Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots Ruger rumor

Bricktop,

As a bystander reading this thread I would like to ask you to resopnd to the discussion with a lot less "ATTITUDE".

This has all of the aspects of becoming a pizzing contest and from what I can see it is ALL from the manner in which you respond.

Hey, it is a discussion not a fist fight, OK? So lighten up, continue to disagree but please do it in a respectful manner.

I remember a Ross Seyfried piece in Guns&Ammo around 1989 or so featuring a Bowen Custom No.1 in .470 N.E..
We know it can be done....I wonder if it is Ruger's marketing or legal department has kept it from being a production item.

Gaviidae_Esq...

Thank you, Sir, for your bullet seating information. I appreciate it. Based on your advice, I'll try seating those 140 grain bullets out a bit further.


Elkslayer... excellent observation. What you said + 1.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Doc,
From what I understand Ruger has always manufactured things in batches. That is common nowadays to make use of capital more efficiently. I don't think they ever made No 1's any other way.
As long as I can remember availability was determined by what time of year it was. I remember working for a small shop many years ago where myself and another young gunsmith would sit in the back room and chuckle while the owner told customers that Ruger #1 were not accurate. Both of us had #1's that shot very well in varmint calibers.
I do remember a rumor that the 7mm Magnums had a bore size which was a little generous in order to keep pressures down to a reasonable level. A safety issue that may have started the rumor about poor accuracy.
The Mini-14 was never intended for the Benchrest crowd anyhow.
I foolishly sold my #1 in 45-70 with the idea that I would replace it with a 375 H&H Magnum "someday". I have always thought that if you can't kill something with a single shot from a 375 you can at least slow it down a little.
I will be gripping my 220 Swift #1V a little tighter now with this latest rumor. I guess I need a 204 worse than a Magnum anyhow. You never know when a circus tiger will get loose..........
whelennut

There were some questions posed to you in my previous reply. Is there any particular reason you've dodged them? They're entirely appropriate for the discussion.

I hope the naysayers and rumor mongers take a good long look at your reply and maybe digest a little bit of what you posted.

Note signature line
|
|
|
V

"Some real oddballs there-some only with one made like the .45-100. Speaking of the 7 mm express/.280, I actaully have three boxes of Remington ammo that is marked 7-06. I heard they never actually marked a rifle this way(anybody have one?) but I actually own ammo marked that way on the box and on the headstamp."
_________________________
IIRC, I think it was Layne Simpson that said he had a Remington 700 marked as a 7-06. I can't remmeber if that was X-ed out and .280 Rem. substituted, but I do remember him saying it was one of the very few so marked that escaped from the factory.
Regarding Ruger #1s with contract barrels, only one of the 17 I have has ever had to go back to Ruger for a fix. It was a 7x57 #1A that had a throat over 2" long as determined by a chamber cast. Ruger put a new barrel on the gun and it's a tack driver now. The only complaint I have about the repair is it took seven long agonizing months to get the rifle back. They can be slow.
Paul B.

PJGunner,
Looks like you are right-in Simpson's book 'Rifles and Cartridges for Large Game' he states that he owns one of the few rifles stamped 7mm-06(pg 207). He says he doesn't have any ammo stamped as such, maybe I should offer mine?

Dear PJgunner,
I know your pain with the "long throated" 7X57.
I had 3 Ruger M-77's in 7X57 which was my favorite cartridge for years. To be honest,Jack O'Conners writings turned me onto it.

My best groups ran about 1 1/2 inches with the 140 sierra and IMR-4320 powder. I "sold" all 3rifles to friends and they all killed deer with the rifles for years.

The M-77 7X57's were replaced with a M-77 in 257BOB. That rifle would shoot beautiful 1/2 inch groups.

Doc

One chambering that was dropped was the 1S in 7mm rem mag -- have one, love it, would love to buy another one.

Dan

I always get converned when any company loses it's founders and changes to management by MBA. I've seen many a great company run into the ground by professional managers who don't know or care about the products they make.

Re accuracy, my own experience with Rugers is that their accuracy was only fair - including bolt guns and single shots. Mu Browing Low wall will shoot rings around my number 1.

But the No. 1 has a ceratin something few guns can match. And as far as I am concerned, is easily fixed to produce a serviceable rifle - good enough to kill a deer.

If the No. 1 disappears, I will mourn for a long, long time.

Tod writes: "Re accuracy, my own experience with Rugers is that their accuracy was only fair - including bolt guns and single shots. My Browing Low wall will shoot rings around my number 1." Seems to me, at least in target/bullseye shooting, if you are shooting rings around the competition, you are not doing well. All 10s with many "X" is good.

My experience with recent (in the last 10 years) Ruger rifles is very good accuracy. This experience includes:

No. 1's:
.22 Hornet 1B, about 3-4 years old: This rifle will put 5 40-grain Nosler Ballistic Tips into under .5". The last group I shot with at at 100 yards had 4 in .18".
.25-06 special run from Lipsey's: Remington factory loads (100's and 120's) average about 1.25 for 3 shots at 100 yards; handloads average under .75".
7x57 1A: .75 to 1.5 for 3-shot groups at 100 with a variety of handloads. The same rifle rechambered to .280 AI does about the same.
.375 H&H Tropical: Averaged 2" or under for 3 shots at 100 with NECG aperture and factory front. With scope .75-1.5".
.405 Win. Tropical: Undr 2" with almost anything, well under an inch with both 300 TSX's and 40o Woodleighs.

77 Mark II's and Hawkeyes:
.204 Sporter: under .5 for 5-shot groups at 100 with favored handloads with 3 different bullets. Under 1" with about anything.
6.5x55: Under an inch with most loads. .75 or less with 120 X (pre-TSX).
7x57: Under 1.25 with about any load. (This did NOT have the long throat of earlier Ruger 7x57's, and neither did the 1A above.)
.300 Winchester Magnum: This rifle belongs to a friend who asked me to develop loads. I loaded some 180 Nosler Partitions with 73-75 grains of H4831, and it shot under an inch with all.
.375 Hawkeye: 1 to 1.25 inches with factory loads and handloads with Hornady 300's.

If that is bad accuracy out of factory rifles, I'd like to know what is good accuracy for sporter-weight hunting rifles.

JB

Mule Deer.......

Thank you for your interesting & informative comments on the #1's and Mark II's. Few, if any, of us have the many opportunities you have to handle and shoot such a large variety of rifles.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Mule Deer,

Why is everything that centers around rifle accuracy published as in so and so @ 100 yds. Why don't we see what group sizes are at 300-400 yds which is realistic shooting distances for game.

I've often wondered this, because bullet and barrell maker alike acknowledge that you need more distance than a 100 to see what your rifle is really doing. I've learned this as well since I've gotten into extreme long range hunting. Distances paint a different picture.

Is there a reason for the traditional 100 yd mark?

I kind of wonder about that as well, but I think the answer is most places only have a 100 yard range to test shoot their rifles, or in the case of component manufacturors, their bullets. Then, many of the ranges I've been able to shot at only went to 100 yards.
Paul B.