How many of you have something like a Ruger #1, Hagn, etc. in a big bore? Wanting to hear what's out there. Any problems in getting good balance AND proper weight?

Anybody ever thought of doing a Ruger #1 in 500/416 Krieghoff?

Ruger No.1, two of them:

A 416 Rigby ~ 9.25 lbs. with an NECG peep, perfectly balanced, handles well.

A 510 JAB/500 A2 that has a stainless 1 in 10" twist McGowen barrel, one inch at the muzzle, 29" barrel with the Muzzle brake installed. Picatinny rail scope base and a 4X-16X Schmidt and Bender P&M mil dot scope in Badger 34 mm rings. This rig weighs 14 pounds and puts three 705 grain Harlows at 2125 fps into 0.170" at 100 yards.

Custom Ruger #1 in 500 3" nitro.
Lightweight (by choice) at 7lb 9oz. Handles like a dream with 24" barrel and I can carry it all day without a problem.
540gr GS custom solid @ 2180 fps, express sights on quarter rib, groups under 1.25" @ 50m.
A bitch to fire off the bench but I have yet to "feel" the recoil when shooting something big and nasty.

Remington Lightweight Rolling Block in 50-70. It's a hoot. - Dan

I like my Ruger #1 in 458 Lott but it doesn't balance as well as factory rifles in 375 or 45-70. The extra weight is necessary for this caliber, however. If a 375 offers you enough power, which it should in most cases, I'd recommend it.

yukon,most of the singles I have are rolling blocks,45-70/45-110/45-120/50-90.
Have a couple of high walls in 40-70 and 50-110
One Sharpes in 50-140
And one Ruger No-1 in 50-140-750 that I bought from a guy two years ago,that was put together by SSK.

Ruger #1.416 Rigby with AO express rear ghost ring, NECG front large bead.
Ruger #1 .450NE#2 with same AO rear and NECG front
I am going to try my S&B 1.25-4 on both as soon as I get the 30mm rings.

No. 1 in .375 and .45-70 that ballance quite well. The No. 1 in .416 Rigby is way muzzle heavy. All are MOA or better.

Actually, the 416 Rigby Ruger Numero Uno that I have is perfectly balanced at a point midway between my hands and does not feel muzzle heavy. With the action being about 4 inches shorter than a bolt action, it is effectively like a 20" barreled bolt action in overall length, and this shifts the center of gravity rearward more than it appears it would to those who have not handled one.

Then again, maybe that replacement Decelerator recoil pad is so heavy that it counterbalances the awful muzzle heaviness of the short little Ruger 416 Rigby No. 1.

Then again, some people have such short and/or weak arms that they must have a muzzle-light 45/70 Ruger No. 1 to create the illusion of balance.

Of course with a large scope on the quarter rib mount in Ruger rings, this tips the balance too far muzzleward. Then there would be a problem.

However, an NECG peep sight on the rear scope base
is perfect for maintaining that perfect balance, for those with arms long enough to grip the rifle correctly.

P.S.: I would have to say that any Ruger No. 1 that weighed 7.5 pounds with a 24" barrel, would have to be light in the muzzle and heavy in the butt, unless the buttstock was drastically reduced in weight somehow, or the rifleman had some inability to grip the forearm properly distant from his trigger hand. Balance of a firearm is an ergonomic thing that includes both the way the firearm is gripped and the location of the center of gravity of the firearm.

Some people are too little to shoot a Ruger Numero Uno in 416 Rigby properly. They best stick with the 45/70 model factory rifle.


[ 10-19-2002, 06:45: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]

Dagga,
I sincerely hope your last post was in jest. Things like this can get people stirred up pretty quick, and there is no reason to post it.

Yukon Jack,
I am dead serious.

Really? Why is so important to tell someone they are weak? What makes you so much of a macho man when you have to use a sissy decelerator pad for shooting a No.1 in 416 Rigby? I have had one with the regular Ruger stock pad on it and it's not bad. Maybe you aren't as tough as you would like to believe?

[ 10-20-2002, 04:29: Message edited by: Yukon Jack ]

Oh no,here we go again.

I suppose I should apologize. I've read a lot of Dagga's posts and respect his opinion and views. I do agree with him that the 416 in a Ruger No. 1 is balanced very well, as I feel all the No. 1's have very good balance. Well, I've never handled a No.1V, so I can't say about those. I just don't think we should be degrading a fellow shooting enthusiast because they feel differently about the way one gun handles. It's just not right to berate, belittle or question someone's manhood just because he thinks one of his rifle's is muzzle heavy. Dagga, sorry about belittling remark I made toward you.

Yukon Jack,
'Tis all in fun. I was spoiling for a pee pee match with someone who said the Ruger No. 1 in 416 Rigby was "way muzzle heavy," which I totally disagree with. This was an aggravating statement of falsehood. A slap in my face since I had claimed the gun to be well balanced in the first response to this thread above.

The new pad also lengthens the pull to my suiting.

Glad you agree the Ruger Numero Uno in 416 Rigby is not "way muzzle heavy." My rifle with the thicker pad is 41" long. The center of gravity of this rifle is exactly at the mid point, from muzzle to butt, 20.5" each way, from either end. When I hold it, the centerof gravity is right between my two hands, equidistant. IT IS BALANCED PERFECTLY, IMHO.

Now, anybody wanna play pee over the top of the fence post?

BTW, after shooting a 14 pound scoped Ruger No. 1 in 510 JAB/500 A2, with a 1" muzzle on a 29"-with-brake barrel, the 416 Rigby Numero Uno does indeed balance like a feather. My favorite Ruger Numero Uno.

Brian,
Thanks for the BS meter. I will try to use that instead of mouthing off sometime.

DaggaRon,
My little 500 at a tad over 7.5lbs is a very nicely balanced and fast handling little machine. I actually had to drop some weight into the butt to get the "feel" that I wanted, ie. right between my hands.

500nitro,
Very interesting!
Please:
Where is the center of gravity? Balance it on one finger tip and note the location of this balance point in distance from muzzle and distance from buttpad rear surface, in inches. What is the overall length of the gun, the length of the barrel? What is the biameter of the muzzle on this featherweight 500 NE?

Dagga,
I will take some digi-pics tonight and send them to you. I am not sure how to post them onto the forum so watch your pvt mail.
PWN who frequents AR popped off a few rounds with it in Mozambique year before last. It does'nt recoil much, only spun him around once

I would like a photo too of the #1 if possible? Thanks. bpettet@hotmail.com

Dr. Ron,

500nitro's rifle is one hell of a gun and he wisely traded weight for handling and performance. It was either very well thought out or one of those perfect mistakes as it is very well executed. I carried it for quite a distance during a midnight stroll I took in the bush of Mozambique and it was easy to pack and comforting to have such a large caliber and not be exhuasted hauling it around after i had already had a full day of chasing buffalo. I had occassion to fire it a couple of times and it will certainly get your attention. If you don't use proper form it will change your location and skeletal structure, but if I had one built I would want it to be an exact copy.

Perry

Well! I better get home and check the e-mail. For some reason this terminal won't let me get into hotmail. Thanks y'all.

I got an email, but no attachment, no pictures.

DaggaRon and Yukon,

I sent some pic's off this afternoon. Might be a bit slow to download on hotmail. The rifle is 40 1/8" long. Barrel is 23.5" long and it is 0.7" diam. at the muzzle.
Balance is 18 3/4" from the back of the recoil pad, just about where the action and forend meet.

John,

John, beautiful gun. Good handling weight and a bit muzzle light but perfect for fast action as a DGR. So light! Ouch!!!

I got the photos in my storage. They are about 1900KB, 1.9MB. High resolution is right.

I forwarded these to another Ron who said he would post them, but the second set must have exceeded his mail box and bounced back to me.

If anyone can handle posting about 1.9MB of photos here, let me know, and I will forward to you by email.

I'm supposed to be working right now!

[ 10-22-2002, 22:49: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]

Got the photos too. Thanks. Interested in hearing more about your mod to the safety...Bowen charges about $500 I think for a recessed safety!

I love my 416 Rem Ruger #1, but it's quite muzzle heavy. Took it to Newfie after moose and it was like dragging an anchor. Don't get me wrong..I love the gun, but for long treks in knee deep mud, it's a little much. I just wanted to hunt with it (I've only had it 6 mos or so). It'll group 1" at 150 yds with a 2x7 Leupold on it..even surprised me
PS I did get a moose...he didn't think much of my .416 at all

old4x4,
Take the scope off and put an NECG peep on it, and it will be a pound or more lighter (assuming you were using those Ruger rings), and it will balance perfectly. Remember the quarter rib is on the barrel which is set back rearward about 4 inches compared to where it would be on a bolt action. But the scope mount base is that quarter rib and this exaggerates the muzzle heaviness of the rifle when a scope is used. With the peep, you will have a 9.25# rifle instead of a 10.5# boat anchor.

The fat barreled 416 Rigby Ruger M77 makes a classy, though muzzle heavy, express sighted rifle, but put a scope on it and it is too heavy, though well balanced then. But the scope does sit relatively more rearward on this bolt action compared to the rib mounted #1 scope.

The CZ 550 Safari Magnum 416 Rigby can be 8.75# bare and under 10# with a 2.5X scope. It is slightly butt heavy with a scope, well balanced bare.

I like the Rugers when using peep on the #1 and the express sights on the M77. Scope on the CZ.

The newer skinny barreled Ruger M77 is nice. It is about 9.5# bare. The fat barreled older model is 10.75# bare, in the specimen I have.

It is hard to find a rifle that is perfectly stocked and balanced for both iron sights and scope use. The balance is easier to make than the stock/sight-height issue, however. Lead in the butt or forearm, one pound kevlar stock, barrel contours, tiny or heavy scope and mounts, etc.

There is a lot more manipulation that can be done with balance, as long as the rifle is not too light or too heavy.

7.5# 500 NE? OUCH!

Just rambling ....

[ 10-23-2002, 06:34: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]

I was hoping that MacD37 would jump in here. He has several #1's setup as scoped companions to his double rifles...neat concept that. Somebody poke him awake so we can hear it.

Yukon,
the original high safety "Burr" was filed down to an oval about 1/16" high, and very finely checkered. The safety slide/mechanism was then fitted to closer tolerance on the receiver than when it came from the factory.
Took about an hour to do, excluding re-blueing and reassembly. Cost here would be the equivelent of around $50.00 in total.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to apologize to DaggaRon. I once over-reacted to a reply he made to one of my posts. Sorry, Ron, Forrest A.

YAWNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! Damn I over slept, again!

I have owned several large bore No1s, but right now I only have two. I recently sold six double rifles, and three No1s to match three of them!

I have a factory new 458 Win Mag No1 that is slated for 450NE 3.25", and a 458 RCBS that was rechambered from a factory 45-70! The 458 RCBS was made by only a rechamber job, and the addition of a decelatator pad. A very cheap conversion to do, and very cheap to shoot. It is made from 45 basic brass (Rimmed HDS) shortened to 2.75", and loaded with a 400 gr Speer FNSP bullet to 2035 fps, with 68.0 grs of IMR4064,out of the 22" barrel. The problem with the safety, some find, on the No1s is an easy fix at home, by simply fileing off the front of the forward oval base, so it doesn't stick up into the ejection port when off safety. I personally have had no trouble with the safeties untill a rimmed case about the size of the 450NE, but the afore mentioned fileing took care of that!

The 458 Win Mag No1 will be rechambered to 450NE 3.25", along with a Pedersoli double as a pair. This isn't nesseccary, but I'm a sucker for converting rifles to something that it wasn't meant to beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[ 10-23-2002, 19:39: Message edited by: MacD37 ]

Forrest,
No problem. I just get a little sassy now and then, to provoke or amuse, all in fun.

John,
I think I would try to find a way to hide some lead in the forearm to offset the lead in the butt.

Then I might try to put more lead in the butt and more lead in the forearm. Or tungsten, yeah, that's the ticket!

How much lead did you put in the butt to get it up to it's massive "tad over 7.5 pounds," this 500 Nitro Express?


Can anyone post the 1.9 Megs of John's photos of this gun? I will email them if you can.

Dagga,
All the photo's came through OK the second time.Very nice work.
I'm still trying to post them but havent been able to set up an account to get them hosted first on net so I can link to the AR post.
Anyone with an account already want to post them?
regards,
Ron

DaggaRon,

My turn to pee.

I just don't get it. Why a big bore in a single shot rifle? I wouldn't imagine that you would ever hunt DG with a single shot. I guess it is still fun to shoot a big bullet, but everytime I buy a new rifle, I rationalize that I need it for some special hunting purpose (harder and harder to do with more guns) and I don't think that I could ever rationalize buying a single shot to hunt DG with.

Tim

P.S. - I know you own big bore repeaters, but I still don't get the single shot concept.

Mac,

You have me awefully tempted to make up one of your pairs of Texas twins in 9.3X74, hmmm, last thing in the world I need is another project!

The rational is wonderful though

Paul,
My 450 #2's are ready to ship from MacKools as soon as I get back to the house next week.I'll let you know how they turned out, soonest.

Send me an email with your address, I still have the SA2002 tape but not your address.
Regards,
Ron
( PS- how did moose hunt go?)

Paul, I have a little Merkel 140E double rifle chambered for 9.3X74R, and am looking for a No1 chambered for something smaller that I can re-bore, and re-chamber to 9.3X74R for my own twin set! A No1 chambered for something like 30-06 might do the trick. I think the chambering reamer would clean out the old chamber, and the .308 bore would clean to 9.3,(.366) if not a 25-06 (.257)or 280 Rem (.284) would. I would like to retain the Ruger barrel with it's quarter rib, sling swivel, and band front sight ramp, if posible!

I have no problem with talk about those with "short and/or weak arms" as the truth is always a good defense. Those of us with short arms....not short-arms .....who know and appreciate good balance and handling realize that most factory rifles just won't do it for us. That the reason I like short-action rifles as they allow proper placement of the hands on the stock...it's never been about short bolt throw or crap like that. Why would anyone expect a rifle that fits someone 6' tall with 35" slleves to balance the same for someone who is 5'8" tall with 31" sleeves?

Those of us who are short must adjust to many things like this in life...for example I'm a retired USAF weather officer and it was always a disadvantage to be one of the last to know it was raining...it's also tougher to look down an attractive, exposed bodice but I won't go there. Randy Newmann was write when he wrote "Short People".