Ruger #1 vs. Remington Model 700
 

Looking to buy one of these 2 guns in a 25-06 and was curious to which you think is more accurate. I know there is a difference in price and that is not really a major factor. I'm looking for opinions on which gun you think will shoot the best at say 300-400 yards. Thanks for any opinions.

Tough one but I'd say probobly the Remington. It's been my experience that the 700 is more accurate than the #1

If you get "the right" number 1...it'll be as good a shooter as any gun you'll find.

If you don't get the right one...it could well frustrate the hell out of you.

The #1 is a beautiful rifle with a long barrel, but if it is a tackdriver you want, your best bet is the 700.

If I were looking for the best odds of an accurate rifle I would look at some other brands. However, between your two choices the 700 would likely be more accurate but some #1's can be impressive.

Although the Ruger is a beautiful gun, on the average I would say the Remington is a more accurate gun.

They're both good guns but the real question here is will a single shot serve your needs as well overall as a bolt.

IMHO bolt guns tend to be easier to make accurate. Most single shot (non bolt) rifles require some tinkering to get them to be accurate. Some of us tinkerers love the challenge, some guys just want to buy a rifle and know its going to shoot exactly where they want without all the fuss.

In the field in common hunting situations either can be a good choice.

PS at some point all hunting guns are single shots....you shoot one time, you load and shoot again if necessary.

I'm just not getting all of these comments about the #1 being "beautiful"... I guess some of you guys must have thought Janet Reno was a real hottie...:D

I've owned them both... and if I had to make a choice, it would be the 700. No doubt.

I used to own Remingtons! They make them cheaper and cheaper each year. Now they are going to ruin Marlin, by makeing them cheap. On the other hand, buy quality, Ruger makes a far superior rifle than Remington. Like it or not, it's true!!!!:biggrin::barmy::s2:

+1. My most recent Remington experiences haven't been great. I'll take the Ruger #1!

No second thoughts here, the Remington 700.

What looks good is all a matter of Op. Ill just state the facts and let the buyer decide.

1 there is no such thing as a adjustable factory ruger trigger as far as I know. strike 1

2 you can mount a scope any way you want on a 700 , you can mount a scope anyway you want on a ruger as long you want big, heavy, High rings > strike 2

3 any accuracy issues on a 700(which seldom occor) can be easily fixed, ruger not so much, and a #1? well I hope you know a very good gun smith. strike 3

All that aside, they are 2 completely different rifles. comparing them is like comparing a hammer to a wrench, 2 completely different tools.

Ill put my 700 up against any ruger for looks accuracy and quality it was produced about 3 years ago.
Attachment 15482
If you buy remy's cheap stuff, you get just that, but Ill put their SPS stainless, against rugers "All weather" any day. Rems grey satin SS finsh blow rugers tool marked scratchy brite finish hands down. The jeweled bolt is way nicer than rugers bolt too. the fit and finish on a ruger is more comparable to what savage was putting out before the accutastock series (too bad they dont comper accuraccy wise. anyoneone who thinks ruger makes high quality guns hasnt owned many other guns IMO.

+1 Remington 700

I like the look of those laminate stocks. Got one on my 700 ADL .30-06 from about 20 years ago. Replaced it with one of their black stocks though... hated getting it scratched up climbing in and out of blinds, etc. I've got 4 700's, the oldest being 25+ years old, and the most recent being 2 years old. Every one has performed quite nicely, and will shoot better than I can...

The single shot doesn't bother me. I love to muzzleload and bowhunt so I'm pretty much ok with just 1 shot.

You didn't?.......LOL!!!!!!!!

Hehehehehe...I once wanted to become a gynecologist, until I realized that for every woman that looks like Jennifer Lopez, there are 10 that look like Janet Reno...

Actually, beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder...

I personally think that the Ruger # 1 is a VERY attractive firearm, but I think the TC Encore is about the ugliest POS I have ever seen...

I must be in the minority, considering the number of Encores I see, and I am only talking about it's appearance, not it's performance...

But if I had to carry a gun that UGLY in the woods, I'd consider giving up hunting...

A couple of other UGLY guns...

Boat paddle Ruger 77s....

Rem 700 BDLs.. The ones with the monte carlo stocks and pressed checkering.... YUCK..!!..

However, I think the M700 Classics and Mountain rifles are quite attractive..

Hookeye...I like your analogy...

I prefer the Ruger NO 1. I like the balance for shooting off hand. I like the stock design and weight of the rifle for shooting magnum calibers. I've not had and accuracy issue that needed a gunsmith. The triggers are not bench rest quality but just as good as any standard rifle coming off the shelf plus they don't have creep.

If I was to build a bench rest rifle, it would probably come from a Remington 700 action. And besides the Remington 700 ADL rifles they are great rifles in themselves. And if you do want a trigger job it's going to cost less at the gun shop to get it done. And they do have a better mounting system for scopes. Ruger could work on that a touch. I've shot some tack drivers in the Remington Senedero.

Best thing to do is find people with both guns and get them to the range and make your own calculated decision. Before buying one.

Sorry, had to get in on this due to these are my two favorite guns--first of all, pressed checkering on my new BDL? Pressed skip line precision checkering? Really---At present I have two BDL's, an 06 and a .243 and like the man said they both shoot better than I can shoot them--my #1's have not been as accurate, but plenty accurate enough for hunting. The biggest beef with the no 1's is the scope rings-Ruger does offer three different heights and they send rings with each rifle, but they choose which height, then, in order to get the scope far enough back so that you don't have to move your head forward considerably along the stock to even get close to the scope, you have to order the corresponding offset rear ring to the set they sent. They should include a number 4 or 5 offset with the gun. One of the five no 1's I've had, a .204. was not consistant, grouped all over the place, the 45-70 was fair, but the 06 was plenty accurate and the other .204 was a tack driver --didn't get a chance to try the last one because a friend had to have it--Ruger does use great wood on the number ones as a rule and the balance is great--easy to carry and easy to shoot--as for the Remingtons, I'm an old guy and have owned three ADL's and three BDL's, two of which I have now and can't see the quality issues I hear about. I've had years of great hunting with these 700's without a problem, they hit where I aim, don't fall apart and look like a million bucks, am I not seeing something here?---John

I had the same complaint about the rings, however I noticed warne makes rings for rugers , solves that mess. BTW I didnt know that many guys owned #1s.

I actually like the BDL more than the newr CDLs, I dont like satin finsh on the stock and metal, defeats the purpose of a wood gun IMO. Id rather have the gloss finish of the BDL, looks better and probably more weather resistant.

:rolleye0011: Everyone wants to complain about Rugers scope rings, They actually make four different sizes for a 1" scope and three different sizes for a 30mm scope and they also have different offset rings. If you want I can give you the part numbers. What is there to complain about? They give you the rings for free, if you dont like them buy a different set! ANY OTHER MANUFACTOR makes you buy the rings seperately, unless you buy one of those Wal-Mart combos, and we all know they only use the top of the line stuff. So what is your complaint?

Theyre heavy square blocks of steel, w/a big ol flathead bolt, no thanks, M77s are heavy and blocky enough.

I dont like integral scope mounts and rings. I dont like a gun co. trying to force me to use their mounting system, its a stupid concept, just drill and tap the receiver and let me pick how I want to mount my scope.

I'm surprised this thread has gone for so long. Couldn't imagine comparing firearms that could be any different.

As for me I like the integrated rings on the rugers.

Tom

Tom I think that is what makes equipment so fun to compare. I originally posted about two different guns in a lot of aspects. The caliber being the common denominator. But the question is the same,"Which is more accurate at around 300 yards?" Everyone has an opionon and that is what is good about it. I do believe I have found three main things though:
1. Ruger #1's are beautiful guns.
2. Model 700 is probably more accurate.
3. The majority of people do not like the bases and rings on the Ruger.
Did I find an answer to my question? See #2 above. I think I will go with that and maybe somewhere down the road buy a #1 for the beauty of the gun!!

My son has a Ruger #1B in 25-06Rem. Brand new with factory ammo, he could keep it around 2 MOA out to 300yds. After break in and experimenting with handloads, he's got it down to 1-1/4 MOA at 300. No 'smith work yet. Trigger is heavy with excessive creep. It's a pretty heavy gun to carry. They're not for everybody. I think people who like #1's, like them for their own reasons.

700 is more accurate