Is this an original factory folder? All I can find for markings are a few Ks stamped on the metal parts. It has a carbon fibre effect on the grip - has that been refinished?

Thanks.

@raf for his intel/expertise.

Front sling attachment is not factory.
Internal metal reinforcements should both be stainless. No idea on the grip. The wood color looks about right.

Grip is original, you can always tell it’s original when it’s glossy. The new production folders have a matte grip.

As said, that front sling attachment ain't right.

Can't tell for sure from the pix, but aside from the added-on sling stud, I don't see anything amiss.   As noted, grip looks like an Original, OEM Ruger item.  I don't know of anyone making "repro" OEM Ruger folder hand-grips, but certainly possible.

IIRC, some screws on the Samson have different screw-heads as compared to the original Ruger folder, possibly including the attachment screw for the hand grip, as well as the screws that attach the metal folding unit to the wooden stock.  OTOH, such screws are fairly easy to replace, so not definitive.

IIRC, Ruger uses a "K" prefix to denote stainless steel parts.  IDK if the parts that Samson uses also have the "K".  Which parts on the "mystery" stock have the "K"?  Might be instructive to compare a known original Ruger Stainless Steel folder with a known original Ruger Blued folder, and see if the "K" is present on the same, non-stainless parts on the Blued Ruger folder.   That might not be definitive, because if Ruger makes the parts for the new, stainless steel Samson, such "new" stainless steel "Samson" parts might also have the "K", due to the "K" being engraved into the mold for the parts.

OEM Ruger Minis which were originally sold with a folding stock have a sling swivel mounted on the side of the gas block, as opposed to the standard gas block which has a sling swivel mounted at the bottom front of the gas block.  In either case, not sure why someone would have gone to the trouble to mount the sling stud.

Bipod mount?

But the screws and grip look right from what I can see.

Bipod mount is quite plausible.

Assuing the "mystery" stock is genuine, then it's fairly old.  Back then pretty much the only game in town was Harris bipods.  Their adaptor for the Mini-14:

Harris mini-14/mini-30 bipod Adaptor

Note that the adaptor is not suited for the folding stock:

"Number 14: For Ruger Mini-30 and Mini-14. Fits standard and ranch rifles. Will not fit the 180 series or Ruger folding stock. Quick detachable."
So, your suggestion is plausible, given an original owner who wished to mount a Harris bipod on his folding stock Mini.

Good thinking!

Yes, it’s a shame about the QD stud. Might’ve been added for a sling as the standard factory loop isn’t available here.

I’ve had the stock prior to the Samson version being available, I think. So the only alternative is the Falcon version?

The K stamp is on the joint between the tube and the shoulder plate. I’ll look again for more of them.

Looks authentic to me.  As mentioned the slotted screw head for the folder attachment appear correct.  Only issue is the sling swivel stud which can easily be added.  Probably was for a bipod mount.  Any modifications to the area where the trigger group mounts in?

The grip was probably hydro dipped.  Note the original grips were bakelite. Hard to tell but is there any molded in checkering on the grip?

Hard to tell, but is the heat shield in the forearm stainless as well or blued?

No, not that I can tell. It locks up well.

Yes, I'll add some more photos.

Yes, bright stainless liner and matte stainless reinforcement.

Pix of the inside of the stock seem to indicate a previous owner applied some grey bedding compound.

Not an expert on old-time OEM Ruger folder pistol grips.  Originals were of Bakelite, a cloth-impregnated resin compound.  New grips are of a different composition, and likely much stouter than original grips.

Pix of grips (and attachment screw) are probably the most indicative things as to whether the stock is an old Ruger folder, or something else.

Someone adding a sling stud to the fore-end is suggestive of their wanting to add a bipod attachment point, but certainly not definative.

An "original" owner might have made such an alteration, and as such, would be a "Period-Correct" modification.  No doubt a purist will say that such a mod diminishes the value as compared to an "unmolested" stock.  Likely true, but a "Period-Correct" mod is one thing, as opposed to a Mod that occurred decades later, for a device not available at the time when the stock was relatively new.

For example, I have a 1903 Springfield (C) stock which was modified with a cut-out on its' side for a long-range aftermarket rear sight.  Commonly done back then, and a "Period-correct"' mod.  I have no doubt that some folks will down-rate the value of the stock due to its' being modded, but some potential buyers, having the correct long-range rear sight might jump at it, and pay good money for it.

Still undetermined if this stock is an "original", or something else.  Jury is still out, at this point.

It's applied the full length of the stock. Looks like a clean job. I thought it might be paint to inhibit mould growth.

I've not had the grip off, but the head of the screw that attaches it is more visible in this photo.

It appears that the screw head pictured is of (IIRC) correct slotted type, but that is easily changed from (IIRC) Samson Phillps head cap screw.  Screws that attach the metal folding mechanism to the wooden stock should be similar slotted head screws

The bedding is consonant with an owner trying to eak out additional accuracy from typically ill-fitting Ruger wooden stocks, and such a desire for more accuracy could explain the installation of the sling stud, presumably for a bipod.

No expert, but I see nothing that is definitive one way or the other, with the exception of the handgrip.  The handgrip leads me to believe the stock is an original Ruger folder, but you would need to talk with an expert on such things.

Suggest you post a thread here: PerfectUnion   Be prepared to supply more pix.

I’m no expert, but I do have an original factory folder.
I’ll get pics up this evening

Now that I have looked a bit more closely, it's my opinion that you are correct in that the gray substance might not be bedding compound, but rather gray paint.  I say this because the gray substance is so smooth, and it is applied to areas in which bedding compound is not normally applied.

Possibly the former owner wanted to "seal" the inside wood of the stock against moisture which can affect wooden stocks with adverse effects on accuracy.

Is that a mini-30 stock liner? The mini-30 had the "L" shaped reinforcing added to liner on the inside and the liner itself bowed out to clear the mini-30 mag. The mini-14 went straight back with the reinforcement to the outside against the wood. And the mini-14 had a "U" shaped reinforcement.

If I am right with my thoughts, then I have more questions. Did Ruger make a mini-30 folder? I do not remember them offering one. Does that mean this one was modified and is part of the reason it has gray paint?

Now the new Sampson is made to accept either the mini-14 or mini-30 and has the liner as seen in this example.

I probably did not help here and most likely just caused more head scratching.

They never produced a factory folder Mini 30

I believe you are correct about the Stock reinforcement being one for a Mini-30.  Mini-30 and Mini-14 Stock Reinforcements    Mini-30 is blued in the pic, Stainless steel is Mini-14.

Mini-14 stock reinforcements are not hard to get, but Mini-30 Stock reinforcements can be hard to find sometimes.

I have a Mini 14 Tactical that is sporting a Ulitmak Scout rail that is wanting this black folder.

It is indeed a Mini-30 that’s fitted in the stock. I did wonder how much modification it would’ve taken to get a Mini-30 to fit.

The Mini 30 drops right in the new Samson stock.  No modifications required.