Ruger No1 any good?

T

TheBear

New member
Hi guys,
Im looking for a second .308win rifle (my first is a ruger gsr), I want it to be capable of very long range shooting (up to 800yards), very relaiable and low maintanance.
whats your experience with this rifle, its rather expensive, is it worth it? What are the advantages compared to a bolt action or lever action rifle?
I really like the idea of a single shot rifle.
Would you recommend it?
 
I have a Ruger #1 in 204 Ruger.

It's an excellent rifle, super accurate.

Worth every penny my wife paid for it.:D
 
I have two Ruger No. 1's, one in .243 and another in .30-06.

With factory barrels and no additional work, the .243 did 1" groups and the .30-06 did 1-1/2 to 2" groups at 100 yds. The .243 had acceptable headspace and the .30-06 had excessive headspace.

Rather than fight with Ruger, I decided to take advantage of the opportunity and have custom rifles built from these.

After replacing the barrels, bedding the forends to the spring hanger and receiver (which free-floats the barrels) and some trigger work, the .243 now does 7/8" groups and the .30-06 does 1" groups. I'm still working up loads, but I'm happy with the results of the custom work.

Because the barrels had a different contour, I had to lap the rings to get the scope "centered" (parallel to the bore with both turrets zeroed).

Ruger No. 1's can be very accurate out of the box, but I believe there is no guarantee that any particular rifle is going to be a 1 MOA rifle. Ruger's accuracy standards are pretty loose...I think if you get one that shoots 4" groups at 100 yds, they might replace it. :)

As far as reliability, there aren't a whole lot of moving parts but they have to be kept clean and lightly oiled. The No. 1 is harder to disassemble than a bolt-action, but an annual strip to get at the internals isn't too difficult.

The only real advantage the No. 1 offers, IMO, is that it is very short overall for the same barrel length. There just isn't any "receiver" behind the barrel.

However, this advantage also makes scope selection challenging. I've found you need either a scope with 4" of eye relief or offset rings to position the scope where you don't have to "crawl the stock" to get a full sight picture. The ring location just isn't "conventional", compared to a bolt-action.

While the difference between a Zeiss Conquest and Leupold VX-II isn't much if you just look at brightness and clarity, the Zeiss has that extra 0.5" of eye relief.

Finally, the Ruger triggers are not adjustable, and after-market choices are limited and/or expensive. Someone who is familiar with Ruger triggers can improve them, but it isn't recommended for the kitchen-table gunsmith.

So, the Ruger No. 1 is a good rifle. But it has issues that are unique to its design.
 
TheBear said:
Ruger No1 any good?
Click to expand...

Naaaaaaah - Ruger's only gotten rid of about a zillion of them in the past 44 years (since 1968), because all those buyers wanted an expensive problem/project gun.


.
 
I have a 30-06 B model. It is one of my favorites. Very light and a beautiful rifle. Regarding accuracy, you will probably not reach that of a similar bolt gun. My shoots around an inch at 100 yds after a lot of load work and semi-floating the forearm with a rubber washer on the hanger.
 
Nice strong action !

I own a stainless version Ruger No 1 in 45-70 caliber.....I'm not sure they still offer the stainless version ! Anyway , I really like the rifle...while not expecting world class accuracy in this caliber it does hit & swing the 8" steel gong at 200 yards with every shot ! :) Pretty respectable groups at 100 yards with my handloads....it likes 350 grain FN bullets at about 1900 fps !
 
I've got couple of them one is tight neck 6ppc with Kepplinger set triggers also 22BR with set triggers both of them are pretty accurate. I started with #1 in 270 and 7mag back in the 70's later I had the 7mag rebarrel to a 30-338mag took lot of elk/deer with that rifle.
 
My B-I-L had one in .222 Rem, bought in the '70s that was a tack-driver. When he passed away, I had the opportunity to get it at reasonable cost, but didn't want it. Other folks seem to be happy with #1s that shoot 2 MOA.

Traditionalists like Ruger #1s, but I could never warm up to them. Being a handloader and accuracy nut, extraction isn't as strong as with most bolt-actions and the wood-to-metal bedding area seems very short.

Compare that with, say, the Tikka T-3 I just bought that, with handloads, groups under 1/2" at 100 yards, has a 3 1/4 lb, butter-smooth trigger, built-in mounting system, including rings, a detachable magazine and a massive, smooth-working action, costing about $550 out the door. No, it's not as pretty, but pretty is as pretty does.
 
I've been collecting Ruger #1 rifles off and on since about 1975. Currently I have them ranging from .22 Hornet to the mighty .416 Rigby. The Hornet is extremely accurate as are my 6MM Remington and .257 Roberts These are in the "B" configuration.
I have three in .300 Win. mag., two of which are tack drivers, one a "B" model, the other an "S". The third has not yet been shot but is an "S" model marked "200th year of American liberty". One of these days I'll scope it and see how she shoots. I have two "B" models in 30-06 and neither shoot worth a damn. One is the very first one I bought way back in 1975. I have "A" models in .243 and .270 plus a 7x57 mauser which had to go back to Ruger at it shot so poorly. It had one of those contract Wilson barrels with a throat way too long for even 175 gr. bullets. Took them 7 months to get it back to me but it's a good shooter now.
Just my thoughts on the but I suspect most of the red pad Ruger #1's have those contracted Wilson barrels and buying on can be a crap shoot. The black pad Rugers have I believe barrels made by Ruger and are reputed to be more accurate. I made the mistake of passing on a black pad #1A in 7x57 becaue I already had one and I felt the asking price was a bit too high and the seller wouldn't dicker at all. I'm still kicking myself on that one.
On the #1B in .300 Win. mag., I get 2950 FPS and .75" groups shooting the 200 gr. Speer Hot Core. The #1S in .300 mag. does 2930 with the same load and does .80".
As I said, red pad #1's can be a bit of a crap shoot. I do beliebe some #1's were made in .308 but I think they're in the scarce as hen's teeth category.
Paul B.
 
I have had a 243 Win and 25-06 Rem Ruger No1 rifles. The accuracy was good for deer hunting but they were not good for long range shooting. But I did try working on the forarm hanger and free floating the barrel which helped a bit. I have read that by having some clearance between site rail and action improved the accuracy on some No 1s . Most gunsmiths can tune up bolt action rifles but may not be use to working on the No 1 Ruger.
 
I own a 45-70 Gov't and my buddy owns a .375 H&H. Both are very accurate and of course reliable. If you want a single shot, you could do much worse than a Ruger No. 1. The only drawback to them as I see it is that they can be a bit spendy.
 
I have never owned a #1 but have fired several and had a number of customers who bought them. The major problem seems to be customer expectations. Most buyers seem to expect the rifle to drive tacks simply because it is a single shot. IMHO, it is a beautiful rifle, very classy looking, and a good example of upscale hunting rifles. But note that "hunting rifles". It has better than adequate hunting rifle accuracy, but no better than (or maybe not as good as) a Remington 700 or any other decent quality hunting rifle, including Ruger's own Model 77.

If the desire is to make a #1 into a pure target rifle, money will need to be spent, probably beginning with a new, heavy barrel, then going with a different foreend and stock. Then, if things go right, you will have a real target gun. Of course, it won't be a light, handy hunting rifle any more - it won't be a Number 1.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top