Ruger #1 calibers for 2015

[Nicholas]

Yes, the dollar cost of the Ruger No. 1 has gone up sharply, but it has never been an inexpensive rifle. A fair amount of the increased cost could be attributed to the declining purchase power of a dollar, known by the misleading misnomer "inflation". There are many other types of rifles on the market that are much more costly and way less appealing, at least to me. For example, I am amazed at the $2-3K prices posted for some black rifles. Quality bolt rifles are in the same price range. Compared to these rifles, one could conclude that the No. 1 is the better buy. As a disclaimer, I must state that I have 3 No 1 rifles and I love them. And I consider a black rifle to be too complicated a platform for launching a bullet.

[.22-10-45]

I have the desire. Just spending that much money for a single shot, when I can buy an old lever action for cheaper, is hard to justify. I've heard of to many issues w/ getting them to shoot well. But the same could be said for my M77 Hawkeye which shoots great.

Funny how history repeats itself! I have read where the Sharps company was facing the same thing in the late 1870,s-early 80's..Sportsmen particulary in the South were going in for the Winchester lever action repeaters. Same thing could be said for the classic Marlin-Ballards..the repeaters were pushing them out.

[BruceB]

[QUOTE=dragon813gt;3034419]-$1500 is a good bit of money. I'm sure you can pick them up cheaper.QUOTE

I know where there's a like-new #1 in .338 for the ASKING price of $850.

It's been there for months, and I was looking at it again just yesterday.

Can we say, "temptation"? Even though I will never hunt again due to medical reasons, the #1 rifles just talk to me.

[BruceB]

Why does "practical" have to be so important?

I like my black rifles and autoloaders very well indeed, but compared to a #1 they are soul-less shooting machines. Excellent rifles, to be sure, but they lack something that #1 rifles possess.

Are we so imprinted by the thrust of "modern", that there's no room left to appreciate grace, and beauty, and history, and quality, and.....? You get the idea.

I should mention that my #1 in .416 Rigby will put TEN RCBS 416-350 cast bullets inside one inch at 100 yards, departing the muzzle at 2100 fps. Things shot with that load will tend to "stay shot", and no mistake about it. MY .303 #1 hasn't had enough experimentation to determine its accuracy potential, but I expect it will do just fine.

[MT Chambers]

I wish they would offer more rimmed cartridges in the #1, like the 30/40, 38/55, 470, .500, and the 50/90, and yes....the 30/30.

[Whiterabbit]

I own 5 "black rifles" and no desire to spend that much for a single-shot, no matter the bluing and wood.

I own 1 "black rifle" and that was nothing more than serendipity. I would rather spend "that much" on wood and steel. I am in my early thirties, too. We do exist, though a dying breed. Frankly, my generation seems to want to instead spend "that much" on a computer and data plan to facebook quickly rather than exercise the bill of rights. The millennials are even worse.

Don't get me wrong though, you guys enjoy your black rifles, more power to you. I'll take my black in my coffee, and my gunpowder, thank you very much.

[gewehrfreund]

I wish they would offer more rimmed cartridges in the #1, like the 30/40, 38/55, 470, .500, and the 50/90, and yes....the 30/30.

Let's see. . . .they made the #3 in 30-40 (they can still be found for sale regularly on the auction sites), they did about 350 in 38-55 in the late '80s, they made the #3 in 375 Win. which is nothing more than a 38-55 on steroids, and they catalogued the 30-30 in a 1A just a few years ago.
Also, the 45-70 has been in the line-up since about 1970.
Some other rimmed cartridges that have shown up over the years: 22 Hornet, 218 Bee, 357 Mag, 44 Mag, 460 S&W, 220 Swift (semi-rimmed), 303 Brit., 9.3x74R, and I'm sure others that just don't come to mind right now.

What they ought to make and what I've been waiting for for decades, is a 1S in 32-40. That would be the ultimate retro, vintage, traditional Ruger No. 1 in my opinion.

[Shooter6br]

Old guys have nice sports cars also...Not me justa Subaru ( and a No 1 Laminate S/S 45-70 )

[nanuk]

the surge in "Black guns" makes me wonder about using pricing as a reason the No1 is losing market share...

I've been on sites where the blackgunguys routinely talk about $3000 guns like it was yesterday's breakfast.


now, I'm sure there are cheaper guns around, but I don't think price is the real reason

IMNSHO, I think it is the term "SINGLE shot"

today's shooters are not hunters, and shooting is far more fun when you have lots of bang available at your finger tip. a single shot just can't match the "Fun Factor" of emptying a 30rd mag!

[FLHTC]

the surge in "Black guns" makes me wonder about using pricing as a reason the No1 is losing market share...

I've been on sites where the blackgunguys routinely talk about $3000 guns like it was yesterday's breakfast.


now, I'm sure there are cheaper guns around, but I don't think price is the real reason

IMNSHO, I think it is the term "SINGLE shot"

today's shooters are not hunters, and shooting is far more fun when you have lots of bang available at your finger tip. a single shot just can't match the "Fun Factor" of emptying a 30rd mag!

I have to agree with you. Kids today are making $30,000 to $50,000 right out of high school so the money is there to spend. They just want another type weapon then we all are accustomed to. The precision shooter has evolved into the Johnny Rambo.

[John Allen]

I am big into single shots. I prefer sharps, trapdoors and rolling block but have a few of the Rugers. They are great rifles I hope they stay in the line.

[Ecramer]

The Ruger #1 does not seem overly complex to me, meaning production cost should be fairly low. After all, there was a Ruger #3 for a while. Same action. Things that drive up the cost of the #1 are wood, front sight assembly, finish, and the rear quarter rib. Barrel and action are simple and no more difficult to manufacture than any other action type. Ruger charges a bunch for the #1 because they can. Demand is low, so production is low, so price is high. That simple. Everyone wants a $300 bolt gun or a $225 single shot these days. And in reality, those guns do the job. I suppose you are right from that perspective. I mean, if $225 and $300 guns flood the market, why make the #1, or the 77, or the Winchester 70, or the Remington 700. Heck, there are quality rifles out there now that make the old Savage 110's seem expensive.

Number me among the mourners for the Ruger No. 3. I still want one in .45-70. Unfortunately so does everyone else, except, apparently, for Ruger's marketers since they stubbornly refuse to produce one.

I hope the prediction of the death of the No. 1 is greatly exaggerated -- I'm a fan there, as well.

[FLHTC]

Number me among the mourners for the Ruger No. 3. I still want one in .45-70. Unfortunately so does everyone else, except, apparently, for Ruger's marketers since they stubbornly refuse to produce one.

I hope the prediction of the death of the No. 1 is greatly exaggerated -- I'm a fan there, as well.

I've been watching one in a local shop that someone put $10 on, eight months ago and hasn't picked it up yet. It's an easy 98% and $850 would get it. The downside is the guy who put money on it is a fireman and the shop owner won't rattle his cage for the money. I can't say I blame him but I drool over that #3 every time in go by it.

[paul edward]

Always liked the classic American looks of the #3. The #3 just looks so much more interesting than a break-open single shot. Wonder why they were discontinued.

One of my dreams is that SR&Co redesigns the #3 to reduce manufacturing costs and offers it, at a more reasonable price, in some of the old classic rimmed cartridges.

[John Allen]

Always liked the classic American looks of the #3. The #3 just looks so much more interesting than a break-open single shot. Wonder why they were discontinued.

One of my dreams is that SR&Co redesigns the #3 to reduce manufacturing costs and offers it, at a more reasonable price, in some of the old classic rimmed cartridges.

i have one of the #3's in 45/70 it is a great gun

[rmcc]

Alas, it is sad to say that we of the silver hair (or mostly so) age are the last to appreciate blued steel and fine walnut. Such terms as wood to metal fit, exquisite bluing, points like a fine double (meaning shotgun which the younger crowd have no idea of), are no longer heard in conversations. The trend of synthetic this, tactical that, and everything but the sink you can hang on the barrel are the selling the rifles today. "Black" rifles? I own two of them. They are fun to shoot and accurate enough in their own way. I have seen some really good groups shot with them, so I am not a detractor of them at all. Hell, Obama has sold more of them than any of the manufacturers of them could have ever dreamed of!!
And if a rifle doesn't sell, why make it? A generation ago, everyone wanted to get a #1 to go "back" to the tenant of one shot make it count. We have strayed so far from that ideal that I don't know where to begin, television shows glorifying a 600 yard shot at a deer or elk. To me that is plainly irresponsible and best left to the military where those shots belong (SORRY Elmer!!). I grew up getting as close as I could to make the shot at the game. THAT was what a #1 is for!! It balances at the carry point, handles to point out like a shotgun, and was accurate enough to get the job done. I can't believe that Bill Ruger ever conceived of the #1 being as accurate as the 77 he produced. I have owned several of each. The 77's out shot the #1's everytime!! But the #1's were a lot more fun to carry and look at!!! You CAN make a #1 shot sub-MOA, but it is a lot of time and effort best spent on a bolt rifle, IMO.
#1's, I love them for what they are, were, and sadly probably will be missed by those who have owned or handled them. I guess it is up to us to teach the younger crowd the beauty of a finely crafted rifle and the woodcraft to go with it!!


rmcc

[GhostHawk]

If you are a younger person, I can see if given a choice between an AR and a Single Shot, which costs about the same, they are going to pick the AR 98% of the time.

Once bought there are virtually no changes the average person can make to most single shot rifles.

With the AR platform the opposite is true. You can change anything and everything on the rails. You can in time get a second upper in a different caliber. It is adaptable, and endlessly adjustable.

I think what most of those young people do not realise is that a little time spent learning that single shot, and you can hit the target every time at will. While some people have the patience and discipline to shoot the AR's accurately, I don't think most do. They get out to the range, and spray and pray. Ending up maybe not hitting the target at all, and not realizing why.

It has taken me 40 years to come to realise the value of single shot rifles. The value of one shot perfectly executed.
It does take patience, and practice, and perseverance. Something it seems our younger generations have not been taught.

[Love Life]

Enough bashing the young people. It gets old. I see enough "older, wiser, more learned" shooters on the range sucking at life to know that it has nothing to do with age.

I very much appreciate a fine firearm, but the Ruger #1 is not worth what they charge...to me. When $800+ flies out of my wallet, I expect the rifle to be dang near perfect and capable of sub MOA groups with minimal effort. Not that I'm lazy, but I just prefer real quality over inferred quality and a quality rifle shouldn't require voodoo and hocus pocus to be a sub MOA capable shooter. Yes, that matters to me.

The reason people choose the AR or other "young people's guns" is because of a variety of reasons, but not the "Woe is the nation and the children" reasons posted here.


Cost has nothing to do with it for me either. I have a couple rifle/scope set ups that cost more than a good used car. They are extremely accurate, built with quality parts, and assembled with absolute precision and care. The Ruger #1 does not meet that criteria for me so I spend my money elsewhere. I've played with a few, inspected a few, but none of them really equaled the asking price to me.


I wonder what the what the pre 1900 people thought about them young whippersnappers buying bolt action rifles.

[Urny]

Good points Love Life. Every generation has bemoaned the changes, perceived or real, in the next, and the next, as long as you care to repeat. I heard from my dads generation what you are hearing too, and sometimes have said those things about yours. The day will likely come when you will do the same.

It's the duty of oldsters like me to resent the loss of the things we grew up with, and the duty of youngsters (anyone under 50) to embrace the new and improved. Maybe the young could retain a bit of respect for the old; it's how we got to the new.

If the Handi Rifle and Ruger No. 1 are gone, I will be sad.

[dragon813gt]

I don't think anyone is disrespecting the #1. It's just hard to justify the purchase of one in the current market. I'd they were inherently accurate you'd fine more people buying them. Ruger Americans are a couple hundred and will shoot MOA w/ boring regularity. I love fine firearms and don't have issue spending money on them. There are plenty of high end shotguns in my safe. #1s are just in an odd position in this market.