Well, I'm thrilled to hear from all you number 1 addicts. You have all helped convince me that I'm headed in the right direction. I really have my heart set on the full stock model in 30-06, [ my favorite caliber ], even though I already have one. I can barely afford this one and some of you are telling me to be careful, they multiply? To be honest about it, eventually I'll probabely get one in .243 or possibly the new .204. Can somebody tell me a little more about the .204, I would think it would be a real flat shooter and very accurate.............John

how many of you have used or own a number 1 and what is your impression of them
 

I wouldn't give you a dime for a truckload of them.

Call Ruger and ask what their accuracy warranty is.....I'll save you the time.....it's 1.5 inches at 50 yards.....yea 3 MOA

Not to say your gun won't shoot better but they won't fix it unless it shoots worse than 3" at 100 yards.

I had one......a varmint model in 6mm Remington and finally had to send it to a smith in Arizona and pay to have it fixed.

I don't own any Ruger long guns anymore and never will again!

Hey its a free country VD ,personally I dont think much of Remingtons long rifles myself . I do have a half dozen or so of thier shotguns though .

If there is an accuracy issue with some of the number 1's, and it is due to the pressure from the forend as Iv'e heard, can't that be corrected pretty easily? Or, do a number of you just believe that it is simply not an accurate barrel? Seems that Ruger would be aware of the problem and correct it on a rifle that retails for over a grand and to protect their reputation as a builder of strong reliable rifles. I understand that from time to time, you can end up with a long gun that just will not shoot well, but you would think that a major manufacturer would cut that to a minimum rather than allow a model in their line up to continue to fall short in the accuracy department. How do they do with the heavier calibers?

Have just 4 currently, .22-250, .30-06, .405 and .45-70. The -06 will become .300 H&H sooner or later. The .405 has yet to be shot. the other two shoot great! Didn't buy the 2nd, 3rd and 4th because the 1st one was a dog. There'll be more.

Possibly but if it is "merely that" one would have thought Ruger would have "merely" fixed it on at least one of the three times I returned it to them.

I owned two M-77 rifles....one in .243 and another in 7 mm Mag that Ruger failed to fix as well.:rant:

Glad we get all three sides to this story. :wink:

Guess ole' VD is not a Ruger fan. LOL. :confused0024:

Nor is he a Savage fan nor is he a Weatherby fan.

I've had good success with Remington and Winchester rifles as well as Mossberg and Marlin and Sako.

I recently bought a Howa and the jury is still out on that .223 rifle.....it's coming around and shooting just over an inch right now.

I guess there is no telling what any rifle will do until you shoot it. I have two rifles that shoot better than you might expect, from what you read on forums. One is a Ruger No 1 in 220 Swift. By hand loading from easily available loading charts, it easily gives 1 MOA at 100 yds. I have not shot it at greater distances yet but next spring, I plan to dial in 200 yd. loads and even 300 yd loads to see how well it can shoot at those distances.

My other rifle is a Martini large frame sporter with a barrel by W.A. Sukalle in 22 LR. Though the trigger is rather heavy, it is remarkably accurate (about 1 MOA) at 100 yds. This is in spite of other Martini owners saying it should not shoot that well. Perhaps it is the barrel, after all, Bill Sukalle was the cover boy for American Rifleman June 1950. They called him Bill the Barrel maker.

Right now I am looking for a .17 HMR rifle and am considering either a Browning T Bolt or a Savage Model Model 93R17BTVS. I figure either will be excellent 100-150 yd. varmint detonators and cheaper to shoot than even hand loaded 220 Swift.