I'm going to try a Ruger Number One

[gmerkt]

I've always had the notion that these are a gentleman's rifle, therefore on that basis I don't qualify. Like a superposed shotgun. What the Heck, today I decided to go for one.



This I believe is what is called a Ruger No. 1-B, one of the most common of its type. This one is in .223 Rem. It's a bit fancier than my New England Firearms single shots. It's been to the gunsmith, it has what appears to be an aftermarket Timney trigger in it, the barrel has had a spacer installed. It's not cherry, has a few bumps and scratches. No scope or rings, I'll have to come up with those when I get time. Which I will take plenty of to make sure I get the correct height and a scope that doesn't have gigantic bells on it. I looked up the serial number on the Ruger factory site, this one was made in 1998 so I suppose it to have a 1-12 twist bbl. which I haven't verified yet.

I'll hold my breath as to how it shoots. I've heard and read some about these. They either are tack drivers right out of the box or they drive their owners crazy and never shoot right. This rifle has a medium heavy bbl., which isn't a bad thing for shooting .223. I have a Ruger 77 Mark II in .223, it's the super light weight version, pencil thin bbl., which heats right up after a few shots.

Read More

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Nice I have a #1V IN 243 win

 

[bcp]

If looking at unlabeled used Ruger rings at a gun show or shop, you need to get a pair that are the same height. I believe their are 3 heights. Some rifles use adjacent sizes. Others use two of the same size. The #1 uses same height rings. There are also extension rings. Whatever combination you get, they need to be of the same height.

A long tube scope works best for most people using a #1. Notice that the rear ring is about the same distance from the trigger as the front ring of a bolt action. This places the scope farther forward, so a long tube allows the scope to extend farther back.


Bruce

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

They are a gentleman's rifle for sure and super classy even if one was to miss they would still look very dapper enjoy !

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

If looking at unlabeled used Ruger rings at a gun show or shop, you need to get a pair that are the same height. I believe their are 3 heights. Some rifles use adjacent sizes. Others use two of the same size. The #1 uses same height rings. There are also extension rings. Whatever combination you get, they need to be of the same height.

Bruce

I just used the ones that came in the box and paired them with a Zeiss 3-9x40 and all is well

 

[Spitpatch]

Scope mounting is always "interesting" with the Number Ones. Offset rings (either fore or aft, or both) are needed for most scopes in order to get the eyepiece back where it needs to be, and as low as possible over the bore.

There are a number of "accurizing" methods (some rather simple) to deal with the fact the forearm is not one with the buttstock. There's even at least one device marketed. Another characteristic affecting accuracy (good or bad) is that Ruger was out-sourcing barrels, and not always from the same suppliers. It literally was a crap shoot (as you described) as to how any given Number One might shoot. Many are phenomenal (with or without modification).

But every single one of them shoots better than most rifles, and your gun is proof they never made an ugly one.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

Scope mounting is always "interesting" with the Number Ones. Offset rings (either fore or aft, or both) are needed for most scopes in order to get the eyepiece back where it needs to be, and as low as possible over the bore.

There are a number of "accurizing" methods (some rather simple) to deal with the fact the forearm is not one with the buttstock. There's even at least one device marketed. Another characteristic affecting accuracy (good or bad) is that Ruger was out-sourcing barrels, and not always from the same suppliers. It literally was a crap shoot (as you described) as to how any given Number One might shoot. Many are phenomenal (with or without modification).

But every single one of them shoots better than most rifles, and your gun is proof they never made an ugly one.

Oh yes if it doesn't shoot it is definitely not ugly ! I do not know why I am drawn to them but they are beautiful rifles and a joy to just look at !

 

[sikhed]

They're a very classy rifle. Had one in 375 H&H, and it was a pleasure to shoot. A reloader's dream, as you can load the bullet into the case so it's just off the lands, not worrying about magazine restrictions ( restrictions as in the length of the magazine.)
Stupidly traded it in for a new Winchester/Browning M70 that has serious barrel issues that's still unresolved.

 

[bcp]

You do know that the Ruger #1 is a machine gun, don't you?
Pull and hold the trigger and it fires all its cartridges until empty.



Bruce

 

[MymuttBear]

Oh yes if it doesn't shoot it is definitely not ugly ! I do not know why I am drawn to them but they are beautiful rifles and a joy to just look at !

They are indeed a beautiful rifle. I have owned a .25/06, .338 Win Mag rebarreled and chambered for .338 R.U.M and a .458 Lott.

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

They are indeed a beautiful rifle. I have owned a .25/06, .338 Win Mag rebarreled and chambered for .338 R.U.M and a .458 Lott.

I do not know if I would do a No 1 in 338 WM we kinda have a love hate thing going on lol !

 

[MymuttBear]

I do not know if I would do a No 1 in 338 WM we kinda have a love hate thing going on lol !

I should have kept mine as a .338 Win Mag as my .338 RUM was a beast to shoot. Yes I could have shot reduced loads but where's the fun in that.

 

[Bobbygun]

I always liked the looks of those Ruger #1 rifles, even the ones that weren't as fancy. My dad had one in .25-06 many years ago. It broke his heart that he could never seem to develop a load that provided solid accuracy. (We are both big .25-06 fans.) He gave up on it and sold it long before he passed away, so I have never owned a #1 myself. I would still consider it though. As stated earlier in the thread - the accuracy seems to be hit and miss with them. I would hold out hope for a hit.

 

[gmerkt]

My dad had one in .25-06 many years ago. It broke his heart that he could never seem to develop a load that provided solid accuracy.

At the Everett Sportsmen Club where I'm a member, there was an old guy named Bernie whom I used to shoot with. He was quite the reloader, had lots of different guns and cartridges. He had one Ruger Number One, I don't remember what cartridge it loaded, but it was one he was always fussing around with and never could get a good load for.

As stated earlier in the thread - the accuracy seems to be hit and miss with them. I would hold out hope for a hit.

I'm hoping that in a relatively small cartridge like the .223 Rem. and with a medium heavy barrel, accuracy won't be an issue. But then again, the rifle is only as good as the shooter, and I'm not a long range guy to begin with.

 

[gmerkt]

If looking at unlabeled used Ruger rings at a gun show or shop, you need to get a pair that are the same height. I believe their are 3 heights. Some rifles use adjacent sizes. Others use two of the same size. The #1 uses same height rings. There are also extension rings. Whatever combination you get, they need to be of the same height.

A long tube scope works best for most people using a #1. Notice that the rear ring is about the same distance from the trigger as the front ring of a bolt action. This places the scope farther forward, so a long tube allows the scope to extend farther back.

Thanks for the advice. I can see from the Ruger mount that is on the rifle that the rings need to be of equal height so that part is figured out. I'm not going to cheap out on the rings, I'll just try to get new Ruger brand rings for it. I'll probably get the scope first, then size the ring height as appropriate. The rifle doesn't have a Monte Carlo stock comb, obviously, so I don't want a scope that is too high.

 

[gmerkt]

When I was at the Ruger factory site today, I noted that one of the few Number One's on offer at present (assuming you can find one) is chambered in what it says is, .275 Rigby (7x57mm). I didn't know they were the same thing. There are many threads online about this. I have a Winchester Model 70 FW in 7x57, maybe I need a new Ruger No. 1 in ".275 Rigby."

 

[edzz]

25 years old... I don't know if I'd feel safe shooting a rifle that archaic.



Honestly though the number one is the only rifle that Ruger ever marketed that one could describe as elegant. Would love to have one in my collection.

 

[Z-PDX]

before the tragic boating accident, I had one of these in .300 WM. I really loved looking at the thing. I really liked carrying it hunting, because it was so lite.

Please note that nowhere above did I say that I enjoyed shooting it. I could not get that thing better than minute of elk no matter how much fussing I did. And I'm not ashamed to say I'm just not a magnum guy for any extended range sessions. Go ahead take my man card... But the thing was pretty darn abusive to shoot.

But it really was a gorgeous piece of wood and blued steel.

I totally support anyone who wants, to give it a go...

 

[PORSCHE928S4]

before the tragic boating accident, I had one of these in .300 WM. I really loved looking at the thing. I really liked carrying it hunting, because it was so lite.

Please note that nowhere above did I say that I enjoyed shooting it. I could not get that thing better than minute of elk no matter how much fussing I did. And I'm not ashamed to say I'm just not a magnum guy for any extended range sessions. Go ahead take my man card... But the thing was pretty darn abusive to shoot.

But it really was a gorgeous piece of wood and blued steel.

I totally support anyone who wants, to give it a go...

Yea the 338 WM will get the man card back in a jiffy lol

 

[Bobbygun]

before the tragic boating accident, I had one of these in .300 WM. I really loved looking at the thing. I really liked carrying it hunting, because it was so lite.

Please note that nowhere above did I say that I enjoyed shooting it. I could not get that thing better than minute of elk no matter how much fussing I did. And I'm not ashamed to say I'm just not a magnum guy for any extended range sessions. Go ahead take my man card... But the thing was pretty darn abusive to shoot.

But it really was a gorgeous piece of wood and blued steel.

I totally support anyone who wants, to give it a go...

Back when Ruger first came out with those "boat paddle" stock model 77's, a lot of guys must have turned in their man card. I lived down by Roseburg at the time and the local gun shop walls were filled with used .338 and .300 Win mags. I had one in .223 and did not care for the way that gun felt against my cheek. Would never have considered shooting one of those magnums equipped with that stock.