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