Which Ruger No. 1?

[Maverick223]

I mis-spelled "shear"...above...and left out the "h" completely...anyways I didn't realize that the Swaros had that...I am considering putting one of those on my big bore (that I am yet undecided on..either a Ruger No. 1, or a CZ 550 chambered in .458WM...probably the latter). BTW, I don't find a .416 to be all that bad...but haven't shot one from the bench (and have no intentions to do so)...and can't afford to shoot it for extended sessions.

 

[jkingrph]

I've always loved the looks of the ruger no. 1's. But I have read over the years that their accuracy is spotty. One will be very accurate and the next not so accurate. Because of this, I have reasoned that their price is too much for me to spend on a rifle with such a track record. Too bad because like I said, I love the looks of the no. 1 and follow up shots can be made rather rapidly with practice once you have confidence in your load.
__________________
sig220

My little 1-a in 7x57 is the least accurate. It's one of the 70's vintage models with a very long throat. I get very good accuracy with the long 160gr Hornandy's and a short lightweight spitzer is spotty. They all give hunting accuracy, just not pinpoint target accuracy, but then the 1-a is a carrying, stalking rifle, not a real target gun.

 

[Robert Wilson]

The reputation for "spotty" accuracy comes from two problems: barrels, and the spring hanger.

Before Ruger installed their own hammer forging facilities they outsourced barrels, some of which were not very good. This is no longer an issue.

The spring hanger remains a bug-a-boo. Most of the time it is not a problem. The big bores, with their very stiff barrels, are rarely affected. But the light barrels, like the lovely 1-A contour, are sometimes unhappy. It has been my experience that the unhappy ones (extreme vertical stringing is the symptom) almost always respond to drilling and tapping the hanger, installing a screw through it, and using the screw to force the hanger away from the barrel. For those not interested in DIY, the Hicks Accurizer accomplishes the same thing.

 

[dmazur]

I finally got a chance to shoot my Ruger #1's (after the gunsmith finished working on them...)

.30-06 is doing 1" to 1.2", depending on loads. Handloads consisting of Varget and 150gr SST's seem to work best.

.243 is doing 0.5" to 1", depending on loads. Handloads of Varget and 95gr SST's are best of what I've tried.

This is so much better than these two 1A's did before rework it isn't even funny.

Tuneup work: PacNor barrels (heavier than 1A contour), Wenig laminated stocks to make them a 1AB, free-float barrels by bedding forend to spring hanger and receiver, polish factory trigger to 3#.

So, if you're truly crazy about Ruger #1's, you can do something like what's described above.

 

[KenWP]

I bought one brand new almost for $350 bucks. The guy who bought it was a little tiney guy and he tried to sight it in and never got through a box of shells as it is in 375 HH and he whimped out. I actually picked it up for a freind of mine that wanted it and once I got it in my hands couldnt part with it. Told him it had been sold.
It's great to reload for as they make a smaller bullet for it also and of course the 270 grain bullet can't be beat. I am a left handed shooter but right handed so it's the best of two worlds for me as I can work the action with my left hand when with a bolt action I can't due to a useless left hand except to pull the trigger.

 

[Zeke/PA]

I own a 200th Year #1 in .270 and also a Varminter in .25-'06 and after some forearm work on both, they shoot sub1" groups with reloads.
I am always on the market for a #1 in non-magnum calibers and I would like to have one in 7MM Mauser.
Missed the boat awhile back on a #1 in .22 Hornet and I'm still kicking myself.
Ruger #1's are fine rifles.