Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots No. 1 "H" weights?

Curious, would some of you who own or have owned and
weighed tropicals please post up some actual unscoped
weights?

Ruger website has always made me kinda say "huh?" with
what they show.

And are all the tropicals the same barrel contour?
I can see a 375 weighing more than a 458 if
that is the case - but last time I peeked at Ruger's site,
they were showing a 450-400 a pound and a quarter lighter
than a 416

they're heavy. my 416 Rigby weighs 9.7# out of the box.

You guys must be hunting at an auto salvage yard!

I'm impartial - I like 'em all, big to small.
Something different.

My 375 H&H mag, ruger no. 1. weighs 8.25 lbs., bare bones.


maddog

I think the Rigby and the .458 always had very stout barrels, almost silly truck-axle sized. The .375 I owned had a distinctly lighter contour.

I read here the new Bodington .450 Nitro is a lighter rifle, more like in the 8-8.5 lb range - which is a good thing if true.

The .375 H&H is a smaller contour; it has always been a "C" weight barrel. The .458 WM is a "D" weight. Some of the other 1H's have used the "C" weight but I am not up on which ones specifically.

Jeff,

My SS/Lam .375 weighs 9# 10oz with my Viper 2-7x32 and Burris rings. I just took off the exact same scope/rings from my Whelen and they weighed 1# 1oz so, assuming they're close enough not to matter, mine weighs 8# 9oz. I do have a brake on mine as well as a Pachmayer Decelerator FWIW.

My blued/walnut .450/.400 3" weighs 9.25 lbs. with a Leupold 1 X 4 scope.

Thanks everyone, that is good news. I'd shyed away from
thinking too seriously about adding a tropical to my collection just because of the weight. But in particular
the C profile sounds about right. Now I have something else
to dream about, look forward to
Thinking a 405 or 450-400, but it'll be awhile before I'm
ready to jump.

I have an unscoped .458winmag No. 1 with the "axle shaft" barrel. I don't have an accurate scale to weigh it though. But with a .45 caliber hole in the end, it looks very proportionate. I couldn't imagine it with a slimmer barrel. FWIW, my daughters first grade teacher (110 lb. female) shot it with one of my light target loads, while standing. It obsorbs the recoil very nicely. If you like and collect No.1s, I definitely recommend adding a tropical model to you collection. I'll most likely never go to Africa, but it's always a good feeling to bring out the elephant gun and shoot a few rounds now and then.

I saw a picture of a .416 Ruger #1H, and I think it may be a C barrel, too. A .416 Ruger of reasonable weight launching those new 350 gr TTSX could be pretty interesting

My 458 weighs 9.3,the 45/70 is 7.4.I imagine wood density has some affect on weight.

My 9.3x74R weighs 8 lbs 1 oz with a 1.5-6x32 Leupold in the factory mounts. I think that Leupold lists the weight of this scope as 11.3 oz, so that puts the weight of the rifle and rings at about 7 lbs 6 oz.

I called Ruger to try and figure out if the 416 Ruger had the lighter weight 375 barrel contour or the heavier one of the 458 and the Rigby and they told me the 416 Ruger has it's own barrel contour. The pictures i've seen make it look like a lighter barrel than the one on my Rigby, but I haven't seen one in person to verify.

Basically, the bigger the hole, the lighter the rifle......!

Dave

Yes, but complicated by a variety of different tapers also.
Maybe misguided, but of late I have become doubtful about
the accuracy of weights (or barrel lengths, twist rates)
published on Ruger's official website. Seems like they are
just sort of thrown out at random and don't always reflect
the truth of the matter.