If you were going to purchase your first single shot centerfire rifle( 25-06 or 270) which would you expect to be most accurate out of the box a Ruger # 1 or T/C Encore?
I ask not to start an arguement but because I am just now getting into the idea of single shot rifles.
Is either rifle easier to accuraze?
I would like to hear from shooters who have had experience with both firearms.
Thank you for your input. John

Never shot the encore, but I have shot the Ruger #1 and they are accurate as all get-out. I have shot a .243, a 257 roberts, and a 7x57 in Ruger #1--all 3 were very accurate with factory ammo-I did nothing to "accurize" any of them.

Good luck with your choice-

Dave

I guess the Ruger #1 would be less fuss. I am an Encore rifle owner and a 25-06 owner. Have shot several 270's over the years and in general, I am not impressed with the 270 as compared to the 25-06.

On the Encore, they can be great shooters, but in my limited experience so far, you best be ready to do a lot of tinkering with them to get there.

I don't think the Ruger has that issue... but then again, with the Ruger #1, you're about $650 from trying a different caliber. With the Encore, you are about $225 from trying a new barrel/caliber and for $200 you can buy a complete NEF Handi rifle in your choice of calibers.

John,
Buy the SS rifle you like the best. I have owned and reloaded for 2 Ruger No1's, a 243 and a 45/70. both shot very well.
The best shooting SS rifle I have ever fired is my Blaser K 95 Stutzen in 308.

I think the smart money is on the Ruger. Ive owned a couple of num 1's & a num 3 and I loved em .I'd prob go for a 30-06 over a .270 but a 25-06 is a fine cart

If you don't know how to tweak an Encore or an H&R Handi which I think is a better buy and can be made to shoot, you best get a #1. I have a 25-06 #1 and it is a tack driver. But it too took some fiddling to make it shoot. But mine was a used one that someone had really screwed up.

Hi,

My Ruger #1 shoot great, see here:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9421043/m/957101722

With no modifications on the rifle.
The 7x57 Mauser is also a nice caliber, don´t forgott it...

I have both the Ruger #1 and the Encore. They both shoot great.

I have a question on ruger no 1's. I want to buy one for hunting in Northwestern MT and plan on taking everything under the big sky with it. I have a 7STW in Win M70 and know it performs well but have also thought of going with a 45-70. I am not sure as I have never really shot this heavy of a cartridge and am a little worried on the ballistic end. Will it hold up to long range shot's (600 yds) compared to my STW or should I stick with what I know. Also this is my first time writing on any forum so tell me if I posted this in the wrong place or any help, please. Thank you.

I'd say 600 yards is a LONG shot for any cartridge unless you're one helluva trained marksman. The 45-70 I wouldn't use beyond 300 myself. The #1 is an elegant and classic rifle, but for super long range shooting I'd use a .300 Wby or something on that order.

At 600 yards the trajectory of a 45-70 would be like a rainbow. You'd have to know the range and holdover exactly to hit anthing.

Sapper. Will the 45-70 hold up at 600 yards? Yes, no and maybe. Depends. There was an article, in I believe, RIFLE Magazine on where the government back in the 1870s did some testing of the 45-70-500 out to 2,500 yards. So, yes, it will carry out well past 600 yards. Maybe it will do, if you have a good rangefinder and know exactly where to hold, or to adjust your sights to compensate for the distance, and finally, no, I wouldn't want to use a 45-70 that far out. Besides, a hot loaded 45-70 with the requisite 500 gr. bullet kicks like hell. The Ruger #1 is a pretty light rifle in 45-70 and Ruger just hasn't gotten a clue as to what makes a decent recoil pad. A 500 gr. bullet at close to 1600 FPS has a lot of setback, take my word on that one. But then, the Ruger #3 is even worse. I know. I have both.
I consider the 45-70 to be a fairly close range cartridge due to it's rainbow trajectory. My long range #1s are a 1B and 1S, both chambered to the .300 Win. Mag.
Paul B.

There would be little chance of a 45-70 "planting" anything at 600 yds without a spine/brain shot and little chance of an exit wound (blood trail) with most ammo.
I think the chances of a lost animal are much greater with a 45-70 than with your 7STW.

quote:

Originally posted by john391:
If you were going to purchase your first single shot centerfire rifle( 25-06 or 270) which would you expect to be most accurate out of the box a Ruger # 1 or T/C Encore?
I ask not to start an arguement but because I am just now getting into the idea of single shot rifles.
Is either rifle easier to accuraze?
I would like to hear from shooters who have had experience with both firearms.
Thank you for your input. John

I have heard of innacurate No. 1's, but I have never seen one of these in person, and I now own six of them and a No. 3. All have been accurate.

.30/40, Ruger No. 3



7X57, Ruger No. 1A



7 MAG., Ruger No. 1B, @ 200 yards




I know nothing about the Contenders and Encores, except that they are ugly as hell!

quote:

Originally posted by sapper 1371:
I have a question on ruger no 1's. I want to buy one for hunting in Northwestern MT and plan on taking everything under the big sky with it. I have a 7STW in Win M70 and know it performs well but have also thought of going with a 45-70. I am not sure as I have never really shot this heavy of a cartridge and am a little worried on the ballistic end. Will it hold up to long range shot's (600 yds) compared to my STW or should I stick with what I know. Also this is my first time writing on any forum so tell me if I posted this in the wrong place or any help, please. Thank you.

The 45/50 will give up to a bit over 2200 FPS with a 400-grain bullet if you are shooting a No.1, and you must load it up to around 50,000 PSI to do this, so such loads are not safe in any other .45/70, except for PERHAPS one built on a Siamese Mauser action, and I'd be a little leery of these!

Now, if you use a bullet with a high (relatively speaking!!) ballistic coefficient, like the Barnes Original 400-grain .458" semispitzer (B.C. .389), and shoot it at 2200+ FPS, you get a trajectory a little flatter than with a 170-grain bullet in the .30/30 Winchester. You also get over 54 foot-pounds of recoil out of this combination, so it is a pain to shoot-literally! I have tamed mine down a little by adding a Limb-Saver recoil pad, and a muzzle brake would no doubt help also. But it is not something one would really enjoy shooting a lot, particularly from a bench (unless one were a masochist!!).

Now, as to long-range shooting with a .45/70. Yes, the buffalo hunters used to kill bison at ranges of a up to a thousand yards or maybe a little more with cartridges like the .45/70. Watch Quigley Down Under sometime! But these old boys knew how to estamate ranges very accurately, and they knew the rainbow-steep trajectories of their cartridges. While a bullet with a B.C. of .389 moving out at a MV of 2200+ FPS is a vast improvement over a .45/110/550 at 1350, please don't confuse the modern .45/70 loadings with a thing like the 7mm STW!! Unless, of course, you are speaking in jest!

I will stick with my ruger #1 in .270 I have shot the encore in a .308 win it shot well but not as weel as my #1 and the #1 outclasses it hands down also.

I have Ruger's in 22PPC, 243, 270AI, 340WM, 38/55, 404 Jeff, 45/120 & 500 Nitro.

All have been accurate especially the 22PPC.


340 WM rechambered from 338 Win Mag

quote:

Will it hold up to long range shot's (600 yds)

Almost completely off the single shot topic, there was a great article in one of the gun rags a few years back about long range "hunting". The author recomended that the shooter practice by setting up a practice course of paper plates mounted on sticks and placed at random distances between 300 and 600 yards. Shooting must be from field positions with your hunting rifle. Hits on the plates count as dead game, and misses count as "wounded and lost".

I've set that course up on a number of occasions. I have never "cleaned" it, and nobody else I know has either -- including a more-than-competent high power competitor of my aquiantance. At best, two out of the six "elk" were "wounded and lost".

IMO, there are damn near none of us who are qualified to shoot at unwounded game animals at 600 yards. Frankly, I believe the majority of us should not even be trying the 300 yard shots we read so much about. Judging by what I see at the local ranges, the typical hunter struggles to put all his shots into 6" at 200 yards from the bench, let alone from an improvised field position and maybe with a case of buck fever to boot. I just wonder how many three legged game animals are hopping around out there thanks to all this 7STW/laser rangefinder/beanfield rifle/"It-shoots-into-1/2-inch-at-a-hundred-yards-from-the-bench-so-I-can-hit-a-six-inch-target-at-1200-yards-in-the-field" BS.

And I guess that's my rant for the day.

I have done some long range stuff in my past. I have heard many stories, some or all may be true. But, just what i think, 600 yds is to far to shoot anything with thicker skin than a human. To much can go wrong and its to damn far to catch up to wounded game and little blood.
Just get a 50BMG

quote:

Originally posted by Noel H.:

quote:

Will it hold up to long range shot's (600 yds)

Almost completely off the single shot topic, there was a great article in one of the gun rags a few years back about long range "hunting". The author recomended that the shooter practice by setting up a practice course of paper plates mounted on sticks and placed at random distances between 300 and 600 yards. Shooting must be from field positions with your hunting rifle. Hits on the plates count as dead game, and misses count as "wounded and lost".

I've set that course up on a number of occasions. I have never "cleaned" it, and nobody else I know has either -- including a more-than-competent high power competitor of my aquiantance. At best, two out of the six "elk" were "wounded and lost".

IMO, there are damn near none of us who are qualified to shoot at unwounded game animals at 600 yards. Frankly, I believe the majority of us should not even be trying the 300 yard shots we read so much about. Judging by what I see at the local ranges, the typical hunter struggles to put all his shots into 6" at 200 yards from the bench, let alone from an improvised field position and maybe with a case of buck fever to boot. I just wonder how many three legged game animals are hopping around out there thanks to all this 7STW/laser rangefinder/beanfield rifle/"It-shoots-into-1/2-inch-at-a-hundred-yards-from-the-bench-so-I-can-hit-a-six-inch-target-at-1200-yards-in-the-field" BS.

And I guess that's my rant for the day.

I read that artical and wholeheartedly agree with what you say. My personal limit is 300 yards, given the winds pefect. The shot is clear. Good weather. The planets are all aligned. The tides are in. There are a certain amount of U.F.O.'s buzzing around at the right time, etc. Basically, if the shot 'feels' right, and I'm confident I can make it, I try to get closer! If there is no other way to get closer, that is why I spend countless hours firing at 300 at the range. I can consitantly make good hits on targets out to 400, off the bench. But I would never use that as an excuse to shoot at anything larger than a coyote at extended ranges. I've talked to guys who do make hail Mary shots, and I tend to walk away from the conversation at that point. It's just not my cup of tea. I figure everyone should shoot a 30-30 for awhile, then they would appreciate why you should get closer.