ligonierbill
New member
Anyone have anything good or bad to say about these? I wonder about the 20" barrel, but they interest me. And "I don't have one. "
Ruger No. 1 RSI International
- Thread starter ligonierbill
- Start date
Saltydog235
New member
Love a No.1 and just about any full stock configuration. Have a No.1 in 7mmRM and had to work on a handload to get it to group where I like it. Had an International in ‘06 I let a buddy have, it was more of a pattern than a group. Saw they were chambering a .25 Bob in it and was tempted but held off. I love the guns just never have been thrilled with the accuracy of them. I think a trigger job would have benefited all of them because the ones I’ve had broke at 5#+.
The action is very strong. It's also short which allows a more compact rifle without sacrificing barrel length and ballistics.
The single-shot makes good sense for hunting everything but dangerous game. The bolt-actions most popular today were derived from repeating magazine rifles developed for the militaries and adopted by hunters to replace costly double-rifles thought to be a safe-guard when hunting dangerous game. Most people hunting deer, antelope, boar, bear, even elk and moose -- how many shots are they going to take? Most people hope to finish with one shot. If a finishing shot is necessary, it's not likely to be fired immediately. A deer hunter that doesn't see a "DRT" result usually gives many seconds, even minutes for the first shot to take effect. A magazine rifle just seems superfluous for the great majority of hunting. Why lug around the unnecessary weight and length and a rifle balanced so far forward of the grip?
With Ruger No. 1's, the fit of the stocks could be an issue. The factory stocks on most models are very fancy, but one size does not fit all. If you need a longer or shorter length of pull, you'll be looking at installing a longer butt pad or cutting the stock. There aren't any available aftermarket stocks that I'm aware of, other than custom stocks ($$$$). More popular rifles have factory fancy wood, laminated wood, composite, and aftermarket stocks available with a variety of price levels, sizes, and adjustability.
With Ruger No. 1's, mounting optics can be a challenge. Many models feature rails and Ruger's integral ring mounts. This is a good system, but the receiver is way shorter than a standard length action. It's much shorter than a short-action. It's shorter than a mini-action or a lever-action. That puts the scope closer to your eye and demands a shorter eye-relief. One solution is the offset scope rings.
But just where your eye relief needs to be depends again on the fit of the stock. If the length of pull is too short, your eye will be even farther forward. You might be able to fix this with a thicker pad. Want to adjust it for a young shooter or a small lady? You might be looking at chopping an otherwise finely figured factory wood stock.
The No. 1 also has a bit of drop at the heel. Not as much as a traditional lever-action rifle, but more than all the modern hunting rifles that have straight stocks with no drop. This probably works best for shooting off-hand with the iron sights. With an optic and it's higher sight plane, your cheek won't be supporting the rifle stock. The comb is too low. Could you use a comb riser? Maybe, but with the scope covering the top of the breech, and the comb riser blocking the back of the breech, getting the cartridges into the breech could get more and more challenging. It doesn't load from the side or from a magazine underneath.
My conclusion is it's a great rifle, but probably the least problematic if the factory stock fits you well, and used with the iron sights. It can certainly be adapted to other configurations, but it gets more complicated and costly.
The single-shot makes good sense for hunting everything but dangerous game. The bolt-actions most popular today were derived from repeating magazine rifles developed for the militaries and adopted by hunters to replace costly double-rifles thought to be a safe-guard when hunting dangerous game. Most people hunting deer, antelope, boar, bear, even elk and moose -- how many shots are they going to take? Most people hope to finish with one shot. If a finishing shot is necessary, it's not likely to be fired immediately. A deer hunter that doesn't see a "DRT" result usually gives many seconds, even minutes for the first shot to take effect. A magazine rifle just seems superfluous for the great majority of hunting. Why lug around the unnecessary weight and length and a rifle balanced so far forward of the grip?
With Ruger No. 1's, the fit of the stocks could be an issue. The factory stocks on most models are very fancy, but one size does not fit all. If you need a longer or shorter length of pull, you'll be looking at installing a longer butt pad or cutting the stock. There aren't any available aftermarket stocks that I'm aware of, other than custom stocks ($$$$). More popular rifles have factory fancy wood, laminated wood, composite, and aftermarket stocks available with a variety of price levels, sizes, and adjustability.
With Ruger No. 1's, mounting optics can be a challenge. Many models feature rails and Ruger's integral ring mounts. This is a good system, but the receiver is way shorter than a standard length action. It's much shorter than a short-action. It's shorter than a mini-action or a lever-action. That puts the scope closer to your eye and demands a shorter eye-relief. One solution is the offset scope rings.
But just where your eye relief needs to be depends again on the fit of the stock. If the length of pull is too short, your eye will be even farther forward. You might be able to fix this with a thicker pad. Want to adjust it for a young shooter or a small lady? You might be looking at chopping an otherwise finely figured factory wood stock.
The No. 1 also has a bit of drop at the heel. Not as much as a traditional lever-action rifle, but more than all the modern hunting rifles that have straight stocks with no drop. This probably works best for shooting off-hand with the iron sights. With an optic and it's higher sight plane, your cheek won't be supporting the rifle stock. The comb is too low. Could you use a comb riser? Maybe, but with the scope covering the top of the breech, and the comb riser blocking the back of the breech, getting the cartridges into the breech could get more and more challenging. It doesn't load from the side or from a magazine underneath.
My conclusion is it's a great rifle, but probably the least problematic if the factory stock fits you well, and used with the iron sights. It can certainly be adapted to other configurations, but it gets more complicated and costly.
Pretty much like about every other traditional sporting rifle.
The only challenge I've ever fount to mounting optics on a No.1 or No.3 is deciding what to use.
Again, like about every other rifle out there...
Maybe for you, I've never needed any additional riser. Everyone is different. The stock is a compromise, that's true, but I don't find it uncomfortable or unusable for either iron or a scope.
Seems to me it would have to be a pretty radical stock mod to get in the way, and since I don't use one, its not an issue for me. Low hanging scope bell? Yeah, can be there, but there's plenty of room to work around, and as mentioned, this isn't a dangerous game rifle, not a combat rifle, nor a rapid fire repeater.
I've had No.1s or No.3s (and scoped) in calibers from .22 Hornet to .375 H&H and .45-70. never had any problems loading them, ever.
If its a problem for you, you might consider a forward mount scope (the scout style) or a different firearm design.
They are fine guns, and lack of modular adaptability to all people and situations isn't an issue for me, that's not what I'm buying when I buy a No.1.
And just what is a .25 Bob ???
I've never seen a rifle marked .25 Bob, or any ammo with that name, or any case drawings or loading data. Is it a new wildcat round??
IF by some chance you mean the .257 Roberts, show a bit of respect for Ned Roberts and the cartridge he created and call it by its proper name.
Bob is only short for Robert when Robert is a first name. Bob is NOT short for Roberts. (note the letter "s" on the end of his last name.)
ligonierbill
New member
Thanks for the input. I should have mentioned that I have 2 No. 1's, but not the RSI version.
I have a few Ruger #1 rifles in various configurations but never could find the love for one in the RSI form. 
Never could figure out why as I have the M77 in the RSI configuration and it's one of my favorite rifles.
As far as scoping them, that's never been much of a problem for me and only two in my small collection do not wear a scope. They're chambered to the .404 Jeffery and .416 Rigby and the iron sights are almost sufficient for what those rifles were designed for and if I were to use one against dangerous game the rear sight would be replaced by one with a proper shallow V.
Funny thing?????
I never thought calling my Ruger #1 in .257 Roberts "The Bob" was a sign of disrespect to Mr. Roberts. I always considered more a term of endearment on a rifle I liked very much. YMMV.
Paul B.
Never could figure out why as I have the M77 in the RSI configuration and it's one of my favorite rifles.As far as scoping them, that's never been much of a problem for me and only two in my small collection do not wear a scope. They're chambered to the .404 Jeffery and .416 Rigby and the iron sights are almost sufficient for what those rifles were designed for and if I were to use one against dangerous game the rear sight would be replaced by one with a proper shallow V.
Funny thing?????
I never thought calling my Ruger #1 in .257 Roberts "The Bob" was a sign of disrespect to Mr. Roberts. I always considered more a term of endearment on a rifle I liked very much. YMMV.Paul B.
A nickname for your rifle? anything you want, though I wouldn't call a Garand a "Gar", myself.
As a reference to the caliber? not cool with me, but then I'm a bit OCD about some things.
Its Win for Winchester and Rem for Remington, so I'd think if anything it ought to be ROB for Roberts, not Bob!!
As a reference to the caliber? not cool with me, but then I'm a bit OCD about some things.
Its Win for Winchester and Rem for Remington, so I'd think if anything it ought to be ROB for Roberts, not Bob!!
Jim Watson
New member
As a styling exercise, the full length foreend on a two piece stock looks odd to me, and has ever since Roger Barlow had a full stock Martini built for the then-new .22 WRM. I'd rather the Alex Henry style, that is what my .45-70 had.
But it is only the style and everybody has his own preferences.
Well, yeah, except I don't think he did. I have never heard that he consulted with Remington on the design of the commercial .25 cartridge. More like they were just applying a name well known to gun cranks of the day. It is considerably different from the .25 (Neidner) Roberts that he actually worked on. And still different from the .25 (G&H) Roberts as modified for easier case forming. Yes, there are three of them, not one or even two. Which gets me off into a rant on why should the .257 Remington Roberts be underloaded?
But it is only the style and everybody has his own preferences.
Well, yeah, except I don't think he did. I have never heard that he consulted with Remington on the design of the commercial .25 cartridge. More like they were just applying a name well known to gun cranks of the day. It is considerably different from the .25 (Neidner) Roberts that he actually worked on. And still different from the .25 (G&H) Roberts as modified for easier case forming. Yes, there are three of them, not one or even two. Which gets me off into a rant on why should the .257 Remington Roberts be underloaded?
"Well, yeah, except I don't think he did. I have never heard that he consulted with Remington on the design of the commercial .25 cartridge. More like they were just applying a name well known to gun cranks of the day. It is considerably different from the .25 (Neidner) Roberts that he actually worked on. And still different from the .25 (G&H) Roberts as modified for easier case forming. Yes, there are three of them, not one or even two. Which gets me off into a rant on why should the .257 Remington Roberts be underloaded?"
The way I understand it is when Remington legitimized the Roberts, they maintained the original shoulder angle of the 7x57 to simplify production. IIRC, the Neidner version had the shoulder moved forward and I don't know anything about the G&H version as I see nothing in the books I have on hand.
Paul B.
The way I understand it is when Remington legitimized the Roberts, they maintained the original shoulder angle of the 7x57 to simplify production. IIRC, the Neidner version had the shoulder moved forward and I don't know anything about the G&H version as I see nothing in the books I have on hand.
Paul B.
Jim Watson
New member
The original .25 Roberts as built by A.O. Neidner had the shoulder set well BACK to adjust case volume, the shoulder sloped out to 15 degrees, and trimmed to give a normal looking neck.
Griffin & Howe didn't trim and did not set the shoulder back as far although they kept the long shoulder.
Remington just necked 7mm down.
Pictures and cartridge collector discussion at:
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/25-roberts-257-roberts/6587
So I don't mind nicknaming the .257 Remington Roberts as "The Bob," Ned didn't work there.
Note that at each generation, the cartridge got longer, there is no reverse compatibility. You cannot put a Remington round in the infamous .25 Roberts Spanish Mauser. So why is the .257 Roberts loaded so lightly for one of the strongest actions available? Afraid of those .25 Spanish Mausers getting rechambered for factory loads?
Griffin & Howe didn't trim and did not set the shoulder back as far although they kept the long shoulder.
Remington just necked 7mm down.
Pictures and cartridge collector discussion at:
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/25-roberts-257-roberts/6587
So I don't mind nicknaming the .257 Remington Roberts as "The Bob," Ned didn't work there.
Note that at each generation, the cartridge got longer, there is no reverse compatibility. You cannot put a Remington round in the infamous .25 Roberts Spanish Mauser. So why is the .257 Roberts loaded so lightly for one of the strongest actions available? Afraid of those .25 Spanish Mausers getting rechambered for factory loads?
ligonierbill
New member
Interesting hijack! For the record, I was looking at a No. 1 RSI in 7x57. I did get the round, but in a M77. I have been shooting 257 Roberts for several years, and I figured I should try the parent. My "Bob" is a Mauser 98 rebarreled by Shaw. Nice rifle, good shooter. I had a general idea about the development of this classic quarter bore, but this has been an education.
Jim Watson
New member
A friend had a very handsome M77 7mm that would not shoot for beans.
It is now a .280 with Douglas barrel and shoots as well as any wood stocked hunting rifle.
Another guy is wild for full stocks and would be all over an RSI if one turned up locally.
It is now a .280 with Douglas barrel and shoots as well as any wood stocked hunting rifle.
Another guy is wild for full stocks and would be all over an RSI if one turned up locally.
The real and probably only issue with 'em, other than the MSRP, is the limited availability. Limited editions in limited chamberings and from 2 distributors only.
Lipsey's is the only distributor of the .257 with an MSRP of $1,919.00. No guarantee any of their sellers has one either.
Lipsey's is the only distributor of the .257 with an MSRP of $1,919.00. No guarantee any of their sellers has one either.
It seems there is always more than just a bit of "grey area" when discussing the history of wildcat rounds that became factory standardized, especially when it happened so many years ago.
what seems usual is 2, 3, 4 or more different guys, sometimes working together, sometimes separately, sometimes separately in time as well, do their version(s) of the wildcat.
Then, at some later point in time, a factory (in this case Remington) 'standardizes" the round, gives it a name, which may, or may not have something to do with any of the wildcatters who worked on the original development, and either adopts one of the existing wildcat variants, or creates their own version, sells it and the rest becomes history...
I've got information that says Roberts designed his .257 cartridge, in the 20s, the Neider Rifle company made rifles in their version in the 30s, and Remington standardized their version in 37, and named it the .257 Roberts. My information doesn't say, or imply that Ned Roberts worked for Remington at any time, and its possible he didn't work with Remington developing their ".257 Roberts".
I know there were at least 4 guys who created wildcats (with slightly different case dimensions) of what eventually came to be our modern day .22-250. Gebby and his "Varminter" are mostly footnotes today, and the other guys names and designs can be found if you dig enough, but since the mid 60s, its been the .22-250 Remington, and will be from now on.
As to "the Bob", I'm sorry, but to me, it just sounds childish and immature. But then I also don't think much of calling revolvers "wheelies" or shotguns, "shotties".
We don't call any of Weatherby's rounds "the Roy" nor do we call the .44mag "the Elmer" (and those are actual first names), and we don't call any of the Mauser cartridges "the Peter-Paul" or worse "the PP"
Nor do we call the 9mm Parabellum "the Geo" or "the Lug"....
As to the No.1 RSI, I've never had that particular variant but I have had other No.1s and No.3s. I like them a lot, though personally, I think a better one would be the "No.2" as some have named the idea, a No.3 action with a stock more like the No.1. Though I can only shudder at the nicknames a "No.2" would get, especially if you got one that shot like crap.
No.4 would be a "safer" model name, I think.
And speaking of which, it has always bothered me a little why some people fixate on group size from a SINGLE SHOT, HUNTING rifle....
what seems usual is 2, 3, 4 or more different guys, sometimes working together, sometimes separately, sometimes separately in time as well, do their version(s) of the wildcat.
Then, at some later point in time, a factory (in this case Remington) 'standardizes" the round, gives it a name, which may, or may not have something to do with any of the wildcatters who worked on the original development, and either adopts one of the existing wildcat variants, or creates their own version, sells it and the rest becomes history...
I've got information that says Roberts designed his .257 cartridge, in the 20s, the Neider Rifle company made rifles in their version in the 30s, and Remington standardized their version in 37, and named it the .257 Roberts. My information doesn't say, or imply that Ned Roberts worked for Remington at any time, and its possible he didn't work with Remington developing their ".257 Roberts".
I know there were at least 4 guys who created wildcats (with slightly different case dimensions) of what eventually came to be our modern day .22-250. Gebby and his "Varminter" are mostly footnotes today, and the other guys names and designs can be found if you dig enough, but since the mid 60s, its been the .22-250 Remington, and will be from now on.
As to "the Bob", I'm sorry, but to me, it just sounds childish and immature. But then I also don't think much of calling revolvers "wheelies" or shotguns, "shotties".
We don't call any of Weatherby's rounds "the Roy" nor do we call the .44mag "the Elmer" (and those are actual first names), and we don't call any of the Mauser cartridges "the Peter-Paul" or worse "the PP"
Nor do we call the 9mm Parabellum "the Geo" or "the Lug"....
As to the No.1 RSI, I've never had that particular variant but I have had other No.1s and No.3s. I like them a lot, though personally, I think a better one would be the "No.2" as some have named the idea, a No.3 action with a stock more like the No.1. Though I can only shudder at the nicknames a "No.2" would get, especially if you got one that shot like crap.
No.4 would be a "safer" model name, I think. And speaking of which, it has always bothered me a little why some people fixate on group size from a SINGLE SHOT, HUNTING rifle....
Jim Watson
New member
A friend has one. We call it a No 2 with no snickering.
He bought a No 3 that had had the stock roughly checkered and finished in a thick heavy gloss; but the price was right.
The next gun show, he bought a set of No 1 wood; plain grain so it wasn't very expensive, either.
The No 1 wood fit right up on the No 3 action, but the curl of the lever was too close to the pistol grip to get your fingers under, leading to an awkward grasp.
So he cut the curl off, forming a lever more like a Sharps than a Winchester. It is a neat little rifle but probably too narrow a niche for Ruger to bother with.
His choice, of course. I would have either modified the stock a bit, or had the lever tail bent a little, to allow for a better grasp.
I think bent is the best option, it really doesn't have to be much. I don't personally have any issues with the No.3 lever and the straight grip of the stock, its the rest of the stock I think should be improved.
Reshape the comb, get rid of the flat top, give it a flat "shotgun" buttplate, lose the barrel band and make the forearm slender, perhaps with a Schnabel tip, or go full Mannlicher style, I'd be happy.
Never cared for the LOOK of the Henry style forearm or the Farquarson style lever. Just me, and my warped sense of what looks best.