Colt’s King Cobra. The fixed sights appeared to favor more of a traditional 6 o’clock hold than the point-of-aim/point-of-impact setup I typically prefer, which may have contributed to some of the vertical dispersion in my groups.
Parting Shots
More than 50 years after it left the factory, the old model Ruger Single-Six remains one of the finest rimfire revolvers ever built. It combines classic Single Action Army styling with Ruger’s reputation for durability, all while delivering an affordable and enjoyable shooting experience.
Every click of the action, every case ejected from the cylinder, and every group fired downrange feels connected to the Wild West era. The fact that this 1970 revolver still functions as well as it does today speaks volumes about Ruger’s craftsmanship. While I won’t be keeping this one, it certainly reinforced my desire to add a classic .22 single action to my own collection.
Andy Budnik
Andy is a self-taught photographer obsessed with creating stunning EDC and lifestyle imagery. As a creator, he focuses on highlighting a product’s best features through engaging visual storytelling. While he has a relentless drive to evolve his craft, his personal passion lies with pistols, specifically the Beretta 92.
Categories
Colt Walker in .45 Colt
Categories
Type 63 – The M14 of China
Categories
Highwall in 40-65 Win
A lawsuit attempting to hold Smith & Wesson responsible for the crimes committed during the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting is now reaching beyond the firearm manufacturer and into the gun media.
Firearms reviewer and attorney James Reeves disclosed on X that he was served with a subpoena demanding years of records and analytics concerning Smith & Wesson and reviews he has produced.
The most troubling part for firearm journalists and content creators is how broadly Reeves says the subpoena defines advertising. According to Reeves, the plaintiffs’ definition includes “even unpaid organic social-media content.”
In other words, an independent review of a lawful firearm could be treated as corporate advertising merely because the reviewer received, tested, or discussed the product.
That is a dangerous theory with implications extending well beyond Smith & Wesson or the firearm industry.
Everytown Lawsuit Targets Smith & Wesson Marketing
The subpoena arises from Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. 22-LA-00000487, pending in the Circuit Court for Illinois’s 19th Judicial Circuit in Lake County.
The case was filed by Keely and Jason Roberts, individually and on behalf of their twin sons. The family attended the July 4, 2022, parade in Highland Park when murderer Robert Crimo III fired 83 rounds from a rooftop, killing seven people and injuring dozens more.
The Roberts family suffered horrific injuries. According to the complaint, Keely Roberts was shot through the foot, one son was struck by shrapnel, and the other suffered catastrophic injuries that left him unable to walk.
Those facts are tragic. They do not, however, make Smith & Wesson or independent firearm reviewers responsible for the deliberate actions of a murderer.
The 78-page First Amended Complaint—signed by attorneys from Everytown Law and several private firms—names Smith & Wesson, Budsgunshop.com, Red Dot Arms, Crimo, and Crimo’s father as defendants.
The lawsuit advances 11 counts, including alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, deceptive trade practices, negligence, battery, assault, and emotional distress.
Its central theory against Smith & Wesson is that the company unfairly marketed the semiautomatic M&P15 to adolescent and young adult men through military imagery, appeals to excitement and adrenaline, first-person-shooter aesthetics, and social-media influencers.
The complaint repeatedly describes the M&P15 as an “assault rifle” and a “weapon of war.” It alleges that Smith & Wesson’s marketing influenced Crimo’s decision to select the rifle for his attack. That is an allegation, not a finding by the court.
Gun Media Named as Discovery Respondents
The complaint does more than attack Smith & Wesson’s advertising. It separately names Cybear Interactive, Watauga Group, and Clandestine Media Group as “respondents in discovery.” They are not listed as defendants.
The complaint contains only two paragraphs addressing these companies. It alleges that they may possess information “essential” to determining the parties or issues and asks that they answer interrogatories, produce records, and appear for depositions.
Reeves now says the plaintiffs have followed through by serving him with a subpoena seeking years of information concerning Smith & Wesson and his reviews.
AmmoLand reviewed the First Amended Complaint and Reeves’s public statement. The subpoena itself was not included with the documents reviewed, so its precise language and demands are being reported based on Reeves’s account.
According to Reeves, the requested material potentially reaches nearly any YouTube video discussing the M&P15 during the relevant period—even content produced independently and without payment from Smith & Wesson.
“If a manufacturer sends a journalist or creator a product to independently test, that does not magically transform the resulting review into advertising,” Reeves wrote.
That distinction should be obvious. A favorable firearm review does not become an advertisement merely because the manufacturer supplied a sample. Nor does a manufacturer control every conclusion, criticism, or demonstration published by an independent reviewer.
Treating journalism as advertising could allow plaintiffs to drag reporters and creators into litigation simply for covering firearms someone later misused.
Lawsuit Seeks Restrictions on Smith & Wesson Speech
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, but they also want the Illinois court to impose sweeping restrictions on Smith & Wesson’s marketing.
The requested injunction would prohibit Smith & Wesson from targeting AR-15-style rifle marketing at children and young adults and from using military branding, imagery, or references. It would also require age gates on social media, warnings in advertisements, and disclosure whenever an advertisement features actors.
The complaint relies heavily on the claim that Smith & Wesson created a misleading association between its M&P rifles and the United States military. It further alleges that marketing rifles with military themes encourages civilians to engage in unlawful military, militia, or paramilitary activity.
The argument effectively treats ordinary images of lawful rifle use, tactical training, or military heritage as evidence of wrongdoing. Now, based on Reeves’s description of the subpoena, plaintiffs appear prepared to apply that same theory to independent firearm coverage.
Another Attempt to Plead Around the PLCAA
Reeves characterizes the case as another attempt to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Congress enacted the PLCAA to prevent firearm manufacturers and sellers from being held civilly liable for harm caused by criminals who misuse lawful products. The law contains specific exceptions, including cases involving defective products, negligent entrustment, and knowing violations of laws governing firearm sales or marketing.
Gun-control organizations have increasingly attempted to fit their cases within those exceptions by framing traditional product advertising as consumer fraud or unlawful marketing.
Reeves compared the Roberts case to the litigation brought against Remington following the Sandy Hook murders. He also connected the subpoena to his work on proposed state legislation intended to clarify and reinforce protections against lawsuits based on third-party criminal misuse.
Regardless of how the Illinois court ultimately rules, the effort to classify independent reviews as advertising should concern every journalist and content creator.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, publish, and report about them. Anti-gun litigants should not be permitted to evade one constitutional protection by attacking the other.
Reeves advised firearm-media professionals who receive similar subpoenas not to ignore them—and not to delete records. That is sound advice. A subpoena is a legal demand requiring a serious and timely response.
It is also a warning that the gun-control lobby’s campaign against the firearm industry is expanding. The target is no longer limited to manufacturers and dealers. The people who review, explain, and report on lawful firearms are now being pulled into the fight.
============================================= For the Record my Blog “You will shoot your eye out.com has gotten ONE Penny from the Public or the Gun Industry. This is just a hobby of mine and should be protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Federal Constitution.