Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots When did the junk barrels start for Ruger No. 1s?

I found where Ruger has a page on their site where you can date rifles by SN. With this happy info, does anyone have dates for when the Douglas barrels were switched to the junky ones and then back again? In other words, what were the spotty years, 1970-1995 or so?

had 1976 model 77 in 220 swift. it shot almost anything into clover leafs. my understanding was it was a douglas barrel.

I have a Bicentennial 243 that shoots very commendably, 45-70 from the early/mid 90s which drive tacks; 218 Bee is less than 15 years old and is the most troublesome, but not terrible, accuracy-wise. The older triggers seemed to be nicer in my limited experience.

My late brother had two Bicentennials, a 77V .220, and a 1B .270. Both were extremely accurate. He used the old Lee Target Loaders, the ones with the neck reamer, and the groups made with the Swift would still impress in this age of wonder-guns. He eventually rebarreled it to .22/243 and put it in a glass stock. When he got sick, he had it rebarreled again with a standard .22/250 barrel so he could sell it easily before he passed.

I don't think there is a single answer to the question. For many years Ruger contracted their barrels and quality varied according to the supplier. My experience is limited to two mid-1970s #1Vs and a #3 from the early 1980s. On the .22-250 I couldn't get close to the lands even with a 60 grain Nosler, but it still averaged 5/8 inch five groups when I had a decent day. Sometimes I got it down to half inch, but it was rare. If that was a bad barrel, I'll still take it. The .25-06 and .223 both got around 3/4 to 7/8 inch five shot groups.

The Douglas barrels were normally considered the best and most consistent with the Wilson barrels being the poorest. I believe the .22-250 had a Wilson, because the Wilson's were notorious for extra long throats. I still think a lot of the "bad barrels" were more the result of the bullets and dies available back then. Before CNC production, many dies gave concentricity problems.

The Ruger No1 was invented by William B Ruger as the most modern accurate single shot Hunting Rifle. There were never any JUNK Barrels. There may have been some a little more accurate and some extremely accurate depending on the Caliber Configuration they were built in.
The Ruger started out using Douglas barrels then Wilson barrels and along the way to Ruger produced barrels there were 3500 to 4000 Green Mountain barrels used as needed for production. There is no way of identifying the difference in the barrels as they were supplied as blanks then machined to the desired configuration.
The Ruger No1 has always been a great rifle as designed for Hunting & even some Target shooting.
In my over 50 years of shooting & collecting them I have owned more the 200 of them with 60 being the most at any one time. I have shot probably 20 to 30 of them in various calibers configurations and never had one that didn't shoot Minute of Angle groups which was more than adequate for Hunting accuracy.

To all the Kitchen Table Gun Smiths that think they can improve on William B Ruger's design you're wasting your time. Enjoy it for what it is not something you want to dream up.

Interesting to know that others used a Lee Target Loader with a Ruger 77V. Mine is a (circa) 1973 22-250. Instead of pounding on it with a hammer, I used an arbor press.
Nothing wrong with that barrel and later, when accuracy fell off, I sent the rifle to Ruger for a new barrel. Nothing wrong with that barrel either.

Honestly, on older Rugers I worry more about salt wood than barrels, as I do own two "salties", and have seen others.

I have owned or worked with a little over 20 #1's of all vintages. Some were more accurate than others, but I personally have never seen a stinker - one that would only do 2-3 MOA at best. I am sure they exist, but they are not common. I think most of the stinkers by now have been rebarreled. I will allow that I've never owned an International, nor any red pad 1A's until recently, so perhaps the lighter/band on barrel guns were fussier.

I now have a #1A 7x57 Liberty model, which I have not yet shot. It has very consistent good looking grooves and lends, but plenty of reamer marks inside the barrel. So I guess we'll see how it shoots. Ruger seems to have figured out that good barrels are essential, which is one of the best things they have done in the past 20 years.

Making good barrels should not be a mystery, regardless of the process. Good & consistent heat treating, dimensional accuracy and smoothness. When a tool gets a little worn/dull, replace it. If the priority is lowest cost, then people are going to push the tools as long as possible. If the priority is barrel quality, then the barrels will be better & more consistent.

"There were never any JUNK Barrels."

I'm not quite sure I can agree with that. I had one #1A that had a throat over two inches long as determined by a chamber cast. I had to send that one back and Ruger did rebarrel it, thankfully in the original 7x57 chambering. When I decide to sell off my #1's, it will be the only one I keep.
Paul B.

Back in the early 90's we bought a batch of Wilson barrels to build some custom rifles for our customers. Most of them were ok but a few had some glaring problems. A couple the bores did not run center through the barrel, others were obviously not straight when chucked in the lathe and a couple had grooves of uneven depth. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the early Rugers that used Wilson barrels suffered from some of the same probems.

Most of the Wilson barrels used on Rugers shot very well, though sometimes they had too-long throats--which wasn't the fault of the barrels but the reamers. The only really bad one I've encountered was on a tang-safety Ruger 77 7x57 a friend had. He could never get it to shoot, so wanted me to fool around with it. I couldn't get it to shoot either, despite a reasonable-length chamber throat, and eventually slugged the bore. The "tight" spots measured .287" in diameter, and there were some loose ones.

Dunno if I've ever owned a Green Mountain barreled No. 1, but have had Douglas and Ruger barreled No. 1's and all have shot very well, though it should be noted that Ruger started using shorter chamber throats when they started making their own barrels in the early 1990's.

I started my reloading with a couple of those myself, in 7x57 and .223. Both are long gone along with the two I mentioned that my brother had. I still use the regular Lee loader for odd jobs, including knocking out my pet .30/06 deer load. Originally, I used an RCBS competition die for seating the bullets in those, but now I just use the Lee tool for that as well. The arbor press is on my wish list.

This has been a more productive discussion than I thought it would be. I've spoken with enough guys I trust to know that some of the older guns could suffer from issues. On the other hand, I've got an '05 RSI which shoots bugholes. Seems the primary issue is throat length, which would be on Ruger rather than Wilson.

Agreed, for if they weren't junk barrels - then they sure were junk specs! Twists too slow and throats sooooooooooooo long the bullet falls out of the case trying anywhere even 'close to' the rifling. The 1V I had, had the most beautifully figured stock I've ever seen ... too bad the barrel was crap ...

My understanding is that Ruger used mostly Wilson barrels in the old days, and filled in with Douglas now and then when supply didn't meat demand. Later they went to Green Mountain. When exactly I can't say.

I have had #1s and M77s come into my shop for work for many many years, and as a rule the rifles with GM barrels seem more consistent. But you can't say "thus saith the Lord."

My friends Randy and Jeff had M-77s from the early 70s and they were both Wilson barreled rifles, and both were super accurate.

I used to have a 1976 made #1 in 270 Win that was a very good shooter too. Not a one-holer, but it would drop 3 rounds under an inch easily enough.

But I have seen several of them that were not very accurate. As a gunsmith, I guess it would be logical that I'd see more "bad ones" than most men. Good ones don't need work. That's like healthy folks not going to the doctor.

Maybe someone can tell me, but the rumor I heard about 12 years ago is that Ruger was now making their own barrels. I have no idea if that's true or not. But I can say that most of the newer Rugers I see are anywhere from very accurate to SUPER accurate.

Ruger started making their own barrels in the early 1990's, when they bought a hammer-forging machine. The barrels improved immediately, partly because they also shortened up the long throats in certain chamberings, but it takes time to become really proficient when running a hammer-forging machine. Over time the barrel got even better, and today Ruger barrels are some of the best among American factories.

Oh that was farther back then I thought.
Thanks for thew info.

I'm a relatively new guy to #1's with a .22 Hornet, 6.5x55 and a .275 Rigby. All are just fine.The Rigby took a bit of work to get right but the results are on par with any rifle I own. The throat is way out there though.

My 1976 model 7x57 shot patterns yesterday - like 9 to 10" groups. I went home disappointed wondering what the hell was wrong.

I went everything last night, and discover the barrel twist is 1 in 10", which sure as hell won't stabilize a 162 ELD-X Phooey All my references said they should have 1 in 8.75"

Tex, mine was an 8.75 twist?