Question why is the #1 light sporter as heavy as it is? For a single shot it looks like it should weigh less compared to a bolt rifle. I love mine and tink they are one of the best single shots out there I was just wondering?

I agree with you 100%. I have mentioned this before in threads on this and that caliber coming out in a #1 or some other variation. Even the #3's were too heavy.

I like my 1A however and carry it but I think some metal could come off of the barrel. Compare it's profile with the proven Winchester Featherweight.

Perhaps one could be made from titanium. I don't know the casting characteristics of that metal however.

A smaller #1 would be the common sense way out with chamberings in .22 LR and up to perhaps the .308 Winchester series.

The 1A's aren't that bad, but there seems to be a lot of steel in that falling-block action. I think that's where the weight comes from; but, that's also where the great strength comes from!!

Cuz Ruger makes 'em hell for stout.
Paul B.

It must be a good thing, as my 458 Lott Ruger No. 1 would rattle the spirit of my ancestor every time I pull the trigger. Have fun.

What makes you think they're heavy? For that matter, I've never heard anyone complain about the weight of the #3.

Not that I am complaining, but the Ruger #1 is a little bit on the hevy side. Especialy when you hold the Dakota #10 in comparison.

Does the cost of the #10 out weigh the atvantages? What do you guys think?

DWLShooter

Because Rugers are sold by the pound?

George

Well, the Dakota RIFLE may weigh less, but the pile of ore it takes to buy one is a lot heavier!!