Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters ruger #1 red pad era & accuracy

Hello all,
I have a varmint barreled # 1 in 243. Some good folks recently informed me that the #1s of this era w/the red pads had real problems with accuracy. Is this true and to what extent was the problem? I have yet to shoot the gun but I'm leery of buying a scope for rifle that can't in the end, really work. Appreciate the advice.
Sorry if this is a worn out subject.
Thanks,
HC

Hmmm I am sure i could be mistaken, but hasn't Ruger always had red pads?

No, they switched all the Rugers to black pads.

Back to the original post...I had a 243 with a red pad (1989), and it sucked. It would make a good club, and that was about it. I sold it and still shudder everytime I see one on a rack somewhere.

Not all of the #1's from that era shot poorly, the major issue had to do with some of the barrels Ruger was buying for a while. There is some good information at this thread:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads...part=1&vc=1

Also you might track down the back issue of Rifle that has the article we're all talking about in it.

The bottomline seems to be that you can't know how it will shoot until you try it, so mount a scope and start shooting.

Fit it with a nice scope and go shooting. I have an old 1B chambered in 270 Win. that shoots extremely well. It's dead stock too.


mathman

I have a .243 #1-A with the red pad.With it's favorite loads, it's a sub moa rifle.With most other loads, it's about a 2 moa rifle.With a handful of loads, it shoots patterns.So i use it's favoritre loads and dont worry about it.It's fussy about what it likes, but I didn't have to try real hard to find loads that shot well out of it.That can be said of most of the other rifles I own.All in all, that 1-A is my favorite rifle.

Not surprised.

No offense, dogcatcher, but dude you could fall in a rose bush and come out smellin' like schit. Seems that if there's a lemon to be had in a batch of gun related stuff, you're the one who's gonna get it.

If you want a good chuckle, take that red pad off of your No.1, and read what it says on the underside......."Goodyear"! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> No kidding! They feel like tire rubber too! I think the red pads look better; more in line with the British theme, and unless your No.1 is a hard kicker, they work just fine.

Jeff

I have an older red pad(not pre warning) #1 in 3006 and it shoots real good!!!

Thanks all.
The consensus: shoot the darn thing and see what happens. According to the Rugar web site, my rifle was made in 1983, just on the edge. W/ all that metal in the varmint barrel, I hope it shoots straight!
HC

Back in the 1970's Ruger was buying some of their barrels from Douglas. That explains why you occasionally find an early Ruger that shoots really well.

I have a LARGE collection of "red pad' Ruger's ; 1AB's. 1V's; 1S and 1B's; in most calibers. Only had one that didn't shoot under an inch , with the right handloads. That's was a 338WM. I reworked the forearm beeding and hanger catch and it shoots fine.

Some of my old buddies say pore about 2000 rounds through the older ones and they will start shooting good. Just a cent worth. I did not know of the black pads, does this make the red ones more expensive?

The problem barrels were generally made by Wilson, the supplier Ruger used for some years after they quit putting Douglas barrels on the original No. 1's.

Wilson barrels could vary considerably. I have had Rugers with Wilsons that shot very well, and others that scattered shots all over the place. As many here have said, you just can't tell unless you shoot them.

My first No. 1 was a red-pad 7x57 that would shoot into anywhere from 1.5 to 3 inches with various loads--UNTIL I had a gunsmith install a barrel-tension screw on the ffront end of the forend hanger. That turned the same rifle into a sub-MOA shooter. With it's best load (160 Nosler Partition and a stiff charge of RL-22) it would often put three shots into .5 inch.

But it would also not shoot any bullet much less than 160 grains because the throat was about as long as a train tunnel. This was also a notorious Ruger feature in the red-pad rifles, particularly in certain calibers.

The WORST Wilson barrel I ever saw was on a red-pad Model 77 in 7x57. This would only shoot into 2" for the first 5-6 rounds, then start scattering shots. I finally measured the bore and the TIGHT spots were .287".

On the other hand, I once owned a red-pad 77 in .30-06 that started shooting very small groups within the first 60 rounds or so. So you never know until you shoot 'em.

These days all those problems seem to have been solved by Ruger's own barrels, including the super-long throats.

John Barsness

Got a red pad Ruger made in 1978, I think. I put a Hicks accurizer on it, and it helped. Haven't had a time to really wring it out with various loads yet.

The neat thing about the Hicks is you can't really see it easily from the outside. It's drilled into the angled fore-end hole and unless you look for it, you won't see it.

Exactly! And it can be adjusted without taking the forend off, which isn't true of putting screw through forend hanger. I have put a couple of Hicks gadgets on No. 1's and they really work. One turned a sporter-weight .220 Swift from an "around an inch" rifle into a genuine half-inch rifle (5-shot groups, not 3-shot).

JB

Bought a red pad #1 in the 70's. It puts 5 Nosler 95grs into an inch and Sierra 85gr.HP and Sp as well. If there is a god my gun has a Douglas barrel if not I own a ringtail wonder <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

Have done nothing to this gun other than scope it.