View Full Version : Ruger # 1

03-16-2012, 11:51 AM
What is your opinion about using the Riger #1 as a free recoil rifle? Thanks for your answer, Hank

03-16-2012, 07:24 PM
Well, it's not SET UP as a free recoil rifle so I guess to me the question is like, "what is your opinion about using your F150 to run the quarter mile?"

You wanna' run your truck? Run it!!! :) go for it..... it's all fun.


03-16-2012, 10:55 PM
Hank, not sure why you're asking but here's my thoughts.

I've had several No. 1's and have a real soft spot in my heart (or head) for them. I love the style, the fact that Bill had the love of fine guns to produce it, and it's a good solid rifle. However, there is nothing about the No. 1 that lends itself to "free recoil". Too much torque when firing, too narrow in the fore end, trigger almost impossible to get down to the "free recoil" level.

Now, one can fit a 3" wide fore end and smooth up the trigger with a Canjar or Keplinger, but IMHO still not have a "free recoil" gun. As a hunting/varminting rifle, the No. 1 is as good as any, but a waste of money to try to get it into the league of "free recoil".

Please understand that for "free recoil" to work successfully, the rifle must ride the bags perfectly. To get a No. 1 into that condition would cost one the price of two good used BR rigs and still, most likely, not be competitive. My presumptions are based on the thought that the only reason for "free recoil" is competition benchrest shooting.

03-18-2012, 09:53 AM
Hank, I have owned several Ruger #1's (1B, 1V, and 1S) and agree with Reed. I currently have a 1S in 45-70. Those rifles are meant to be fine sporting rifles and not benchrest rifles. They have a very pleasing feel in the hands and are, in my opinion, the finest rifle that Ruger makes. The forend hanger design creates challenges for shooting these rifles off of the bags. What I have learned in developing loads for these rifles, is that the shooter has to be very consistent with placement of the forend on the front rest and keeping cheek and grip pressure consistent from shot to shot. My best results are obtaind with placing the front rest just forward of the receiver. There is too much going on in the forend hanger with the tip pressure and the mainspring unloading during firing. I actually prefer to hold the forend in my hand and rest my hand on the front rest. I wish Ruger would have come up with a different forend hanger system that doesn't employ the forend contacting the barrel.

Charles E
03-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I use to think about alternatives to the turning bolt actions for centerfire benchrest. You probably could build a falling block action capable of BR performance, but it would mean starting with a fresh pencil. And it might weigh more.

Just a few things to consider:

The closer the locking lugs to the case head, the less brass stretch. Easy to do, but widens the action.

As we've just learned with the small BAT actions, ignition affects group size. Good ignition is a matter of striker weight, striker fall, and spring strength. These are not completely interchangeable. The typical falling block is designed to be compact, i.e., not real good at any of these.

As you increase ignition, you need more caming power to open & close the action. The cams help with tight-fitting brass, too, but one could just avoid hot loads. No way around compressing that spring, thought. I guess you could have manual cocking, but that would slow you down. Otherwise, you've got some major design decisions/compromises to make.

Back to the original question, sort of. There was a guy who shot a No. 1 at the 1,000 yard matches at Hawks Ridge. Not free recoil, of course, but you don't shoot a 1K light gun chambered for anything over a 6.5 free recoil. I believe he eventually won a relay, don't believe he ever won a match. But that wasn't his goal; he did have fun.

Dennis Sorensen
03-18-2012, 10:47 AM
I wish Ruger would have come up with a different forend hanger system that doesn't employ the forend contacting the barrel.

It is fairly easy to free float the forend and have the wood contact only the hanger and the face of the action. I doubt it would make it any better as a free recoil rifle... it makes the forend quite springy.