Manly-man gun sighting (Ruger #3 in 45-110)

[ohland]

Folks, I am nowhere near the man I needed to be, today. I was seduced by a Ruger #3 with a tiger striped maple stock, with a steel buttplate. Sort of like a swank muzzleloader stock. It was purty. But the deal killer was the VERY BIG BARREL. Reminds me of a full bull Encore Barrel, the diameter was HUGE, gosh I'm impressed.

After my heart rate got below 180, I noticed that the svelt stock, the steel buttplate, and the short (21" or so) barrel would beat the bejeebers out of me....

The first thing I would have done is pull that hulking barrel and toss on something in the 32-41 class.

For some people, love must be cruel, but I draw the line at deep bruises....

[osteodoc08]

She sounds putty, but I agree, way to short a barrel. I enjoy a little shoulder adjustment every now and again, but that would be brutal.

[country gent]

Ruger number 1 and 3s are rifles with traditional lines and looks the stock desighn could be better for handling recoil at times. I have a couple and really like them going to the big 45s in a light rifl;e is asking for a beating. Think even with black powder 55- gnr bullets at 1350 to 1400 fps is going to be brutal.

[bob208]

I bought a new number 3 in .375 win. that was before they even had loading data out. used .38-55 data. it still kicked like a mule. traded it off two years later.

[Artful]

I bought a new number 3 in .375 win. that was before they even had loading data out. used .38-55 data. it still kicked like a mule. traded it off two years later.

Funny, I had Ruger #3 in 45-70 traded it off for 375 big bore so I could handle the recoil.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/rowdyfisk/FAL/RugerNo3-375WCF.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/rowdyfisk/media/FAL/RugerNo3-375WCF.jpg.html)
of course I did add a recoil pad ;-) - then they came out with one that was a direct replacement :x
Still more fun to shot the #3 in 223 - I should have bought a truck load of those when they quit making 'em.

[captaint]

Funny - anytime we look at used rifles for sale, it's obvious that folks are most unhappy with their 45-70's. They shoot them a couple of times and say "that's enough". I've considered buying rifles in many calibers, but never the 45-70. I guess if I lived out West and had room to really stretch one out, maybe a Sharps in 45-70. They say they really shine at long range.

[oldred]

it's obvious that folks are most unhappy with their 45-70's. They shoot them a couple of times and say "that's enough".

On what planet? The 45/70 has got to be one of the most popular cartridges of all time! Besides recoil from a 45/70, if a problem, is easily tamed and in fact the 45/70 has become well known as a "mild to wild" cartridge that can be tailored to almost anyone's liking.

"Obvious that folks are most unhappy with their 45/70s", SURELY you jest!!! :D

[pertnear]

Years ago, I bought a Ruger #3 that had been rebarreled with a featherweight, 22" Apex .270 Win tube. The original stock also had a small "joke-of-a" recoil pad. At 6lbs it is as handy a rifle as you ever carried or manuevered in a blind, but the recoil with that tiny butt is sharp & brutal! It shoots really good too off a bench rest. The problem for hunting is that this flyweight rifle's forend recoils away from whatever you rest it against, for example, like a deer blind window edge & don't even think about holding it into the window's corner. I like the rifle, but I'm thinking about rebarreling to a less intense cartridge & a chunkier pipe.

[725]

Slip a mercury recoil dampener up the through bolt hole. Install it with a wooden dowel so that it doesn't flop back and forth. It'll tame the devil out of a hard kicker. (Have done so on my formerly .458 WM - now .458 Lott Ruger #1. It's almost a ***** cat now. Not quite, but way better.

[Artful]

Funny - anytime we look at used rifles for sale, it's obvious that folks are most unhappy with their 45-70's. They shoot them a couple of times and say "that's enough".

Well, I must be a slow learner - I've had a Marlin in 45-70 for 20+ years
and in a heavy bolt rifle a 375 Weatherby which does wallop harder than my 300 win mag
and my 45-70.

[M-Tecs]

Funny - anytime we look at used rifles for sale, it's obvious that folks are most unhappy with their 45-70's. They shoot them a couple of times and say "that's enough". I've considered buying rifles in many calibers, but never the 45-70. I guess if I lived out West and had room to really stretch one out, maybe a Sharps in 45-70. They say they really shine at long range.


The light weight and the stock design of the Ruger #3 is not conducive to any medium to heavy recoiling cartridge. I know lots and lots of folks with 45-70's and none are unhappy with the 45-70 cartridge. I currently have 12 and it will soon be 14.

[458mag]

Had a 458LOTT ounce. Got rid of it. Shooting sopposed to be fun.

[pertnear]

If you like shooting & experimenting with cast bullets, the .45-70 is a ball! Mine is a Ruger #1. It's a joy to shoot with 350gr lead at about 1,200 FPS. It shoots clover leafs with Unique.

For an occasional deer hunt I have a jacketed 300gr Rem JHP load at about 2,100 that makes 'em DRT. It doesn't take boxes & boxes of shooting to get it zeroed so recoil is not a big problem, but you do know when it goes off!

[bob208]

I have 2 trapdoor rifles in .45-70 can shoot them all day long with 500gr. bullets no problem. a heavy barreled rolling block same thing. maybe that is why when you read about the old buff. hunters you read of 12-14 pound guns.

[oldred]

Honestly how many folks are really unhappy with their 45/70s, I mean REALLY? Good gosh the 45/70 is one of the most popular rounds ever made and generally folks are quite fond of it rather than being unhappy with them, I just don't see where that's coming from unless it was just some sort of joke maybe? :confused:

[gwpercle]

We tend to get smarter in our old age. Those "how much punishment can I take " years are gone and we start to see the light. A Ruger No 1 in 32-40 starts looking real good about now!
My heavy rifle now is a 30-30!

[captaint]

Just be my imagination. I was thinking I see lots of 45-70 for sale. I must be wrong. Of course we see lots of other calibers for sale also.

[oldred]

It would be strange if there were NOT any 45/70s for sale since there are so many of them out there, any popular caliber is likely to be found in abundance.

[Harry O]

I have bought three Ruger No. 3's in various calibers. The light weight and contoured hard buttplate made shooting even the 30-40 Krag difficult for more than 10 rounds. The number that could be shot from the .375 Winchester was even fewer. I bought three sets of Ruger No. 1 stocks with a thick, soft buttpad. They bolt right up. Shooting them now is a piece-of-cake. I call them my Ruger No. 2's. I did not change the No. 3 lever. It is a little awkward, but it is not difficult enough to make me change them.

[Artful]

I call them my Ruger No. 2's. I did not change the No. 3 lever. It is a little awkward, but it is not difficult enough to make me change them.

Yeah, I remember the first gun rag article about doing that but I think he changed his lever a little.
For those with a limited imagination ...
http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt242/AgCatJHS/78dda78df4b97cff11b9c75d12f0cf9a_zps45608f17.jpg

[MBTcustom]

Just be my imagination. I was thinking I see lots of 45-70 for sale. I must be wrong. Of course we see lots of other calibers for sale also.

Where? Are they selling cheap?

45-70 is an absolute monster of a cartridge that will dislocate your shoulder if you're brave enough to pull the trigger. I consider them unfit for ownership, and I'm trying to protect as many poor unsuspecting souls as possible by taking as many of these terrible firearms off the market as I can with my limited funds.
I don't enjoy it, but it's a tough job that somebody has to do, and I'm putting myself out there to protect my fellow shooters. (a pious sigh for effect)
Yes, there was a time when rifles chambered in 45-70 were the most coveted caliber you could shoot a cast bullet through, but that has long changed since the introduction of calibers such as the 22 hornet, 30-30, and 358 Winchester.

Since nobody is in the market for these terrible rifles in 45-70, then those who were duped into buying them are pretty much stuck with them. Since I have set myself up as the 45-70 disposal facility for central USA, just PM me and you can ship these terrible rifles to me, and I will make sure that no one ever finds themselves in this sticky situation again.
Rest assured, they are all safe here with me.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Well I recon I am also a part of some mysterious minority that think the Ruger #3 in 45-70 is a fine hunting rifle for a castboolit shooter. Round ball up to 450 grainers are fine to me. I weigh a whopping 148 today and would have no issue to be able to get out the #3 and enjoy the afternoon walking the desert hoping to see anything more than a rock to rearrange. But that will not happen down here so I will be content to wander East ILLinois river bottoms and ditches with the #3 and maybe a groundhog or coyote will be foolish enough to let me Injun up on them next time up north there.
Seriously though, try shooting your #3 off cross sticks and not from a bench. Makes a world of difference and with a little practice you will soon be shooting near as well and not getting beat to a shoulder pulp .

Mike in Peru

[ohland]

whopping 148

My gosh, ever think of seeing a doctor for your medical condition? I last saw 148 in high school, about the same time Jimmy Carter became an ex-president.

[Char-Gar]

The 45-70 is a mixed blessing, but a thoroughly useful and manageable rifle.

Weight is a factor in what loads are wise for the rifles. The Army used two different loads for the rifle and the carbine. The rifle load was 500 grain bullet over 70 grains of black powder. The carbine load was 405 grain bullets over 55 grains of black powder. The extra air space in the carbine load was filled with two fiber wads. The rifle load could be fired in the carbine, but the recoil was too much for the average cavalry trooper, who were on the small side anyway.

I have a Ruger No. 3 in 45-70 and like it allot. When loaded hot, the kick is very strong. I only shoot enough loads to assure myself of the zero. I don't feel recoil in the field and have killed several deer with it.

For fun shooting, I like a 350 - 400 grain cast bullet over 24/2400. This is not an unpleasant load in the least.

In my Marlin lever gun a 405 RCBS GC bullet over 28/4759 makes a very comfortable and accurate load with plenty of thump when the bullet hits.

The 45-70 rounds is a fine and effective on, but it does require the use of common sense, when it comes to loading it for a particular rifle.

[Char-Gar]

Greetings
Well I recon I am also a part of some mysterious minority that think the Ruger #3 in 45-70 is a fine hunting rifle for a castboolit shooter. Round ball up to 450 grainers are fine to me. I weigh a whopping 148 today and would have no issue to be able to get out the #3 and enjoy the afternoon walking the desert hoping to see anything more than a rock to rearrange. But that will not happen down here so I will be content to wander East ILLinois river bottoms and ditches with the #3 and maybe a groundhog or coyote will be foolish enough to let me Injun up on them next time up north there.
Seriously though, try shooting your #3 off cross sticks and not from a bench. Makes a world of difference and with a little practice you will soon be shooting near as well and not getting beat to a shoulder pulp .

Mike in Peru

I weighted 148 pounds in 8th grade.

[Clay M]

Enjoy your #3...:lol:

[Blacksmith]

I shoot a .45-70 Pistol, a manly handgun.:grin:

[Plate plinker]

Wimp! Now man up.

[Harry O]

I have bought three Ruger No. 3's in various calibers. The light weight and contoured hard buttplate made shooting even the 30-40 Krag difficult for more than 10 rounds. The number that could be shot from the .375 Winchester was even fewer. I bought three sets of Ruger No. 1 stocks with a thick, soft buttpad. They bolt right up. Shooting them now is a piece-of-cake. I call them my Ruger No. 2's. I did not change the No. 3 lever. It is a little awkward, but it is not difficult enough to make me change them.

A few other things I should mention:
1) When I got my first No. 3 (a 30-40 Krag), the accuracy was not very good. I read a book by Frank DeHass with a recommendation of shimming the gap between the barrel and the hanger ahead of the action and below the barrel (I forget the technical name of that). Anyway, I had some hard, aged walnut and machined a piece that matched the contour of the two parts it went between. I started with the dimension Mr. DeHass recommended and it worked fine. I did not take it apart to mess with it further. I used the same piece of wood with the next two No. 3's I bought. There is now an aftermarket bolt being offered that does the same thing -- upward pressure on the barrel.
2) The rear stock of a No. 1 bolts right up. The front stock does not. I ended up buying two unfinished rear stocks and finished them to match the front stocks. I had to do some minor fitting on the rear stock because they were only 95% finished, but strongly I believe a fitted No. 1 stock will bolt up without any additional fitting. However, the unfinished rear stock is MUCH cheaper than a finished take-off No. 1 stock.
3) I have scopes on two of them and a peep-sight on one of them. The one with a peep sight is the .375 Winchester. I did not want to take a chance of a scope cut. It was an early model and had to be drilled for the peep-sight. The 30-40 Krag has a 2x7 compact scope. This was drilled for a scope. The last one is a custom rifle (I did not build it -- I bought it used) that started out as a 30-40 Krag. The case was necked down to 7mm, the sides were blown out and the neck moved forward. It has the exact volume as a .280 Remington/7mm Express. The barrel is a Lilja 28" long. I have a 6x18 scope on it and regularly shoot it at 200 yards (maximum distance on the range I belong to).
4) All are now accurate and dependable. When I measured the before and after dimensions on the stocks, the No. 3 had more drop and less square inches to spread the load -- not to mention the hard buttplate. I believe all three things accentuated the recoil. With a No. 1 stock and a 1" thick, soft buttpad, recoil is no longer a problem.

[Geezer in NH]

Past Recoil Shield Shoulder Harness for anything over 7mm rem of the bench.
Or don't shoot of the bench. 45-110 must have been a BP shooter as unnedded for smokeless.

[Clay M]

The #3 is a hard kicker..Just the design of the stock and the weight of the rifle..
I had one in .30/40 Krag and the recoil was much worse than my original Springfield.
I never got on with the #3.. I do like the #1 in the larger calibers such as .45/70, .405 win and .375H&H..
They seem to handle recoil much better IMO.
I would much rather shoot my old Mod 70 win in .416 Rem off the bench than the Ruger #3 in .45/70 loaded out with a 400 gr bullet.
I would for sure rather shoot my .458 win standing up.
Stock design and the weight of the rifle is huge..