I found a rifle that has my mind turning,
Its a older Ruger #1B in 6mm remington. It has a leupold scope on it, I think its a 3X9.
Its an older pink pad model , and darn it, I think I just gotta go back and get it tommorow.
i had a chance at just such a rifle a few years back and passed , but I allways wanted one.
How verstail it would be. Light bullets at 3800 FPS for varmints, and the 85 grain barnes tripple shock at about 3500, to 3600 (the rifle has a 26 inch tube )And of course the 105 grain hornady, A-MAX has a BC of .500 and I should be able to get 32 or 3300 out of that,
in a classy hopefully acurate old Ruger.
I think I will go back tommorow, and have a closer look.if I don't find somthing I do not like about it ,(I really need to look the bore over, if it was owned by a varminter it could be burned out,)
but I sure think it would be a cool rifle to own...tj3006

Have a 6mm on a Greek Mannlicher/ Schoenauer (Breda) barreled and spool modified by P.O.Ackley.
It is a doll.
Go back and bore check the No.1 --tamale.

I love the 6mm and it would be a perfect caliber in a #1.

3" groups at 100 yards was the best I got with mine!

I wouldn't even admit that Vapo! God Bless, Louis

quote:

Originally posted by youngoutdoors:
I wouldn't even admit that Vapo! God Bless, Louis

....good one!!!!!

Seriously.....buy all the Ruger #1 rifles you want.....post the shooting results.....then post the reply you get from Ruger when they tell you that they won't fix the gun because it meets their accuracy standard of 1.5" groups at 50 yards!!!!!

Been there.......done that.....there are no Ruger long guns in this house!

I think the 6mm Rem is a VERY good round.
However, my experiences with a Ruger Number 1 are like Vapo's, not good. I HAD (past tense) a Number 1 in 22 Hornet, and it took me about a year, plus $$$$ to get the thing to shoot well. I'm not alone in the Number 1 inaccuracy complaint, there have been a whole lot of words written about fixes for their inherent inaccuracy, which has to do with harmonics, and barrel tuning.
No more Number 1's in my house, ever. They are very good looking, and very strong, but the aggrivation of getting them to shoot is more than I care to cope with in the future.
I have one rifle in 244, and that's a Rem 722 B Grade, a very fine rifle.

Don

quote:

I think the 6mm Rem is a VERY good round.
However, my experiences with a Ruger Number 1 are like Vapo's, not good. I HAD (past tense) a Number 1 in 22 Hornet, and it took me about a year, plus $$$$ to get the thing to shoot well. I'm not alone in the Number 1 inaccuracy complaint, there have been a whole lot of words written about fixes for their inherent inaccuracy, which has to do with harmonics, and barrel tuning.
No more Number 1's in my house, ever. They are very good looking, and very strong, but the aggrivation of getting them to shoot is more than I care to cope with in the future.
I have one rifle in 244, and that's a Rem 722 B Grade, a very fine rifle.

I saw one of those little gun test magazines test a Ruger #1 against a Handi-Rifle. The Handi cleaned up. The #1 is sure good looking, tho.

Ruger #1s are very rifle specific about accuracy. If you get a good one, feel blessed. Only othe issue I see is the 3-9x scope. The 6mm Remington is capable of a lot more than what a 3-9x will provide.

quote:

Posted 05 May 2009 07:44 Hide Post
I wouldn't even admit that Vapo! God Bless, Louis

keeping at least one eye open helps

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:

quote:

Posted 05 May 2009 07:44 Hide Post
I wouldn't even admit that Vapo! God Bless, Louis

keeping at least one eye open helps

I have the Ruger #1 in 6mm Remington. I bought it used in 1990. It is purely stock and I have made no modifications at all and it is highly accurate. I think the #1 rifles are hit and miss. Either you get an accurate rifle or not, but mine is accurate and I love it. It is heavy, but even with the 26" barrel it is relatively short compared to my bolt-action rifles. I took my first antelope with this gun. In my opinion, it is the perfect gun for this type of hunting.

My very first No.1 was a 6mm in the 1B version and it was a Liberty gun. Had some beautiful wood and was accurate. Sure wish I'd kept it.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
3" groups at 100 yards was the best I got with mine!

We must have owned the same one. Pretty, but so frustrating.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by youngoutdoors:
I wouldn't even admit that Vapo! God Bless, Louis

....good one!!!!!

Seriously.....buy all the Ruger #1 rifles you want.....post the shooting results.....then post the reply you get from Ruger when they tell you that they won't fix the gun because it meets their accuracy standard of 1.5" groups at 50 yards!!!!!

Been there.......done that.....there are no Ruger long guns in this house!

Same here! Same problem in 1989 with a Ruger #1 in .22/250
No Rugers in our house!

I have 4 rugers, among my 18 rifles, 2 are #1s. I love the darn things. I
30-378. I was really quite relieved that the scope is a 3X9.
means the previous owner was probably not a varmint shooter, that and my visual inspection
of the bore make me think the bore is good.
I have herd about the problems with ruger and out of the 10 ruger guns, I have gotten to know over the years , only one was a dud.
If I don't like this one i will sell it minus the scope , and do real well.
For a big game rifle, I don't like anything much bigger than a 3X9...tj3006

I bought my dad a 22-250 in a Ruger No. 1 B about ten or twelve years back. He likes it just fine. It shoots sub moa (he stopped shooting much around that time and I don't think he ever really developed a load for it) and has a very nice piece of wood.

Yep, some Ruger Number 1's shoot and some don't.
So, buying one is a crap shoot.
I quit shooting crap...
John Barsness, and Ross Seifried both wrote articles on Ruger Number 1 fixes years ago, so there are a WHOLE lot of guys with Number 1's that string shots at 50 yards vertically about 1 1/2" with about a half inch spread in width. That's what my Hornet did.
I fail to comprehend why Ruger chooses to ignore this problem in production. There is NO way they can not know of the problem. What a beautiful rifle the Number 1 is, and Ruger turns their head on a barrel tuning problem. Just makes me sick thinking about their irresponsibility in selling potentially inaccurate rifles knowingly...
I mean, come on Ruger, get you heads out of you collective asses and fix the God Damn problem... Why should customers be saddled with cleaning up YOUR shit???

Don

The more I think about this, the more pissed off I get. If Ruger built automobiles with a problem like this one, EVERYONE would be all over Ruger till it got corrected, including the Federal Government.
Arrogance is the answer. Ruger is thumbing their noses at us stupid customers, all the while banking the money us stupid customers spent on the inaccurate rifles they are selling. Sure, 1 1/2" at 50 yards is THEIR criteria, but not one of us here buys into that Bull Shit. We, every one of us, want a rifle that will shoot one inch groups at 100 yards, or better.. But, not one that only shoots 3" groups at 100 yards. Who today, for a rifle the price of a Number 1, is willing to accept a 3" group at 100 yards as being adequate? Not me, and I'm betting a whole lot of other guys feel the same.
Does Ruger use the 1 1/2" criteria for 50 yards accuracy for their centerfire Hawkeye's? If they did, they wouldn't sell one of them.

Don

I have at last count 21 Ruger #1 rifles in my modest collection ranging from .22 Hornet to the .416 Rigby. Of these rifles, all but two were bought second hand and about two-thirds shoot MOA or less.
Only one rifle was ever considered inaccurate, a #1A in 7x57 Mauser. It appeared that the throat was way too long as even a 175 gr. Hornady RN would not tough the rifling when seated out as far as possible. This was confirmed when my gunsmith did a chamber cast and the throat was over 2" long. The rifle was sent to Ruger to be fixed and after about a seven month wait, it came back with a note that stated, "The rifle is accurate." Well, it looks like they installed a new barrel with a proper throat as the 175 gr. Hornady now has to be seated to the cannelure and the rifle is now very accurate.
gripes I have about the #1 rifles are few, but I consider serious. One is that POS thing they call a recoil pad that pads absolutely nothing. I'm thinking they don't test fire the .416 or a decent pad wouldhave been installed long ago.
The otheris, and this pertains to ALL Ruger rifles, as does my comment about the pad BTW, Ruger does an outright shitty job of sealing he interior of their wood stocks. In plain English, they're not sealed at all making these rifles fair weather guns at best.
I learned this on an elk hunt in Oregon where the rifle and I got caught in a very heavy rain shower. After the hunt ended, my hunting buddies and I spent the night and next day on a ranch in Northern Nevada to do a bit of pheasant and duck hunting. During that hunt, we spotted a coyote running off with a pheasant and as my Ruger #1 was the only rifle available, I got the chore of doing Mr. Yote the dirty deed. I shot four rounds at that yote and no one ever saw a bullet strike. No dirt kicked up at all,and considering the rifle was a .300 Win. mag., something should have been kicked up.
It wasn't until I got back home in Tucson that I determined the rifle was shooting almost six feet high. The bullets were almost going over the top of the berm. There wasn't enough adjustment in the scope to bring it down enough to get it on paper.
I put the gun away and brought out a year later. Still way too high, but a little better.
To make a long story short, it took a little over six years for that stock to dry out enough to where it was back where it should be. Now, when I buy another Ruger #1, I remove the stock and forearm from the gun and seal them thoroughly myself. I seal them in the hole for the through bolt and under the recoil pad as well. I haven't had much trouble along those lines since.
FWIW, I do the same on any wood stocked Ruger rifle I buy.
Paul B.

If you can buy it right, and if it doesn't shoot to your satisfaction, sell it, keep the scope and MOVE ON.

The trouble with us gun loonies is we start to develope a relationship with our guns before we take them home.
Makes it hard to sell them when the time comes.

My 6mm Rem '03-A3 shoots like a house afire. But then of course it was BUILT to!

Ruger #1's, not so much...

quote:

The trouble with us gun loonies is we start to develope a relationship with our guns before we take them home.
Makes it hard to sell them when the time comes.

Isn't that the truth! Nothing wrong with that, mind you! (I hope).

quote:

He likes it just fine. It shoots sub moa (he stopped shooting much around that time ...

So.... who exactly has been shooting it, then?

The 6mm shoots great, check my new thread on the rifles forst shoot !
...tj3006

The reason I wrote that here is because if I sent what I wrote here to Ruger, the person that would handle it would be one of the workers, not the person who made the policy decision that allows for Number 1's to be delivered that don't shoot well. That worker would just send me the perfunctory reply that 1 1/2" at 50 yards is their criteria, and nothing would change. The policy makers keep themselve insulated for these kind of problems, intentionally. The only way I see that could get Ruger to be responsible, is to address on a Forum like this one where Ruger Management might see it, or get wind of an unhappy customer. That's the only possibility I see of the problem ever getting corrected. Far too many guys like me got screwed with having to spend a LOT of money fixing Ruger's mistake. I think it's time for Ruger to step up to the plate and fix the problem.
Personally, it took me over a year, and six round trips to my gunsmith to get it fixed. My gunsmith is 71 miles from my house, 142 miles round trip. I had to drive the rifle to him, and drop it off; the drive back again to pick it up, each time. That's 852 miles I had to drive to get the rifle to shoot, plus the money I had to pay the gunsmith for the work. I never got any of that money back when I sold the rifle.
Wake up Ruger!!!

Don

DMB,
I am really sory your #1 was a POS.
I am even more sorry that ruger did'nt help you.
If I bought a new ruger rifle and it did'nt shoot, I would be pissed off too.
But I think I have owned about 7 or 8 rugers going back about 25 years.
And 2 hand guns too,
Only one was a POS. That was a tang safty .308.
I traded it for a 45/70 marlin that shot rings around it.
Mabye we here a AR should consider a group letter to the president at ruger.
The accuarcy standards were set long ago,
and mabye its time for some new standards,
Modern machinery , and the fact that ruger makes there own barrels makes it lots easier to get an acurate rifle out of the box.
And a little tweeking of the hanger design of the #1s would not be too hard.
...tj3006

6mm Rem is a great varmint cartridge. I would think a Ruger #1 in 6mm would be prefect for chucks and coyotes if it was an accurate one.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Jones:
DMB,
I am really sory your #1 was a POS.
I am even more sorry that ruger did'nt help you.
If I bought a new ruger rifle and it did'nt shoot, I would be pissed off too.
But I think I have owned about 7 or 8 rugers going back about 25 years.
And 2 hand guns too,
Only one was a POS. That was a tang safty .308.
I traded it for a 45/70 marlin that shot rings around it.
Mabye we here a AR should consider a group letter to the president at ruger.
The accuarcy standards were set long ago,
and mabye its time for some new standards,
Modern machinery , and the fact that ruger makes there own barrels makes it lots easier to get an acurate rifle out of the box.
And a little tweeking of the hanger design of the #1s would not be too hard.
...tj3006

Thomas,

Thank you.
I know I was venting my spleen on your thread, which was not cool. I apologize for doing that.
I know what reply I would get if I sent my problem to Ruger, just like the guy above said; one of those canned replies just to get you off their back, that "we consider 1 1/2" groups at 50 yards is acceptable.." But, today, 1 1/2" is not acceptable to me.
Ruger has to know of this problem with a percentage of the Number 1's they sell, not all of them as yours is shooting well. If it wasn't for another ruger Number 1 owner up here who had the same problem I had, I would still be trying to figure out why it wouldn't shoot. I ran into him at the range one day shooting his No 1 in 25-06, and told him of my dilemma. He said he just had his fixed, and later mailed my the Ross Seyfried and John Barsness articles from Rifle magazine describing the fix. So, I had a course of action to follow.
This is a systemic problem with them, and there's NO way Ruger management can NOT know about it. This begs the question, why haven't they fixed it? I see arrogance as the answer. They just don't want to be bothered, No 1's sell because of their great beauty, so why fix something that will cost them money and time. The truth is, if they fixed the problem, they would pass that cost off to future customers in a higher price for No 1's.
Again, I apologize for screwing up your thread, big time..

Have fun with your No 1 in 6mm. That is one very cool chambering. I like it better than the 243 as the 6mm case is better.
Also, I have eight Ruger 10-22's, a Model 77 Mk II in 257 Roberts and a 77/22 Hornet that all shoot extremely well.

Thank you for your patience,

Don

Hit and miss accuracy was indeed a problem with the older Rugers.

However, things have improved greatly over the past several years after they started using their own barrels.

Though not a huge sample, I've owned 7 Ruger #1's. The only one that ended up shooting poorly was a late 80's 22-250 #1B.

All the others have shot very well without mods.

I'd find out when it was made. If its and older #1, then it is, indeed, a crap shoot.

Ken