Ruger number 1 discussion

T

tahunua001

New member
I know, it's a single shot, but I figured I'd post here anyway since the bolt forums is where the most ruger buzz seems to take place. just recently I decided to check out what the current crop of Ruger NO1 offerings were for 2015. I know a couple years ago they really slimmed down their caliber options to a single caliber per configuration type and began alternating every year with one special model continuing to be offered through lipseys(distributor exclusive). but now I see all NO1s are lipseys exclusives and the special one with fancy wood they used to offer through lipseys is gone. I find myself wondering if this is the first sign that Ruger is considering abandoning the no 1 completely like they recently did with the P series which they phased out over the course of 3 or 4 years in a similar manner.

people's thoughts?
 
Have a #1 in .45-70. Fun gun, but can be a bear after a shot or two! One of the prettiest stocks on a factory gun!
 
Practical edge to the bolt gun? Maybe. But the SS does has some advantages. It is more compact and often lighter. Never have to worry if the magazine will feed.

Accuracy? In general a rifle with a two piece stock will not shoot as well. But I think the #1 will shoot good enough for 98% of hunters.
 
At a grand apiece, a No. 1 is going into a market suffering from recession. Folks with disposable cash are spending it on fuel, food, etc., instead of nice guns. The rifle also requires a lot of expensive labor to make.

The rifle is a signature item, Ruger won't do away with it, but will make more profitable guns for the larger market share.

It's a hunting rifle, not an AR or Garand, so limited buyers.

My. 303 is a great shooter.
 
At a grand apiece, a No. 1 is going into a market suffering from recession. Folks with disposable cash are spending it on fuel, food, etc., instead of nice guns
Click to expand...

The No.1 had survived several recessions and I think at least one "depression" and is still on the market.

It was NEVER cheap. When first sold at $265 it was considerably MORE EXPENSIVE than Rem/Win bolt actions.

OK, maybe it won't shoot groups to match benchrest bolt guns or the best varmint rigs, but so what? Group size is kind of irrelevant for a single shot anyway.

but most bolt guns are more practical and more accurate too
Click to expand...

I will agree that for most uses a bolt gun is more practical, but I don't agree with "most" bolt guns being more accurate. I've got at least half a dozen bolt guns in my house that are NOT as accurate as my No.1 or my No.3s. Milsurp, and commercial.

Premier bolt gun may be more accurate, ought to be more accurate, but MOST bolt guns aren't premier bolt guns.
 
Group size is kind of irrelevant for a single shot anyway.
Click to expand...
Not at all
You certainly wouldn't want one if a 10" group was the best it would do, and thousands of Contender and Encore shooters all rave about the good groups they achieve
 
At typical Western PA wooded deer range, my .45-70 is plenty big medicine! Dayam deer drop over dead just knowing I'm entering the woods with the beast.
 
Group size is relevant in terms of determining how intrinsically accurate a firearm might be. Though I'm certainly not arguing that my experience reflects reality for anyone else, I can say that my No.1 Varmint, chambered in .220 Swift, is more accurate than any and all of the many bolt-action rifles I own. If my experience is a fluke, I can assure you that my "fluke" is not for sale. :)
 
Last edited:
I have to agree somewhat on the accuracy issue with Ruger #1 rifles. Mainly because when Ruger was buying contract barrels, one make was just a bit sloppy, especially in chambers. Currently I have #1's in various configurations running from .22 Hornet to .416 Rigby. Most shoot decently, some are tack drivers and a few think they're open cylinder scatterguns. All mine just happen to be earlier guns with contract barrels. The smaller bore rifles like the Hornet and 6MM Rem. shoot very nice groups from the "B" models while my "A" model in .243 not so good but still usable. There are tricks to tighten groups up that may or may not work. I have two "B" models in 30-06 that don't shoot worth a damn. I Have two "B" models in 25-06, one literally a one hole grouped and the other a shotgun wannabe. Go figure. A "B" model and two "S: models in .300 Win. Mag. are all one in or less guns. My favorite though is an "A" model in 7x57 that was a shotgun. Had my gunsmith check it out and the 2.5" throat was way out of spec. Sent that one back to Ruger with a copy of my gunsmith's comments and when it came back, it had been restocked with better wood, a new barrel and a fine blue job. The gun is now sub-MOA with most bullets tried. Took them seven months to get it back to me but was well worth the wait. I haven't thought about messing with those two 06's in a long time but some research I've done may help make them shoot. A friend I know said his #1's always shot better with bullets toward the heavier weight. I think I might try 200 and 220 gr. bullets. I did come into a large amount of 220 gr. Sierra round noses as part of a trade. Maybe they'll be useful after all. :rolleyes:
Paul B.
 
When I got my #1 in .45-70, I really wanted a #3, but there were none to had! Anyone have experience with the #3's as shooters?
 
Anyone have experience with the #3's as shooters?
Click to expand...
I had a #3 in .375 Winchester. I used it as a cast lead bullet gun...only killed one deer with it. I was excited to see haw a heavy cast bullet would do as a deer killer when shot through the boiler room, but at the last minute, I opted to just shoot him in the brain to avoid any meat damage. Therefore, I can now only attest that it was an excellent deer gun with a head shot.
On paper it was ok at 100 yards (about a two and one-half inch group), was not all that concerned with accuracy beyond that inasmuch as I intended to use it as an iron sight deer rifle.
 
I have a #3 in 45-70. Its a good shooter, if you can stand to shoot it. Im not recoil sensitive, but that little stock SUCKS with full power loads. Think a 10-22 in 45-70, and youll get the picture.

Mine was originally my dads, and whenever we took it out shooting, I never made it through a box of 20 before wanting to chuck it into the creek. He didnt reload for it at the time, and all we ever shot out of it, were full power loads.

I got it when he died, and was going to get rid of it at first, as it really didnt bring any pleasant memories, but since I reload, I got to looking around, and found some "light" loads for it and gave it a try. What a difference! 300 grain LRNFP's over 14 grains of Trail Boss and its a -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- cat (WOW, now thats a censor! It got every letter! :rolleyes:)! Now, its a blast to shoot. I shoot 50 to 100 rounds every time I take it out. :)

ry%3D480
 
Thanks for the #3 comments. After I got the #1, I only regretted the lack of receiver (peep) sights for the gun (#3 were tapped for receiver sights and the #1 wasn't). I ended up putting a low power scope on the gun (too lazy to go look for the power, but maybe 1-1/2 or 2X).

It's a .45-70 and would never be a tack driver, but it is very, very respectable in placing shots on target, plus it is a load of fun to handload for!
 
As issued from the box. No custom work of any kind.

standard.jpg



With 1970 stamped military surplus ammo, no less. Pinpoint accuracy? No. But I suspect it's good enough for medium sized game hunting.

standard.jpg
 
my #1 is a 270 winchester and it shoots like a barn on fire! .3" at 100 yards for 130gr ballistic tips on top a charge of imr4320. .4" at 100 yards for 150gr ballistic tips on top of a charge of imr4350. 3 shots for 100 yards.
i bought mine at a gun show about eight years ago for the unbelievable price of $300. i grabbed it up like you would not believe. i took it home, changed the scope and started shooting. for a gun produced in 1973, it shot everything under 1 m.o.a. i mean everything, from hornady to speer to nosler. it got to the point where i had to shoot over a m.o.a., but i couldn't.
my #1 is #1 in in my place. i shot a lot of deer with it, from 10 feet to 365 yards. with one shot the old 270 is really close to my heart.:cool::D
 
My No.3 .45-70 is a tackdriver, at shorter ranges anyway. 400gr lead bullet at standard full power (black powder) velocity, ancient JC Higgins 2.5x post w/crosswire scope. Two shots in the same hole, 3rd one less than one caliber away (and most likely MY fault), at 50yds. Not as good at 100, although I think I could do about as well if I used a higher power crosshair scope at the longer range.

Im not recoil sensitive, but that little stock SUCKS with full power loads.
Click to expand...

I don't find it that bad with "full power" loads, but it really bites with "Ruger only" level loads. My No.3 .45-70 came to me with a nice thick ventilated recoil pad, mounted over the sucky factory steel buttplate. Makes a world of difference. I have a load that pushes the 350gr Hornady RN at 2200fps (max for the RUGER!!!), and it is NOT pleasant, even with a good recoil pad!

My .22 Hornet No.3 is accurate, although I cannot now remember the last time I put it on paper. My .30-40Krag No.3 is currently unfired, by me.

Likewise my .375H&H No.1, although I don't expect to be let down when I do get around to shooting them...
 
were the number 3s a cheaper model or just "less refined".
Click to expand...

yes.


Its the same action, essentially.

1978 Gun Digest, Ruger no.1 $295 Ruger no.3 $175

The No.3 was styled to evoke the image of the old cavalry carbine. Strait grip stock, carbine steel buttplate, no integral scope mount, cosmetic barrel band on the forearm, and a different style lever.

The Ruger no.1 is stylistically the Farquarson single shot, a falling block with a short lever that wraps around (and latches into) the triggerguard.

The action on the No.3 is the same action, but there is no triggerguard, the Browning "Highwall" style lever is the triggerguard.

Wood on the No. 3 is nice, but normally rather plain. Wood on the No.1 goes from nice to gorgeous, at least until you get up to the current stainless steel and laminate stock models.

Usually, I don't care for straight grip stocks (one of the reasons I like the Marlin 336 more than the Win 94), but on the No.3, its not an issue for me, as the tail of the lever acts as the pistol grip for my fingers.

other than the steel buttplate, the one place a No.3 stock needs improvement is the comb. It is flat, and quite wide, placing a "square shoulder" under your cheek. For anything with some recoil, its not the best possible design. And in such a light rifle (6lbs) even the standard loads generate some recoil.

Also, the No.3 only came with a 22" barrel. No.1s had 22, 24, and 26" depending on specific model. Also the No.1 is an 8lb (average) rifle.

No.3s were only made in .45-70, .30-40Krag, and .22Hornet, at first, and later the .375 Win, .44 Mag, and .223 were added. The most common caliber is by far the .45-70.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top