Good walnut and blued steel is beautiful to look at, and hold. Stainless and synthetic stock is utilitarian and functional. Kinda like a hammer that is only a tool. What are your plans for the rifle(s)?
I love the looks of my walnut 450-400 Ruger No. 1, but it won't see the rain, snow, mud, etc. that my stainless Hawkeye in 416 Ruger will on an Alaskan bear hunt. I don't care for the laminated grey stocks that the SS ones have. Yours to decide, tho, and any new rifle is a baby for a while.
Posts: 1517 | Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho | Registered: 03 June 2004
By and large, my guns are shooters and not show pieces. If I were to be hunting where things were likely to be wet, I would choose a synthetic stock and stainless steel.
I don't have any definite plans for the No 1's. I saw a .458 Lott in stainless yesterday and thought it was interesting. I haven't seen many SS No 1's so thought I'd ask for opinions.
I love the sleek lines of the single shot but up till now hadn't thought about one in SS.
Posts: 2627 | Location: Where the pine trees touch the sky | Registered: 06 December 2006
I think the stainless steel and plywood stocks look nice. If I found one in a caliber that I “couldn’t live without” I would probably buy one. All my No. 1s’ are blue steel and walnut.
I agree with Grumulkin that SS and synthetic would be a good choice for chronic wet hunting conditions, but some people think that if a gun is made out of stainless steel that somehow it becomes magically indestructible by the elements. Although SS has proven that it’s much more durable in the elements than blue steel, the name is still just stain “less” or “stains less”. IMO, if a hunter doesn’t know how to take care of his rifle before and after going out in the rain and snow, he’s going to devalue (pitting, rust, metal haze) either one. It just takes longer to devalue the stainless steel model.
I’ve only seen one No 1 in the lott cartridge and that was blue steel.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 15 February 2003
Originally posted by Blank: Good walnut and blued steel is beautiful to look at, and hold. Stainless and synthetic stock is utilitarian and functional. Kinda like a hammer that is only a tool.
I feel about the same way.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 15 February 2003
I recently bought a Ruger No. 1 in 458Lott and even though it does not have any classic looks about it at all, it is just as others have said, durable, functional, and no issues with blue finish geting marred/scratched, etc. I do no dangerous game hunting at all, but it gives a lot of enjoyment in developing various loads for the 458 Win.Mag and the 458Lott. I may be mistaken, but believe Ruger cancelled production of the NO.1 Stainless Steel versions?? Previous post is on target about the so called stainless versions of rifles/firearms not needing attention regarding rust/corrosion for they do require attention regarding cleaning and attention. Friend of mine has No.1 in 375 H&H and can say that my action is noticeably smoother to operate than his, but I do use Rig SS grease on the action which makes for very smooth opening and closing.
Posts: 1328 | Location: West Virginia | Registered: 19 January 2009
Originally posted by Buliwyf: Has Ruger cancelled production of SS No. 1's? I'll check the Ruger website. If so, is this a demand - supply reason or SS material price issue?
Don’t know. Bill Ruger was the driving force behind the No 1 in the first place. Now that he’s gone you can see the decline for yourself.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 15 February 2003
I just do not see the need for stainless steel metal with a wood stock.????
PS. For the money paid, I think the Ruger No1's with the Alex Henry fore ends, and fixed sights are one fo the most classy, best hunting rifles out there.
The big fore ended, no iron sighted, No1's are an "abbbbbomonimation unto riflery".
DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY
Posts: 16134 | Location: Texas | Registered: 06 April 2002
I have blued/wood AND stainless/laminated #1's in .45/70 I like them both. My wife bought the blued/wood one for me, and I purchased the stainless/laminate one myself about 2 weks later. Blued/wood rifle goes out in nice weather, the other one goes out in snow and rain.
The stainless rifle is set up with a NECG receiver sight as well as a Leupold VX II, 1 -4 x20
Both rifles shoot equally well with the same loads.
Posts: 31 | Location: Central BC, Canada | Registered: 09 June 2002
After reading all of this I guess I'm a little strange. I never cared for Stainless and synthetic stocked rifles or Stainless and laminated stocked rifles. But I do have a number of matte blue and synthetic stocked rifles.
I was always a walnut and blue kind of guy until I saw a Ruger No, 1-A in a nice walnut and Stainless, I now have 3.
Posts: 144 | Location: East MS | Registered: 12 May 2007
If I have a choice between blued and stainless, same rifle the stainless wins every time and that includes the Ruger #1...It all boils down to what kind of conditions you hunt in and personal taste...Myself I like stainless on walnut..I don't care for laminate at all but know a fellow who has a #1 stainless laminate and love's it... For you guy's that are posting on here that you don't like stainless #1 with plastic stock's I wonder if you have ever seen one since Ruger never made and #1 stainless on plastic...yes there is a company that makes after market synthetic. stocks but as far as I know Ruger has never shipped #1's with synthetic. stocks...
Originally posted by Buliwyf: Ruger has added the .450/400 NE, the 9.3x74, and the .405 Winchester to the No1 line since Bill left us. I don't see a decline?
The general shooting public doesn’t have a clue of what those rounds even look like, or have a historical feel for them, and half of them don’t even know what a No.1 is.
Guess who they’re marketing too.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 15 February 2003
Form and function. I think the most beautiful rifles that I own (+/-56 long guns) are of blue stee and wood. However, I hunt in the Texas hill country where it is dusty, rocky and everything you encounter either sticks, pricks or bites. I pride myself that none of my rifles are safe queens, I buy them to use and shoot. However, it is kind of a drag to take a rifle that is absolutely exquisite in its beauty and when you get back from your first hunt have nicks and dings on the stock (usually the grip cap) or scratches along the barrel, or get caught out in a rain storm when its 90 degrees plus and your riding for three or four miles at a good clip on your four wheeler throwing up mud that gets caked on the barrel. Then when you get back to camp you try to clean your rifle without taking a water hose to it. I find that more an more I am turning to rifles such as my Kimber montanas. Not exquisite like my remington 700 c grades or winchester super grades, but with a grey fiberglass stock and a brushed stainless steel barrel they are much more utilitarian. GWB
Posts: 23752 | Location: Pearland, Tx,, USA | Registered: 10 September 2001
I'm with El Deguello here. I have owned about a dozen No. 1s, and just one of them, a .375 H&H, was stainless/laminate. I am attracted to the rifle in the first place because of its ancestry among the Farquharsons and other marvels of the late Victorian era. Here lie the "genes" that Bill Ruger built his No. 1 upon. I find walnut and blued steel truer to this heritage than SS/lam. Nothing wrong with the latter at all; just not my cup of oolong ...
There is hope, even when your brain tells you there isn’t. – John Green, author
Posts: 16677 | Location: Las Cruces, NM | Registered: 03 June 2000
I guess the blued and walnut No. 1 rifles that I have owned are tougher than most. I have hunted in all kinds of weather with them and not had any troubles.
I just plain like the looks of blued steel and walnut better.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know. - Groucho Marx
Posts: 3858 | Location: Eastern Slope, Colorado, USA | Registered: 01 March 2001
I must be missing something here, isn't shooting and hunting supposed to be fun and enjoyable ?. I cant imagine how being out in dusty, rocky areas where everything you encounter either sticks, pricks or bites, then getting nicks and dings in a nice Rifle, that to me would not be my idea of having fun or having a nice enjoyable time. You guys must be real tough. Ruger # 1 Guy
Posts: 28 | Location: At the Range | Registered: 31 March 2009
I guess I'm still confused about guys having fun in nasty weather. Please explain, if stainless dominates benchrest shooting with short fat barrels, how can long skinny Chrome Moly barrels be more accurate ?. Please send me some of that stuff your smokin, then maybe I'll be able to understand. Ruger # 1 Guy
Posts: 28 | Location: At the Range | Registered: 31 March 2009
You are confused by a function of more than one variable.
Some barrel manufacturers will not sell the #1 [skinniest taper] in stainless, but will in Chrome Moly. That is because stainless is not accurate enough in very skinny barrels. I do not know if that inaccuracy is from heat warping for from whipping.
Had I known which, I could have made a better post and not confused you.
The benchrest guys all get short fat stainless. Short and fat is stiffer and more mass for less off center reaction to recoil. Stainless is easy to machine, easy to lapp, and harder to erode the throat. If I knew that importance of those effects, again, I could have made a less confusing post.
The stainless steel itself costs more, and I do not know how that entered into Ruger's decision.
What does it all mean? 3 of my 4 Ruger #1 rifles are very accurate with Chrome Moly barrels that are light enough to hunt with and I do.
The one #1 of mine that is not accurate, is going to be rebarrelled from thin 270 chrome moly barrel to select match stainless long and fat in 6mmBR fast twist.
Posts: 9043 | Location: on the rock | Registered: 16 July 2005
PS. For the money paid, I think the Ruger No1's with the Alex Henry fore ends, and fixed sights are one fo the most classy, best hunting rifles out there.
The big fore ended, no iron sighted, No1's are an "abbbbbomonimation unto riflery".
AMEN!!!
**************** NRA Life Benefactor Member
Posts: 3316 | Location: USA | Registered: 15 November 2001
The big fore ended, no iron sighted, No1's are an "abbbbbomonimation unto riflery".
Quite the opposite my good man. Nothing distracts from the sleek lines and downright sexy good looks of a No.1 then those wart on the nose iron sights. JMO of course.
Proper care and careful handling (meaning some dedication and time...) will insure your blued/walnut rifle will last more than a lifetime in good condition.
Besides, certain dings and scrapes tell interesting stories-such as the time my rifle was used as a splint when I broke a leg and had to hobble out....
I think SS has its place, but for me, I'd rather love on my rifle some then just toss it in the safe or garage after it provided me with lifelong memories and experiences....
This topic is purely personal preference, I think.
If you like silverish/satin and plywood/plastic or deep lustered blue/Walnut, go for it. Your dime.
I have a small but respectacle collection of Ruger #1 rifles ranging fom .22 Hornet to .416 Rigby and 45-70, all blue steel and real walnut. I hunt with most of these rifles and if I ever win the damned lottery, the big bore .416 will go with me along with the .300 Win. mag. for the lighter stuff. However, if I'd had the chance, I would have snagged one of the limited run stainless/laminated #1's in .35 Whelen just as fats as I could. By the time I heard about them, they were sold out. DAMMIT! Why? During an elk hunt in Oregon about 15 years ago. I took my Ruger #1B in .300 Win. mag. as my main hunting rifle. I got caught in a very heavy rainstorm that soaked me, even with a rain suit and my #1 badly. Even though I tried to keep the water off the gun, it was almost an impossible task. That's when I learned that Ruger does a totally shitty job of sealing the inside wood of their rifle stocks, and that includes the M77s as well. That water soaking made the rifle shoot so damn high at 100 yards that the bullets were going over the berm at my range after I came home. There was not enough elevation in the scope to even come cclose to getting on the paper. It took almost six years before that stock dried out enough to be even close to hitting where it was supposed to. These days, when I buy any walnut stocked Ruger rifle, the first thing I do when I get it home is seal the wood of the stock. Why Ruger does not do this is beyond me. One of hese days I'll get lucky and find one of those .35 Whelens, and if I don't, I'll buy one in 30-06 and have it either rebored or rebarreled to what I want. Paul B.
Posts: 2814 | Location: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: 11 May 2001
