The problem is that nobody knows what the Ranger looked like. Experts have been looking for plans of her for more than a century, without results.
This is a common difficulty with ships of the American Revolution. The U.S. government of that period (such as it was) didn't have any systematic arrangement for archiving ship plans (or much of anything else); in many cases the naval architects didn't bother drawing comprehensive sets of plans in the first place.
The number of American vessels from the Revolution for which we have contemporary plans almost can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Rather crude original designers' drawings of the frigates Virginia and Randolph survived somehow, and the frigates Raleigh, Hancock, and Confederacy had their lines taken off in England after they were captured by the British. So did the privateers Rattlesnake and Oliver Cromwell. (I'm working from memory here, but I think I'm right about all those.) That's about it. One reason why we see so many models of those ships is that reliable plans are available.
When it comes to building models of famous ships for which contemporary plans don't exist, different modelers and different historians have different philosophies. The late, great Howard I. Chapelle, a fine historian who virtually created the scholarly study of the history of American naval architecture back in the 1930s through the '60s, once wrote an article for the Nautical Research Journal called "The Ship Model That Should Not Be Built." He put John Paul Jones's Bonhomme Richard at the top of his list. Chapelle's argument was that, since there's no way to know what that ship (or the Ranger, or the Mayflower, or the Golden Hind, or various other famous vessels) actually looked like, modelers ought to concentrate on ships that can be reconstructed with confidence. (He made quite a list of those, too. There are reliable plans of the Philadelphia and the Chesapeake, for instance - but when was the last time you saw a model of either of them?)
Another warship of the Revolution has become downright notorious among serious ship modelers. Back in the 1920s one of the first modern scale modelers, Charles G. Davis, published a book that included a "reconstruction" of the Continental brig Lexington. Davis was a fine modeler, a trained naval architect, a veteran seaman, and an excellent draftsman, but he didn't know much about the details of 18th-century shipbuilding. (In fairness to him, at that time scarcely anybody else did either.) His "Lexington" was full of anachronisms - fittings and other features that didn't appear until the 19th century. Furthermore, in the past few decades a couple of contemporary pictures of the Lexington have surfaced - and they make it clear that she didn't look much like Davis's plans. Unfortunately, though, the book got wide circulation and thousands of modelers have built Lexingtons based on those drawings. (There's one in the famous Crabtree collection at the Mariners' Museum in Newport News, Virginia. I used to work there, and had the unpleasant duty of removing the name "Lexington" from that model's label and re-designating it "Armed Brig, Circa 1810." The uproar that change created was interesting, to say the least.) I was also disappointed when, a couple of years ago, ModelExpo started importing a wood Lexington kit from one of those Continental European manufacturers - and that kit, though it doesn't seem to be based on the Davis drawings, is just as bad. Apparently the people responsible for it paid no attention whatever to the research about the Lexington that's been widely published in the past thirty years. (There's a good article about this whole subject in the latest issue of the Nautical Research Journal, if anybody's interested.)
On the other hand, in the past few years several fine scholars have done some mighty impressive work on ships that were on Chapelle's list of "no-no's." Jean Boudriot, a Frenchman whose work I greatly admire, did a book a few years back in which he reconstructed the Bonhomme Richard in great detail, using as his basis a set of plans for a French merchant ship that was designed by the same man and built in the same yard. Boudriot's work, in my opinion, is superb - in terms of both research and draftsmanship. And William Gilkerson, a first-rate American marine artist who most definitely knows what he's doing, has published a book called The Ships of John Paul Jones, in which he offers a good, plausible version of what the Ranger looked like. (If I remember correctly, though, that book doesn't include plans - just Gilkerson's beautiful watercolors and sketches.) A model based on either Boudriot's or Gilkerson's work would certainly have my respect. The same goes for Harold Hahn's reconstructed plans of George Washington's first schooner, the Hannah. All of those scholars would acknowledge, though, that what they've produced is based on a considerable amount of guesswork - and subject to change if and when new evidence surfaces.
My last major modeling project was a scratchbuilt Hancock. Now, there's a nice subject for a model. She had one of the longest and most interesting careers of any sailing warship, serving in the American, British, and French navies. Contemporary hull and deck plans for her are available from the National Maritime Museum, in London; though there are no spar dimensions, we do have a set for the contemporary and almost-the-same-size Raleigh (which would be another good subject). If any kit manufacturer is reading this, please note.
Bottom line: if you want a model of the Ranger you're going to have to build it from scratch, and if you want it to be reasonably accurate you'll have to do a great deal of research. If you're looking for a kit that will produce a reasonably accurate model of a ship from the American Revolution - good luck. The Model Shipways Rattlesnake is the only one that comes to mind - and, if memory serves, it's not one of that firm's best or most recent efforts.
By now you probably wish you'd never brought up this subject. Sorry to be so long-windedly pessimistic, but this is one of my favorite topics. Good luck. It's a terrific hobby.