Hello Folks

I see that Steven Dodd Hughes drops in here from time to time.

Long time ago I saw a mention of his "Ruger No 1 Sidelever Conversion" and I've been as curious as a cat about this project ever since.

Steven - would you be so kind as to give us the details of what was done to the action and why?

You seem to like it a lot, I'd also be very interested in what makes it special for you.

If other folks have used the Rugers as the basis for a conversion project maybe they would like to outline their projects too.

Cheers - Foster

With due deference to the great talents of Messrs. Hughes and Madole, IMO the sidelever Ruger is the answer to a question that was never asked.

And the question is, "what would make the #1 action look the most elegant?" My riflesmith says he can build one, but doesn't want to...I have dangled some $$ in front of him...he still doesn't want to but is considering it...hmmm. The rifle pictured above is the best looking single shot rifle I have ever seen.

quote:

Originally posted by vigillinus:
With due deference to the great talents of Messrs. Hughes and Madole, IMO the sidelever Ruger is the answer to a question that was never asked.

I completely agree, Mark.
But ya gotta admit, she sure is sweet, and gets around a lot!
sdh

I think i understand what was meant but if the only answers that existed were to questions asked, the world would be a poorer place for it.

I really like the looks of the Ruger side-lever, but probably would never venture to own one. I used to have an original Daniel Fraser side-lever .303 British, and I quickly found why they weren't real popular with lots of Brit hunters...particularly hunters of DG (aside from the chambering). With modern factory ammo, there was NO way the rifle would consistently extract a fired round. Just not enough leverage (mechanical advantage) with that little side lever. So, as a dentist friend in Vancouver, B.C. really, really, wanted mine anyway, he soon owned it.

Naturally, I can't say the Ruger would suffer the same problem as I have never used a similar Ruger, but the Fraser was extraordinarily finely crafted, so it wasn't lack of workmanship that was the problem. I'd still be rather afraid of the Ruger exhibiting the same mechanical phenomenon at just exactly the wrong time. I'm pretty sure it must not, or it wouldn't have been used as SDH has used his, but with my luck....

Thanks, SDH. That is really interesting & useful information. I never tried reloads in my Fraser, just three different brands of factory .303. They all chambered easily, and would extract almost as easily if not fired. However, in my rifle, a fired case was one of those deals where in one hand you had to have a rod down the barrel tapping on the fired case from the inside, and be working the side-lever simultaneously with the other hand. So, that made my rifle pretty useless in the bush, as you either had to have three hands to hold the rifle and empty a fired case from the chamber, or two hands and a rifle cradle.

I still suspect the typical Ruger action might work better than my Fraser did, partly because the Ruger is a bigger action...also because it might be just a tiny fraction looser fit than the Fraser was. I suspect a person can indeed go too far with the super-fine hand fitting, at least with a practical field rifle.

Best wishes.... yours is a really beautiful rifle.