Ruger No. 1 - 45-70

[KnotRight]

Found a No.1 45-70 today and the steel was in ready good shape but the wood had a bunch of nicks on it. The Blue Book is showing this gun for around $500. I have never shot one or even been interest in one but after getting a Marlin 1885 in 45-70. I am thinking it would be nice to add it to the collection.

The question that I have, what do you think the gun is worth? Again, I would rate the steel around 92% and the wood around 80%.

[osteodoc08]

Most of the nicer ones I've seen are 850-1050 (tel:850-1050).

The one you describe I'd go for $700-800 if I was buying depended on how bad I wanted it

look at gunbroker and the competed aictions. That'll give you a more accurate value

[Zim]

Yes, I have not seen a 45-70 for that little in a while. Most, even used ones, hang around $1000.

If the metal is in good shape, the wood is replaceable.

[Clay M]

Yes, I have not seen a 45-70 for that little in a while. Most, even used ones, hang around $1000.

If the metal is in good shape, the wood is replaceable.

Keep in mind the wood is not available from Ruger.

I have asked them this question before.

They sell no aftermarket stocks for any of the #1's

[Lloyd Smale]

if you can get it for even 700 bucks buy it and run. If your passing on it at 500 let me know because id surely buy it for that.

[725]

I'd go $500 for a good metal Ruger #1 in .45-70 even if the wood is beyond salvage. I bet Boyd's makes a stock for it.

[Clay M]

New #1's have become pricey rifles.
The last one I bought cost me $1200
Probably the last one I will ever buy, unless I find a good deal on a used one which doesn't look very likely.

[Fishman]

I'll have to differ with some on here and say that model is quite common, and generally priced a bit lower than less common iterations from what I've seen. In the condition you describe, I wouldn't go more than $700, unless you just had to have it. Heck, new in box specimens in other calibers can be found for $900 or less as long as you aren't looking for a particular caliber.

[Clay M]

I love the #1 , but they have always been a challenge.
I have three that I would never part with.
The .30/06,the .405 win, and the .45/70
They all do exactly what I want,but I am not too sure I want any other #1's
The .405 win is my favorite.

[MT Chambers]

I'd pay the $500 even if it came with no wood!

[smoked turkey]

The No.1 is a very classic rifle and from what I have seen the price for the No. 1 should be starting at $750. Not to be contrary with the above post regarding the 45-70 as a more common caliber, and thus worth less, I tend to think the 45-70 would bring some more than a common smaller caliber No.1. But I confess I like most all No.1's regardless of caliber. Some of the older No.1s have nicer wood than some of the newer ones and that does increase the value of them.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

KnotRight,

I really like the RUGER #1 rifles. Have for many years and never had a bad one.

I enjoy the dickens out of my 45/70 and with a 465gr Wide Flat Nose cast bullet at 1650fps it is awesome on deer and elk.

This rifle with the 22" barrel is lighter then many of the #1 rifles and is a real joy to carry in the woods.

I bought this rifle for close to your 500dollar figure, but that was before the recent obamanation when everything took a big jump.

There was an equally fine/cherry 45/70 Marlin sitting on the same pawn shop rack when I bought the #1 and had I known then what I know now, I'd bought em both.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Clay M]

Because of the Obama Gold Rush on guns, my dealer has gone completely nuts with the prices of all guns.

I use to get any #1 new for under $1000 , now he wants $1200 for any of them.

I rarely see used #1's. I did see a use one in .375H&H at Cabelas. They wanted $1000 for it.

[Potsy]

Around here, anything under $700.00 on a half decent #1 is a screaming deal.
I know where there's a NASTY old #1A .30-06, and I'm juuust waiting on the guy to open his mouth about selling it.
Beware of #1's. They can cause otherwise perfectly good deer rifles to become parked in the safe.

[KnotRight]

Going back to take a look at it. Was quoted a price of $650. The issue that I have is spending 650 for that or putting it towards a pistol caliber lever action rifle.

[KnotRight]

UPDATE: Gun is in my safe!!!!
Got it for $600 plus tax. Looked at the metal and there is some very minor pitting on the receiver but not rusting. Going to take it to the smith in the next couple of days to see about getting the wood refinished and if he can touch up the bluing. Do not think that the gun was shot much. The bore is very clean and there is no gun powder on either end of the barrel.

Can not wait to see how it does on the range. Not sure about a scope but do not think that I will get one. Maybe a peep sight. I did call Ruger today to see when it was made or shipped in June of 1993.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

KnotRight,

Your experience may be like mine. I fully intended to scope mine - it came with a Pentax which quickly went down the road - but I thought I would try to sight in the factory irons before I mounted the Leopold 2X7.

OUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because of the lower head position needed for the iron sight use, the rifle really beat my face during recoil. It was so bad I wondered if I was going to be able to shoot this rifle.

Well I mounted the scope and the problem was gone! Not that it can't generate a goodly amount of recoil, but with the higher head position, no more pain or the face getting beat up.

Good Luck and keep us posted.

Wish you were closer I might be able to save you some bucks with cleaning up your new rifle.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

167508

[historicfirearms]

Crusty,
How is the eye relief with that scope? Is that the VXIII 2X7? I'm wanting to scope my 1A but have read that eye relief can be a problem especially with the new shorter scopes. It looks like you could have slid it back some more if you had wanted, so I assume it had plenty of eye relief. Oh, one more thing, what height scope rings did you use? I like how low that one sits.

[deepwater]

Looks like if the scope was moved aft it would hit the rear sight.
I put a newer VXiii on my .280 Rem and did not have the proper eye relief. Swapped out an older Burris that is much longer and works great.

[Clay M]

I have owned three Ruger #1 .45/70's over the years, and have found the .45/70 to be the easiest of all the #1's to get to shoot well.

Currently own a Stainless Laminate, and it is likewise a great shooter.

[osteodoc08]

You stole that. Sounds like a nice one to be in the safe. Time to break out the elephant stomper loads and give it a whirl.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Good morning all !

Here is how I play the eye relief game with the 2X7 Leupold scope. Read carefully so you fully understand how I approach the situation.

One of the recent posts suggests that if I were to slide the scope to the rear beyond where it is, the scope would touch the read sight. THAT IS TRUE!

Then, if I felt more flush and if the 2X7 didn't work well for me I'd buy one of the Leupold variables with lower power ranges, but HIGHER prices. I believe there are two such scopes in their line up.

I do not have a full field of view at the higher powers!

But, and this important to understand in this situation, I consider the 45/70 to be a relatively short range hunting rifle when compared to the many other typical high velocity rounds available. So I carry the scope mostly on the 2X setting, which considering the places I hunt, I feel to be a good match.

However, even without a full field of view, I have taken a growing pile of deer and two elk and many including the elk were taken at 7X.

The elk were taken at about 100yds as were a number of the deer including the bang flop last Fall

I carry on 2X, then depending on the situation and given the time, I MAY switch to the higher powers.

I like the 7X for load development on the bench!!!!!!!!!!!

I have had 2 - 2X7 Leupold scopes on this rifle. The first got moved to another rifle so I replaced it with a new Leupold 2X7 CDS (Custom Dial System) scope.

The CDS scope with the custom dial made for my 465gr Wide Flat Nose cast bullet at a velocity of 1650fps goes to 275yds. Been some years since I have taken a critter at a distance even close to that 275yd distance.

Because any critter that requires a fast reactive shot will be close in, the lower power settings work just fine and as noted, I have no problems with taking a shot if time and conditions allow at the higher powers.

Would setting up my .243, 30/06 or 300win mag in this way work? Not for me. I want those rifles to all have a full field of view at all power settings simply due to the fact that I could possible have a shot at an extended range. Something which hasn't happened for years.

So, lesson learned years back because I was carrying a 4X12 scope at the higher power - 12X - and missed a bull due to my mistake, I attempt to carry all my rifles with the variable at a lower power settings.

Hope this helps in understanding how and why this 2X7 works for me.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Clay M]

My Ruger #1's in .45/70 and .405 win have the Leupold VX-3 1.5X5 scope with the heavy duplex.
I also use Ruger's extension rings to get a full field of view.
I have the Leupold VX-3 2.5X8 with the Boone and Crockett reticle on my #1 .30/06
I removed the rear sight and used a sight blank in order to get the scope as far back as possible.

I am very pleased with these scopes.

[KnotRight]

Someone gave me a CHEAP scope that is 4x32 and it had the Ruger mounts. Stuck it on the rifle today just to see how it fit. The eye relief is about 5". Do you think that is enough with a 45-70? The end of the scope is over the safety. Hoping to try it out this weekend.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

The 5" sounds like plenty.

Ooooops sorry, forgot to reply to the question about ring height.

As far as I know, the rings are the standard height #1 rings.

Some folk have problems mounting scopes on the Number 1, and I have never had an issue.

Scopes always went on and worked fine!

The Leupold 1X5 is one of the good ones I was referring to. Just a bit higher priced then I was willing to pay out at that time. Especially since the 2X7 works just fine.

CDOC

[Clay M]

Someone gave me a CHEAP scope that is 4x32 and it had the Ruger mounts. Stuck it on the rifle today just to see how it fit. The eye relief is about 5". Do you think that is enough with a 45-70? The end of the scope is over the safety. Hoping to try it out this weekend.

Just be aware that the cheap scope may not hold up well to the recoil of that rifle ,depending on how hot you load it.

My standard load is a 360 cast bullet with 43 grains of Rel 7, which shoots great in my rifle.

It is not a very hot load , just a good medium load with tolerable recoil.

[Geezer in NH]

What blue book 20 years old????? :kidding:

[KnotRight]

I was looking through my junk pile and found a cheap Tasco 4X32 scope (yes I know Tasco) but the good thing is that it had a set of Ruger mount on it. The scope is very clear and could focus the cross hairs. Stuck it on the gun and hoping to take it to the range this weekend.

Going to reload some Missouri 405 grn coated bullets tonight. Maybe with some RL7. My Marlin likes about 1600 f/sec so I will start with that load.

[country gent]

I have a number 1a in 300win mag i use for deer on up when I was hunting. Great shooting rifle. I also have a Number 1V in 220 swift that is a very accurate varmint rifle for shooting off the barn roof at the farm, We used to climb up there and gun the farm for woodchucks in the early evenings. Was a ball and if you read range and wind right the rifle did its job. Mounting a scope may also restrict the area for loading a cartridge into the chamber. Both of mine the ejector just pops the empty out to stop at the saftey button leaving it there to be picked up. For awhile the swift wore a unertal return to battery scope. This really looked good and accented the original style lines of the rifle.

[Potsy]

I lucked up and found a Leupy M8 straight 2.5x.
It's not very bright, but it has ample eye relief, looks great on the rifle, and I do believe I could drive horseshoe nails with it and it would retain zero.

[EDG]

On high velocity #1s I like long tubed scopes like the older Burris 2X7. Those scopes are pretty long from the turret back and work really well on a #1.
On a 45-70 I prefer a straight tube fixed power scope like the Weaver K2.5 or K3 micro trac with the steel tubes built in the late 1970s.
The Leupold M8 fixed 3X with the straight tube is even better.

If you have time find a soft .460 ball, sinker or cast bullet and push it through the bore from the breech.
You may find that there is a tight spot at the front swivel band and at the front sight band. If the tight spots cause your groups to be poor Ruger will replace the barrel.

[Clay M]

I don't like crawling the stock to get a full field of view,and I don't like scopes that are mounted so high that I can't get a consistent cheek weld on the stock.
For me the Ruger extention rings are a must, and there are very few scope that will work out well on the #1.

Each person is different, so you will have to find what works for you.
Leupold has some of the better eye relief.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Clay,

It must be the type of scope in use, as I indicated earlier I have NEVER had an issue with getting a scope to work on a #1.

I use the lowest rings I can, which seems to be the standard rings supplied with the rifles.

MY first #1 had an old Redfield 4X12 mounted - 7mm Mag, then an old Lyman 10X on a 22/250, then a .223 with a 10X Weaver which because of not being clear on closer targets was replaced by a 10X Leupold, then a 6X Leupold on a .270, then a 3.5X10 Leupold on a 300Win Mag followed by a couple of Leupold 2X7s on my 45/70.

I can see if a person thinks they need a 50mm objective they may need to set the scope far forward or use a higher ring, but I have not been inflected with that "need" and again, have never had a scope mount issue.

Same can be said for my son to which the .270 and .300 passed. No problems.

So, I guess I like to see/watch a person who has such an issue to see their body build and how they mount the firearm to try and understand their problem.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Clay M]

The problems I have always had on the #1's is getting to scopes far enough back to get a full field of view. That is why I use the extension, or as Ruger incorrectly calls them Offset rings.

I have never been cut by a scope and I have shot .458 win's and the .416 rem.

I do find that the Leupold 1.5X5 is perfect for most of the #1's that I have owned.

Except for the varmint calibers.

I have owned ten different #1's over the years if I count correctly.

I would still probably buy another .375H&H someday, but the older I get the less I like shooting the heavier recoiling rifles.

[Potsy]

If you've a short neck and thick build, extensions may not be a terrible idea. I've got long arms, long neck, and narrow shoulders, so it doesn't bother me to bad and I've never been "bumped", but I have an older 2-7 Monarch on my 1A 7x57 and on 7x, I have to crawl just a little.
With the M8 on the .45-70, I have to crane forward juuust enough to realize I'm doing it, I don't like getting the scope turrets crammed up against the rings, and I'm not wild about the way extensions look, so I tolerate it.

[Biggs300]

Most all of my rifles are used for hunting and have scopes of one brand or another…mostly Leupold's or Burris. The only exception are my two 45-70's. On my Ruger #1 I installed Skinner (ghost ring type) sights which have worked well for "hunting" distances past 125 yards. I recently acquired a Lyman 1878 (repro of 1877) Pedersoli Sharps 45-70 that now sports long range tange Kelly Soule sights. The Kelly sights are good for target distances of 1,000 yards (maybe more) which is way further than I am capable of shooting accurately at my age. In my humble opinion, I think a 45-70 excels with iron sights, especially for hunting distances. Oh, I think you got a pretty good deal on the Ruger. The older Ruger's had much prettier wood than the newer stock. I bought mine in 2011 and the wood has straight grain but, does not have much "character". Have fun with a great "little" rifle!

[KnotRight]

Biggs300, I do like the wood! I put a cheap scope on it but thinking that I am going to shoot it first with iron sights starting out at 25 yards, then 50 and 75. I do not want to waste many rounds trying to sight it in. Tonight I am planning on reloading about 30 rounds for the weekend.

This is interesting: Using the Lyman Lead manual, the max load with RL-7 in a trap door is 39.0 gns (1598 f/sec). Then looked at the lever action and there is no load listed for RL-7 powder. Then look at the falling block and RL-7 powder starts at 46.0 gns. Wonder why they do not list a load for the lever action. I loaded 10 rounds with the max in the trap door.

Wind is blowing to hard to try to go fishing so the range he we come.

[Clay M]

I grew up somewhat poor,and never had any good scopes. I remember my first deer rifle was a Marlin .30/30 with a $20 Westpoint 4X scope.

Nowdays I enjoy having a good scope every bit as much as I enjoy the rifle.

I have had good luck with Leupolds and they are the best I can afford.
Their customer service is also first rate.

[Lloyd Smale]

You did well!!! To me the proper scope for a #1 is a vx 1 or vx2 1x4 or a vx3 1.5x5. they have plenty of power for anything a 4570 will be used for. Real big fields of view on low power and lots of eye relief which is nessisary on a #1. Other then those 3 scopes I also would consider a 1x3 weaver which can be had for a few bucks less and is as good as a vx1 optically.

[Fishman]

Knotright, congrats on a fine deal on a fine rifle. I'm glad my previous post didn't dampen your enthusiasm. I like mine a lot, and harvested three deer with it last season, using trapdoor equivalent loads under a lee 340 gr plain base. I think my next plan for fun is loading blackpowder.

Mine carries a leupold vx2 1x4, so obviously I agree with Lloyd's post. My dad does too, because he gifted me the scope. :) I don't know what I did to deserve it, but I like it a lot.

[KnotRight]

Made it to the range today with only 44 and 45 caliber stuff (RSB 44, Citadel 1911 3.5" and the Ruger (http://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=ruger&ksubmit=y) #1.

I took the scope off the #1 and shot it at 50 yards. Everything was about 4" low and 4" to the left. Really could not get the gun to move over that much. I was shooting off a rest and could not get the sights lined up correctly. Then tried shooting standing up and shot it better. The 2 loads that I was shooting were: 39.0 gn of RL7 under a Missouri 405 lead bullet and 63.0 gn of H335 under a Nosler 300 ballistic tip. There is about 500' sec difference in the loads but the Nosler had less felt recoil.

I am thinking about putting a peep sight on the gun if I can find one that does not need to be drilled and tapped. If not, then I will go with a scope.

[Clay M]

Made it to the range today with only 44 and 45 caliber stuff (RSB 44, Citadel 1911 3.5" and the Ruger (http://www.brownells.com/search/index.htm?k=ruger&ksubmit=y) #1.

I took the scope off the #1 and shot it at 50 yards. Everything was about 4" low and 4" to the left. Really could not get the gun to move over that much. I was shooting off a rest and could not get the sights lined up correctly. Then tried shooting standing up and shot it better. The 2 loads that I was shooting were: 39.0 gn of RL7 under a Missouri 405 lead bullet and 63.0 gn of H335 under a Nosler 300 ballistic tip. There is about 500' sec difference in the loads but the Nosler had less felt recoil.

I am thinking about putting a peep sight on the gun if I can find one that does not need to be drilled and tapped. If not, then I will go with a scope.






http://www.newenglandcustomgun.com/Gun_Services/Sights.asp

Take a look at these sights. I have one for my .405 win and I also have their bronze partridge post front sight. Excellent for hunting.

I know there are some on here that say they are no count, but I have not found that to be true.

Skinner also makes a great sight if you don't want to use a scope.
I always keep the NECG sight in my field bag in case I want to use it.

My Ruger #1 in .405 win is one the top three favorite rifles I have ever owned.
It is a fabulous cast bullet shooter with the correct bullet .
It is a deadly rifle in the field.
I shot a wild hog with it. He was running away at 80 yds. He went down so fast I thought I missed.

Also killed a nice ten pointer with it at near dark. He was dead right there.
Nice since I don't favor following wounded animals at night.

[Biggs300]

Clay M, I don't think I've ever seen a Ruger #1 in .405 Win. I can understand why it is one of your favorites. A few years ago, I had an opportunity to buy a "newer" model of Teddy Roosevelt's Winchester .405 Win. The case alone that came with the rifle let me know that it was a work of art that was a real investment. I still think about that rifle. Maybe someday……

[Clay M]

Clay M, I don't think I've ever seen a Ruger #1 in .405 Win. I can understand why it is one of your favorites. A few years ago, I had an opportunity to buy a "newer" model of Teddy Roosevelt's Winchester .405 Win. The case alone that came with the rifle let me know that it was a work of art that was a real investment. I still think about that rifle. Maybe someday……

I believe Ruger made the #1 in .405 win for only a year or two. I believe back in 2003 0r 2004
They also made it in stainless steel.

I found two or three of the rifles at a gun shop in Cody,Wy.
I knew I had to have one.
Mine is blue and walnut.

The rifles need cast bullets sized to .414 in order to shoot accurately.
I use the Hornady .416 crimp on gas check.

It shoots beautifully at 100yds.

[scattershot]

"I am thinking about putting a peep sight on the gun if I can find one that does not need to be drilled and tapped. If not, then I will go with a scope."


I have one of the NEGC sights for my 45/70 no. 1. Great sight, but I'm gtting old, so prefer a scope. I would sell this one, shoot me a PM if interested.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v103/scattershot/image.jpg1_4.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/scattershot/media/image.jpg1_4.jpg.html)

[sleeper1428]

After trying several different combinations of scope and Ruger rings, standard and offset, I stumbled on the Bushnell Banner 3-9 with 6" eye relief and it solved all the problems related to limited eye relief scopes requiring 'climbing' up the stock to get a full field view. I have mine set up with a standard ring at the front and an offset ring at the rear, the combination placing the rear of the scope at just the right position to allow me to have a full field view without risking getting smacked by the scope in recoil. I was a bit worried about whether or not the Bushnell would hold up to the heavy recoil of the 45/70 with full power loads but I've been using it for over two years now with no problems noted. It's not an expensive scope, selling over the 'net at a price of around $90, but it certainly seems to be up to the job.

sleeper1428

[Texas by God]

I'd pay the $500 even if it came with no wood!Ditto.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Drm50]

Ruger #1 & #3 are both a pain to get scopes that allow you to get correct eye relief. Some even
with offset rings. The main problem is where the turrets are located in relation to the short space
between rings. I other words all scopes won't work, you have to get a scope with the rifle in mind.
I have old Burris Signature series 2x8s on two of mine, the turrets on them are past center toward
the front, allowing scope to be positioned futher back. One other note, I put a Bushnell 3x9 SC on
a 375H&H, 3 shots later it turned into a maraca. I have k3s on 375win #3 and #1 in 30-06.

[Four Fingers of Death]

I have only seen one 45/70 Ruger No1 in Australia and it was the Lyman cased special one with the long, old fashioned telescopic sight. I twas lovely, butttttttttttttttttt a lot of money at the time.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Having had a number of #1s in a verity of cartridges over the years, I have NEVER had an issue of having scopes that didn't worked well and that includes NEVER needing to use anything other then the standard rings supplied with the rifles.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Ramjet-SS]

I have used the standard rings as well and also the extended. I at one time was obbssesed with #1 had 27 of them. Including 218 Bee and 22 Hornet and the venerable 416 Rigby, 458 Winchester, 375 H&H , 338 Winch, Killed my first elk with a 300 Winchester in a #1. I had just about all of them
many of the limited run editions. A they are fantastic rifle for customizing and re-barreling. I sold the entire collection for my first home down payment many years ago. Since then I have owned several more. Including 475 Linebaugh (first one John loaned us his reemer) Then a factory built one. Also a 460 S&W. Great rifles I am seriously considering the little 450 Bushmaster in number one.

[pietro]

Ruger #1 & #3 are both a pain to get scopes that allow you to get correct eye relief.
Some even with offset rings.
The main problem is where the turrets are located in relation to the short space between rings.




They problem doesn't lie with the rifle - it's lies with scope selection.

The #1/#3 rifles were designed before the days of compact scopes - which today dominate the marketplace (design-wise).

It's easier to find/use an older scope that has a (relatively) longer tube body, to address the combination of short ring spacing & eye relief requirements.

The Weaver K-3 you're using is a good match, as are Weaver/Leupold/Redfield/Bushnell 4x, 6x, & variables scopes - just look for the long tube/body.

.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

That and the fact that some folk, possibly due to body make up or poor training early on, simply do not mount a rifle well.

Was watching a young grandson shoot a number of long guns a few weeks back, so I was quick to watch how he mounted the firearms.

Not sure if it was because of one of my son's instructions or possibly due to his Califunnyia grand father, but his head and body position was correct when mounting/shooting.

At 15, he shows all the signs of being a big man, but as far as mounting the long guns he was doing it well and correctly.

Many young shooters due to no or improper training mount a long gun with the head positioned well back on the butt stock. This of course will lead to less then a full field of view with a properly positioned scope.

As said earlier, I have never had a scope mounting problem with a RUGER #1 and this has also held true with a good number of other RUGERS with the built in scope mounts.

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[Lloyd Smale]

All my #1s have gotten leupold 1x4s and 2x7s. Both of those scopes have a bit better eye relief then average. Most scopes will work until you crank them up to over about 6x then eye relief gets sketchy.