Ruger No. 1
12-23-2006, 06:29 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,675
RE: Ruger No. 1
I have two No.1V's and one No.1A.
From the factory the triggers are almost always over 5lbs. Some will tell you about horrible accuracy but notmally it was a friends gun or someone at the range that owned the gun and the story got better with time.
I intalled a Canjar set trigger on one of my No.1V's and the other two have had work done to get the trigger pull down to 4 lbs.
With work and practice the guns will shoot sub moa. These are not benchrest guns nor will they consistantly shoot tiny little groups.
The No.1's do handle nice and are pleasing to the eye. Ruger usually puts nice wood on them and the fit and finish are nice, unlike some other guns.
From the factory the triggers are almost always over 5lbs. Some will tell you about horrible accuracy but notmally it was a friends gun or someone at the range that owned the gun and the story got better with time.
I intalled a Canjar set trigger on one of my No.1V's and the other two have had work done to get the trigger pull down to 4 lbs.
With work and practice the guns will shoot sub moa. These are not benchrest guns nor will they consistantly shoot tiny little groups.
The No.1's do handle nice and are pleasing to the eye. Ruger usually puts nice wood on them and the fit and finish are nice, unlike some other guns.
12-23-2006, 06:59 AM
#12
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: ne bama
Posts: 6,340
RE: Ruger No. 1
All of these rifles were capable of 1" groups right out of the box with nothing done to them except mounting a scope. The 7mm Rem. Mag. was twice that good, shooting 1" groups at 200 yards.
sub 1" and around 1.5 @ 200
12-23-2006, 07:54 AM
#13
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Texas - BUT NOW in Madison County, NY
Posts: 6,270
RE: Ruger No. 1
ORIGINAL: spencer0071
I handled the Standard in 25-06. I have a few rifles with scopes mounted that weight 1-2 pounds less than a standard Number 1 with no optics. Idon't knowhow mucha flintlock weights or how youhunt. I walk quite a bit when i hunt. Every ounce is felt after several days hunting. I am a stickler for accuracy and by design the Number 1 is accurate. But to me the accuracy is not worth the weightof the rifle. IfI hunted deerdifferentlyor wanted a dedicated varmint rifle to shoot from a benchImayconsider a Number1.
Edit: Why doesn't Ruger offer a composite stocks for the number 1? Is there something in the design of the rifle that prevents them from putting on a lighter stock?
I handled the Standard in 25-06. I have a few rifles with scopes mounted that weight 1-2 pounds less than a standard Number 1 with no optics. Idon't knowhow mucha flintlock weights or how youhunt. I walk quite a bit when i hunt. Every ounce is felt after several days hunting. I am a stickler for accuracy and by design the Number 1 is accurate. But to me the accuracy is not worth the weightof the rifle. IfI hunted deerdifferentlyor wanted a dedicated varmint rifle to shoot from a benchImayconsider a Number1.
Edit: Why doesn't Ruger offer a composite stocks for the number 1? Is there something in the design of the rifle that prevents them from putting on a lighter stock?
12-23-2006, 11:58 AM
#15
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,673
RE: Ruger No. 1
Yeah, I have had two, I had the Stainless Tropical .375 H&H, and the Walnut Blued .458 Win Mag, both guns shot very well, and were successful on many game animals, including hog and deer, with the right handloads, the .375 H&H, would shoot around 1" with open sights at 100 yards. And the .458, would shoot around 1 1/2".
12-23-2006, 04:56 PM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spokane Washington
Posts: 1,042
RE: Ruger No. 1
I would love to get one of these. I like single shot rifles and how the are usually easy to pack and shoot well out of the box. One of these days. Right now I cannot afford the $700-$1500 price tags that I have seen on these. I have always thought that one in 45-70 would kick butt.
12-23-2006, 05:09 PM
#17
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,673
RE: Ruger No. 1
ORIGINAL: TUK101
I would love to get one of these. I like single shot rifles and how the are usually easy to pack and shoot well out of the box. One of these days. Right now I cannot afford the $700-$1500 price tags that I have seen on these. I have always thought that one in 45-70 would kick butt.
I would love to get one of these. I like single shot rifles and how the are usually easy to pack and shoot well out of the box. One of these days. Right now I cannot afford the $700-$1500 price tags that I have seen on these. I have always thought that one in 45-70 would kick butt.
12-23-2006, 05:22 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: currently Fort Drum, NY
Posts: 3,677
RE: Ruger No. 1
thanks for all the reply's. if i were to get one in the future, it would prolly be 7mm mag or 45-70, i have a marlin 45-70 guide gun and love the gun. hopefully in the future ill be able to get one
12-24-2006, 12:51 PM
#20
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NW Arkansas
Posts: 1,673
RE: Ruger No. 1
ORIGINAL: haugenna
I am saving up for a ruger #1and having a Lilja 30" tube put on it. Best caliber of all time, 30-378 of course. With a nightforce mil dot scope.
I am saving up for a ruger #1and having a Lilja 30" tube put on it. Best caliber of all time, 30-378 of course. With a nightforce mil dot scope.