The great #3 is long overdue for introduction. It needs a couple minor changes; maybe it should be reintro'd as the #4?

The original action lever shape chewed the knuckles off your shooting hand with heavy 45-70 loads that were perfectly safe in the chamber. That lever should be reshaped.

A scout-style scope mount should be an option if not standard equipment, and a rubber pad placed on the butt; Kick-Eze or Decelerator for heavy-kicking cartridges.

Now for the fun part.....what calibers would sell, and not conflict with the elegant #1???

My votes are as follows:
the new .17 Rimfire Mag
the .22 Long Rifle
the .221 Fireball (.222 as alternate choice)
the .260 Remington
the .30-30 (.300 Savage as alternate)
the .45-70
the .475 Linebaugh / .480 Ruger (naturally)

I'd love to see it chambered in .250 Savage and .358 Winchester or .35 Remington, but I have doubts whether they would sell.

What do you think???????

[This message has been edited by BigIron (edited 01-15-2002).]

[This message has been edited by BigIron (edited 01-15-2002).]

How about 8x57?

CAL

What about the old 6.5x55, I have become partial to it of late.

Regards PC

------------------

Thanks for weighing in on this. I hope we get some more responders.

I am quite fond of the Swede and am in process of mounting a scope on a bolt gun in that chambering ;-) It is currently popular enough that it might sell; good suggestion.

The 8x57 is a great and truly underappreciated cartridge that originally came housed in some very fine rifles, both military and sporter. I doubt it would sell well enough to interest a mass manufacturer, though I'd love to be proven wrong about that.

I was perusing an old handloader's Digest last night. One article is about a Ruger #1 the author had rebarreled to 8x57 improved. It's his "all around rifle".

BigIron

It is nice to read about support for the 8x57 or 8mm Mauser. IMO It is everything a 30 06 is but with greater frontal area.

Considering how many rifles were made in that calibre I am surprised that old milsurp rifles are not more popular in the US.

I have modern sporter in 8x57 and it has proved itself time and again.

Does anyone have a picture of a Ruger No3 they could post? I have never seen one.

------------------
Regards

Richard

Deerdogs if you have a look in a book written by Matthews, P.A. called "40 Years with the 45/70" you will see pictures of the number 3. He liked it in 45/70 of course, very light handy looking rifle.

Regards PC

------------------

If there are no back-thrust issues with it,
I like the .17 Mach IV, .221FB, .250 Savage,
.300 Whisper (long throat and fast twist), and perhaps the .454 Casull.

I like carbines in shorter rounds

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

Big Iron,

While I really like the Ruger SS that #3 had the worst features. The bbl band, stock, butt and lever were all wrong !

Instead how about a #1 with a lighter barrel. I don't know why they have that cannon bbl anyway. Another thing the Ruger SS needs is a decent cheekpiece that will reduce recoil.

Here is the Ruger #3. It looks pretty good. This one is in 22 hornet and is for sale on Auction Arms web site.

It is item number 2242416

This rifle has all of the strength as the Number 1. I met a guy in Houston in 1990 that built a Ruger No. 3 in a 510 Wells. You can build just about anything on that frame.

I like the No. 1 lever better. I think with heavy recoil, that rebound lever would slam back pretty hard into your middle finger.

-Catter

------------------
Shoot the largest caliber you can shoot well, and practice , practice, practice.

[This message has been edited by Wildcatter (edited 01-16-2002).]

I always wanted a short carbime in 357 maximum. Sounds like a great woods round for deer, etc.
Good luck and good shooting

DonMartin29,
I agree with your comment, "The bbl band, stock, butt and lever were all wrong!" I think Ruger took the "plain Jane carbine" approch to the #3 to provide differentiation & to justify its lower cost vs. the #1.

I think there is still room for a plainer, lesser cost version of the #1, whether it is called #3, #4 or whatever. I can definitely do without the barrel band, slightly curved butt, funky lever shape, and stock comb height for iron sights vs. scope.

GeorgeS,
The #3 action is essentially the same as the #1, that is, bull-strong. No backthrust issues. I like the 17 Mach IV & 454 Casull as possibilities.

If I were having a custom #3 built by a 'smith, I'd be sorely tempted to have it done in .348 Winchester.

I would like to see the new Ruger #3 in

221 Firball
260 Remington
308 Winchester
8x57 Mauser
9.3x 64
375 H&H
450 Marlin

The little ESS-Shaped lever is a mini 2-finger pistol grip. Sorten the pull to 12 3/4 and make a Pachmayr Decelerator work. Barrel band means nothing when properly fitted you can mount a sling swivel in the forearm and tame down 405gr Rems at 2200fps into .5"groups. Been there done that since '75. Only weighs 6# and makes a nice still hunting rifle.

------------------
"Use A Big Enough Gun!"

#1 or #3, I want one in 256 Win mag.

Rick

The late Floyd Butler (gunsmith-Raceville, NY) made some of the prettiest single shot stocks ever. His cheekpiece was shaped like they should be for recoil too.

I wish Ruger would make a lighter version.

I agree with BigIron, a .348W would be a nice round, especially if you could find it in a rifle that cost less than $700. I would like to see a #3 in 30/30, .308, or 35 Whelen.
While we're dreaming, why can't Ruger have a custom shop that makes relatively cheap single shots in calibers that are order specific?

CS,

I agree on the weight issue. A good buddy has a #1B worked over by Mark Penrod - 24" Hart tube in .284 Winch, trigger job, nice personalized grip cap, NP3 finish on the metal, beautiful rework of the safety.

The barrel matches the contour of the factory 30-06 tube, and it is too heavy a gun for a mild cartridge, though great in about every other respect.

The new Winnie & Remmie short mags would be nice choices for a #1 or #3. I like the .35 Whelen, too.