Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Pitiful factory stocks and finishes.

While I realize the price point market drives what manufacturers produce, for Ruger to put satin finishes on the metal and wood of their top of the line rifle (No.1) is purely pitiful. On top of that, unless you pay a large premium, you now get the plainest of wood on the No. 1's.
I've seen wood stocked Howas with better wood.
Anyone else feel the same way?

Yup, that's why all my Rugers are "red pads", back when exceptional wood was normal. The last holdout was the RSM bolt action, but now it is gone too.
Good factory wood today is Sauer, Weatherby or high grade CZs.

Red pads can still be found and you will pay a premium but......

Those were the days...

#1 in .220 Swift.

DF

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end...

My god, what a bunch of nostalgia driven hoo-hah...

FWIW for every "Red pad" Ruger no 1 with wood like those above, I can show you TEN that have wood as plain as any currently made No 1.


As a matter of fact, to anyone who has really been paying attention, there have probably been more Ruger no. 1 rifles made with nice wood in the last 4 to 5 years than the previous 30.

Jim,
While I understand you opinion, I have not seen it borne out. Besides the blue jobs on the #1 isn't near what it used to be. Can't deny Ruger's cost cutting. unless you buy Circassian it is not happening....IMHO
P.S. If they are not cost cutting, how do you explain the Hawkeye???

I prefer satin finish, but I don't understand why they don't put any finish in the barrel channel, action inlet, or under the butt pad. The first thing you need to do with any wood stocked ruger is pull it apart and "finish" what they started.

Well John Boy, you simply need to look over as many No 1 rifles as I have during the last 30+ years.

Nice wood on Ruger no 1s has NEVER been a sure thing- ever.
They made many guns with plain wood even from the very first.

I suggest you go over to Gunbroker and look over all the Ruger no. 1 rifles listed for sale. Overall, you will find very little difference in Red pad rifles vs Black pad guns in terms of overall wood quality.

In terms of "explaining" the current Hawkeye rifles, it is a matter of personal taste and , as you so amply demonstrate, a rifle factory cannot please everyone. They must make decision on the standard finish offered. And they are usually damned if they do and damned if they don't.

For the record, not everyone thought that the original Ruger m77 high polished blue with the satin stocks and matte aluminum bottom metal was the "high point" of classic rifle styling.

I the defense of Ruger's current Hawkeye rifle finishes, go into ANY go into ANY London gunmaker's shop or into an American Custom Gun quild show and 95% of the guns there will have rust blued metal(satin finished) along with matte gloss hand rubbed stocks.

The only way a factory can replicate such finishes on a production rifle and hope to make them affordable is precisely the way Ruger is doing the Hawkeyes now. They are either bead blasting or sanding blasting the metal for a matte hot blued finish and spraying on a matte stock varnish.

For that matter ,so does Kimber, Cooper and a whole host of riflemakers who's products cost 50 to 100% more than a brand new Hawkeye.

And BTW, the is more checkering coverage on the new Hawkeye stocks than the old m77s stocks to boot..

Jim,
you are correct, partly.
In my 30+ years I have built slow rust blues rifles with hand rubbed oil finish and checkered them also. So, as not to be mis-understood, I despise the poly finishes on Remingtons, Brownings etc. The old S&W high polish is beautiful. The current finish is not. Let's not even discuss Pythons and that Colt blue. Magnificent. Polishing is labor intensive and a craftsman skill (check out one that's done wrong) thereby costing money...Bead blasting a trained monkey can do. It's all about price point as we Americans usually have fine wine tastes and beer budgets. Factories will downgrade their product and use the media, advertising etc to convince the consumer it's the latest, greatest thing they can't live without. So the fact remains and can't be denied; Ruger, S&W, Winchester, you name 'em, they are cutting costs (quality) to satisfy mass consumer demand for cheaper goods. Witness all of the manufacturing sent to China. The fact also remains that Americans will pay for quality when they are able and motivated by need or desire. Hence Rigbys, Nosler, Zeiss etc.
Your turn....

The is the most true thing you have posted yet on this thread..

And it explains why for a street price of about $650 ,a Ruger Hawkeye is finished the way it is.

Especially since fully half of the folks who look at a current Hawkeye actually think it's a BETTER looking rifle than any of the older ones.. There is the "personal taste" thing there again.

The fact is, in the areas where it counts, the old Ruger M77 rifles where just as big of a pile of loosely fitted investment cast parts as the new ones are.

The m77 Rugers have always been good relaible working class rifles- but they never were mistaken for pre-war Oberndorf Mauser Sporters.

The m77 Rugers have always been good relaible working class rifles- but they never were mistaken for pre-war Oberndorf Mauser Sporters. [/quote]

Absolutely true. a Mauser is not a Ruger. The Hawkeyes do come with steel bottom metal now also.
The Street price of $650? You pay too much my friend. I paid less than $500 each for two almost new SS Hawkeyes.
Matter of fact I have not bought a new firearm since 1978. Used ones are generally, but not always, a better investment.

The $650 I was quoting was for the wood stocked Hakeyes, brand new in a gunshop ( who are in business to make a profit, BTW..)

Your fixation on low prices may be a reason why you never see any newer Ruger No 1 rifles with "nice wood" on them.

The dregs which have been picked over are the cheap ones in the racks. The ones with nice wood (of any vintage) are already in the safes of those folks who don't expect to buy every rifle they own for 50 cents on the dollar..

BTW, how is "figure" on those plastic stocked stainless Hawkeyes you have $500 tied up in??

I bet they are stunning..

I own 2 No 1's with better than average wood, but the fit is pathetic. Fortunately it's due to excess wood at the metal/wood junctions and I can rectify that with a little work.

The plainest of wood is more superior in looks than black plastic.

Jim,
Havn't you heard, black is beautiful!!!
The .223 now wears a walnut Compact stock I bought here on the Campfire. Short LOP for the grandkids, very plain wood. Restocking with higher grade is no problem for me, as I said I do stock work including checkering. and the other gentleman is correct, wood to metal fit is terrible on all #1's. That also can be corrected. .50 on the dollar, Sure will when investing. Bought a custom Mauser one time. The wood appeared very dark, but I detected a hint of figure. Bought it cheap from a pawn shop. Removed the flared pistol grip and the ridiculous monte carlo. After the oil finish it was actually a much lighter nicely figured walnut. Old poly finishes darken with age and actually hide the grain. Sold it years ago at a small profit.
I know gunshops need to profit to feed their families. The small local ones are still good for a bargain. But Cabelas etc. I never buy from.

I think part of the reason synthetic stocks have become so popular, aside from practicality, is that wood stocks on most makes of rifles these days look like cheap crap. Granted, it is as true as ever that one ultimately gets what they pay for.

One exception, IMHO, are CZ rifles and shotguns. Certainly for the reasonable bucks they cost, usually very nice fit and finish.

These days all I care about is that is the trigger serviceable, a decent enough barrel and it feeds and extracts, as far as the handle goes, as long as its bedded ok and it some what fits. Fine that is all one can really ask for a 500 dollar rifle. The more refinement you want be it wood, finish and fit, well good hand work is not cheap. There are smiths around that can and do that sort of stuff. Good stock wood is fast becoming hard to find and very very expensive, even before a craftsman puts a file to the wood.

you're right about the cost of good wood. For all the hype and drooling about McSwirlwhatever, I've never seen one that made me say WOW. Now English walnut.... that's a horse of a different color...

I quite have to agree with Jim62 about the quality of #1 wood. I have owned over 60 #1's in the last 35 years. Almost all of them were purchased 1st and foremost for the chambering and not the wood quality. Of them all, perhaps half a dozen had NICE wood. None of them have EVER had the quality of wood that folks here seem to demand.

Of the perhaps 20% of them that I purchased new, most were either purchased by myself when I had an FFL, or purchased thru a friend that is a dealer. Of those that were purchased new, most were bought on distributor close-out, or in the case of my SS/Walnut, .35 Whelen, and 6.5x55 and my AB in .25/06; were limited runs that I jumped on immeadiately upon hearing of the availablility. (And, of course, when you buy like that, the quality of the wood is "luck of the draw"...)

Of all the #1's that I've owned, only about 6 or 8 were "Black Pad" #1's.

IMHO, to expect that one MUST get the quality of wood that most here on these pages demand, is just TOTALLY unrealistic. And the price that most want for them is unrealistic, as well... For instance, one of my local gun shops has had a 1-V in .22/.250 on the used rack for 4-5 mos. priced at $569.95, and there it sits.... One would think that's a give-away price according to most folks around here...

YUP! Gotta agree with Jim62

GH

If it is still on the rack, let me know where. There must be something wrong for it not to have sold.
I'm not being unrealistic.
In my years of experience it doesn't go without saying that you don't get something for nothing.
Businesses operate for profit not for fun. When competition enters the product must be made profitable or go out of business. You guys are missing the point. I also mentioned the lesser degree of finish work on the metal. Ruger Hawkeyes are a prime example. It is nothing more or less than a cheaper way to finish the metal. Turn it over to the advertising department and in short order they would have you believe it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Remington SPS is another cheap finish. The vaunted CDL with "Laser" cut checkering? Advertising hogwash. Pitiful excuse for real checkering. I've tried to recut the junk. It is almost as bad as abomination of checkering as the pressed checkering mess. The new Winchester (Japanese) Highwalls...let's not even talk about them. I've looked over hundereds of listings on the various sights looking for #1's. By and large the quallity of the wood and the bluing of the metal has degraded substantially, not only on the Rugers, but on firearms in general. Say what you will, I'll pay for quality when it's there.

That's all fine and dandy but have you tried to "flip" a gun lately? Give it a whirl and you may get an education. The economy is [bleep]. And quite frankly, we should be praising Ruger for having the fiscal sense to find a way to keep [bleep] out #1's and Red Labels at all!

They may end up shipping them with a coat of Krylon for all I know. Long as they keep shipping them I'm happy.


Travis