Attention Ruger Inc.

[Guy La Pourque]

I am probably going to get shot for this - and maybe rightfully so - but I want a classy Ruger No. 1.

Why in blazes is this gun not offered in the graceful octagonal barrels and provisions for the archaic tang sights the BPCR guys are so enamoured with? I know it wouldn't be a BPCR legal rifle but who cares? The idea of the gun was a modern take on an old world design in the first place, wasn't it?

I figure that if these guys can crank out a piston AR15 on a whim and push it into an overcrowded market...can't they do the same with the No. 1?

I wonder what is preventing them from doing this? From a marketing standpoint something like this would be obvious to me...

[bruce drake]

Production Costs versus forecasted return for the outlay of material and equipment.

AKA - Its cheaper to turn out a round barrel versus an octagonal and its cheaper to put one of their sights that already in production on a barrel versus purchasing another sight from Pedersoli or another producer or setting up a line to produce those BPCR sights themselves...

If the market was there, they would jump into it. Tacticool and polymer firearms are cheaper to produce and are being purchased in quantity to offset the costs of setting up the machines to produce them.

Ruger No. 1s are priced such that whoever can afford them can afford to trick out the rifle the way they want it afterwards. You don't see No1s being used as truck guns very often...

Bruce

[myfriendis410]

My Ruger No 1 has spent a LOT of time in the truck. So much so that it's named: "Miss Piggy".

[oldred]

Why in blazes is this gun not offered in the graceful octagonal barrels and provisions for the archaic tang sights the BPCR guys are so enamoured with? I know it wouldn't be a BPCR legal rifle but who cares? The idea of the gun was a modern take on an old world design in the first place, wasn't it?.

I have wondered the same thing and although it would be easy enough to custom build one such as that on a used no. 1 action it might get a bit spendy unless a person has the means to perform the work themselves. I agree that such a rifle would be very appealing and maybe Ruger is missing the boat on this one, but then maybe not.


Let's see, a nice medium weight octagon barrel and a really nice feather grain walnut stock with a crescent butt plate plus a good long range sight......possibilities are endless. It may not be BPCR legal or even "traditional" but like you said who cares?

[Rick Hodges]

I would be happy if they just brought the plain jane #3 back...maybe add the .358 Win chambering while they were at it.

[Gunslinger1911]

As said above, not enough people want the cool things we may want.

On another forum site, we went through a similar thread except the "I want's" were for a no. 1 in 22LR - go figure ! Talk about a high dollar .22 !!!

[9.3X62AL]

i would be happy if they just brought the plain jane #3 back...maybe add the .358 win chambering while they were at it.

definitely!

[Shooter]

Or a #3 in .357 Max..

[Hardcast416taylor]

Even an old retired plumber, namely ME, would be interested in an octagan barreled Number 1 in an appropiately rimmed cartridge. Either my memory is bad or something, but I seem to remember Ruger making a special run of the #1 with an octagan barrel once for another company`s celebration of some sort?Robert

[timbuck]

group buy?

As said above, not enough people want the cool things we may want.

Maybe if Davidson's or Lipsey's hears enough about this, they would be interested.
Time to start bugging the above about it.

[telebasher]

You need to get with Lipseys and convince them that is a market for these. Remember that is how the 44 SPL got started and now its a catalogue item from Ruger.

[Boz330]

I would be happy if they just brought the plain jane #3 back...maybe add the .358 Win chambering while they were at it.

I'm with Rick and AL.

As far as the tang sight it would be tough with the safety back there. But the sight that they put on the Win. 95s might be somewhat classy. Peabody is making those.

Bob

[TNsailorman]

Drool! A Ruger #3 in .358 Winchester--the drool factor would be almost too much to stand. I wouldn't care if it had a round or octagon barrel. I would manage to find the right sights also. Bring it on Ruger and I couldn't resist. Did I say I like .35's. James

[herbert buckland]

Even an old retired plumber, namely ME, would be interested in an octagan barreled Number 1 in an appropiately rimmed cartridge. Either my memory is bad or something, but I seem to remember Ruger making a special run of the #1 with an octagan barrel once for another company`s celebration of some sort?Robert

They did put out a special modle for Lyman ,cased and fitted with one of those old brass scopes, in 45-70 ,a very impresive set

[Larry Gibson]

Because they are hammerless Ruger #1s and other hammerless BPCR are not allowed in many BPCR competitions. Ergo not a good market for them.

Larry Gibson

[Chill Wills]

The only competition that I know of that the Ruger #1 can not compete in is NRA BPCR Silhouette
In most other matches they are welcome. They for sure CAN be used in NRA longrange Creedmoor, ......and have been.

[Nobade]

Heck, I'd be happy if they would just drill & tap them for the Williams peep sight so I didn't have to.

OK, what would be really cool is a military style sight set. Something like the 1901 Krag. Just dial in your elevation and shoot. Oh, why can't modern rifles come with sights as good as what was available 100 years ago?

[Good Cheer]

I'm happy with a modified No.3. Mucho yeehah.

[Artful]

I would be happy if they just brought the plain jane #3 back...maybe add the .358 Win chambering while they were at it.

yep that would be great

I have #3's in 223 & 375 Big Bore - I would be interested in .357 Max or .358 WCF

[.22-10-45]

Hello, Guy..I agree 100%...even if they went with a heavy tapered round brl. like the Sharps Borchards had would be nice. But MY biggest pet peeve is why Ruger..and Dakota too, for that matter saddle a nice single shot rifle with a stubby 22" brl.?
The very advantage of having the short (as compared to the long tubular reciever of bolt guns) is the fact that even with a 26" or 28" brl...the overall length is still shorter. This puts the difference in length just where it is most usefull..increased velocity from a longer..and IMO, especially on a S.S. graceful brl.