G-MAN Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 I've been watching the auctions for a No. 1 for some time. Prices on these rifles are usually pretty high, so when this one popped up and was in my price range I grabbed it. Serial number puts production in 1999-2000. Described as like new. And it's chambered in my favorite round, 30-06. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwillson Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 The Ruger No. 1 has a reputation for being an accurate and reliable rifle. I'll be interested to hear your range report.Wayne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-MAN Posted April 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 The Ruger No. 1 has a reputation for being an accurate and reliable rifle.Shh...don't tell JayPee that. From what I've been able to gather from "Internet research," the No. 1 can be very picky about ammo and it sometimes doesn't shoot its best groups from a rest. It also seems that most of the horror stories about the No. 1's accuracy come from around 25-30 years ago, which is when JayPee had his bad experience with a No. 1. For what I want to use it for (deer hunting in heavy woods), so long as it will keep three shots in three inches at 75 yards it's plenty accurate for me. I'm not even going to put a scope on it. (A Farquharson rifle just does not look right with a scope on it, IMO.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashbox Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Even though this thread is dated, I just HAD to say something about the Ruger No. 1-I was in a semi-local gun shop yesterday and found some brass for Mom's old rifle and I also told the gentleman behind the counter that I was here to spend some money. He replied "I can help you with that" and placed a Ruger No. 1-H Tropical in my hands. About ten seconds later I said, "I'll take it". Since it was post-Thanksgiving Day a discount was applied, and the total price was a tick under $770. Brand new. I felt I practically stole it.It is one beautiful rifle IMO, I love its lines.My new toy and Mom's old rifle (original Winchester M1895) are both chambered in .405 Winchester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryinIN Posted November 24, 2012 Report Share Posted November 24, 2012 Nice! The 1-H and 1-S are the two best looking models IMO. A friend has an H in .375 H&H and it's a shooter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashbox Posted November 25, 2012 Report Share Posted November 25, 2012 Indeed, they are very attractive firearms!I have to admit, though- the .405 Winchester is fairly known to be a cartridge that kicks *HARD* and there is a bit of trepidation on my behalf... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarryinIN Posted November 25, 2012 Report Share Posted November 25, 2012 I've come to wonder if some of the .405's recoil reputation is helped by what it was usually fired from. I have a Winchester 1895 in .30 Army (.30-40 Krag) which shouldn't be too bad- but it does thump more than I thought it would. Perhaps the 95's stock is a recoil magnifier. Not that a 300 grain at 2200 fps won't be felt from anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crashbox Posted November 25, 2012 Report Share Posted November 25, 2012 It is quite possibly related to the firearm under test. The original 1895 has considerably more drop toward the butt end than does the Ruger, and that solid metal curved buttplate probably doesn't help WRT real or perceived recoil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.