[Rauhbutz]

After reading several discussions and posts on Ruger No 1 s and accuracy issues and various approaches to tuning the rifle I thought some Ruger shooters might find the link, and the article, of value. His findings sure helped me tune the daylights out of my No 1 300 Win Mag.


...may have to transfer the link to your browser. If you into difficulties search - Ruger accuracy+Rifle Magazine 1977+Frank de Hass



https://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/ri51partial.pdf

 

[nsb]

I know they're a popular gun and have a following. I had one about thirty years ago in 25-06 hvy bbl varmint. I spent about a year trying to get that thing to shoot and finally made the best decision of my life.....I traded it for something else. There are just too many other guns out there that don't require jumping through hoops to get some kind of decent accuracy out of. Everyone wants one, and everyone is aware there are accuracy issues with most of them. After thirty years I still don't understand the mystique. Anyway, hopefully some will benefit from reading the link. Welcome to the forum and the contribution.

 

[JBelk]

Just remember that several bedding changes have been made since 1977. You're not working on the same rifle as Frank.

The Number One has MANY more challenges than any bolt gun. Some are right, some are wrong and some can be so wrong as to cost another gun to make right.

 

[HarrySS]

Welcome Rau.

The cantilever was/is a problem.

The early rifles were generally terrible...Ruger was outsourcing the barrels to the lowest cost supplier. It took them over 10 years to understand that they made a great action but wed it to junk barrels. No amount of 'tuning' the forearm will help these rifles. Same problem with the tang safety model 77.

The forend tuning resulted in a tuning device commerically available; it helped but didn't fix the problem...bad barrels.

I have a few no. 1s. Some early some late. No comparison. New ones are sub MOA (usually). Old ones are probably best rebarreled.

Thanks for posting the article, well written and true then.

 

[langenc]

Just read an article about shooting #1s. Problem w/ those 20 or so yr old rifles, according to the article was the barrel.


Ruger bought barrels of questionable quality. Got lots of complaints and finally started making their own barrels. True?? I dont know but it seems guys now have quite a bit good to say about their accuracy.. I dont own one.. Would have 15 or more rs ago except for the reputation.



Now?? have too many that I dont shoot..

 

[Irv S]

Only have experience with one No. 1. It's a .300 Wea. No. 1B to which a muzzle brake was added, very accurate, much more so than needed when hunting critters that justify a cartridge like that. I could I be talked out of it easily as I no longer use it as I moved to a .340 Wea for the elk/moose size critters and a .270 Win for the deer/pronghorn size critters, and then to a pointy stick (arrow) for both.

 

[MZ5]

Just read an article about shooting #1s. Problem w/ those 20 or so yr old rifles, according to the article was the barrel.


Ruger bought barrels of questionable quality. Got lots of complaints and finally started making their own barrels. True??

Maybe more like 40 years ago, but yes. Ruger has been hammer forging their own barrels since the early-mid 1990s.

 

[William A. Reed]

This bad barrel business may have gotten larger on the net. This is a small sample of four older rifles that do shoot very well. My take on it is that the rifles can be finicky. My most recent experience has been with a Number One B in 257 Roberts. The consensus is that Douglas barrels in inventory were used up and replaced by another make. Break was not clear.

 

[JBelk]

I've been working on #1s since 1969 and have seen pretty much everything that could go wrong done that way, but for the most part, they're straight enough and square enough to give good accuracy.
The 'bad barrel' period was prior to '76 and can be easily identified when new by running a dry patch through the bore and then looking at it with a bore scope. If it looks like the fence at the county dump from hung up shreds of debris, THAT is one of the 'bad' ones. Some of those shot great! I think more M77s got the rough barrels than #1s.

 

[MontyF]

The #1 V, in the instances I've worked with, have been good shooters with minor tweeking. Heard stories of bad barrels and ran into a couple on tang safety M77s.

 

[Ironworker]

Winchester 1885 220 swift

Well my Trigger on my rifle was terrible,its in Lee Shavers shop now getting his magic done to it. Also forearm is now fully floated . So when I receive shipment of trigger ,put the rifle back together. I'll post my results. But so far this beautiful looking rifle has been a headache.

 

[MZ5]

What does your Winchester have to do with the Ruger No.1?

 

[Ironworker]

Falling block

Same type of action with similar characteristics .

 

[JBelk]

True-- Falling block, swing hammer actions have many quirks besides bedding that affects accuracy.

 

[Stony]

I love the look of the #1's and generally like Rugers, just could never get into buying a rifle and then trying to make it work as intended. I have watched guys trying all kinds of stuff to get one to shoot a group. Heck I even listened to some guys saying you needed to put some rubber innertube under the forearm to relieve stress on the barrel. This was years ago and I'm sure that fix has been proven to be a goofy thing...but it's hard for me to buy an expensive rifle with the knowledge that I am going to have to immediately jump through hoops to make it actually shoot as intended. I tried a few many years ago, but didn't keep them long.

 

[Ironworker]

Falling block rifles

My Winchester 1885 at first was a headache ,but after I had the trigger worked on by a Gunsmith that specializes in falling block rifles and applying his advice on shimming and free floating the forearm. Plus learning to hold it the same way every time,its now a tack driver..... But I hear those Ruger No 1 are much tougher to get to shoot well.I like Ruger hand guns and they're PRS rifle and shot guns ,but not much else.

 

[Crusty Ol'Coot]

Guess I'm one of the lucky ones, as the #1s I've owned over the years have all been good to excellent shooters.

That was even before I figured out how to float that forend.

Floating is something I do on ALL my bolt and #1 hunting rifles, as I simply do not abide providing conditions - heat/cold/wet/dry/change in hold or rest - the opportunity to effect shot placement.

I understand some folk not being attracted to the #1, but I have loved them ever since I saw that first magazine ad way back and they have never lost their attraction for me.

Possible exceptions being the laminated stocks or the Alexander Henry forend.

Took me awhile, but finally figured out how to retain the forearm wood and checkering while getting rid of that ugly groove. Makes that rifle into one class piece!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

 

[hipshot1]

My Winchester 1885 at first was a headache ,but after I had the trigger worked on by a Gunsmith that specializes in falling block rifles and applying his advice on shimming and free floating the forearm. Plus learning to hold it the same way every time,its now a tack driver..... But I hear those Ruger No 1 are much tougher to get to shoot well.I like Ruger hand guns and they're PRS rifle and shot guns ,but not much else.

Perhaps you would share the name and contact info on the 'smith' that worked on your rifle.
Can PM the info if you choose.

 

[Ironworker]

Lee Shaver

Google Lee Shaver and his website will pop right up. Specialize in falling block rifles.

 

[Darkker]

Back to the topic at hand fellas...