Ruger No. 1 Alexander Henry Forend?

16 July 2008, 08:19

One of the more distinctive features on the Ruger No. 1 Sporter and Tropical models is the Alexander Henry forend. In fact, that rather odd forend has become something of a trademark for those models.

Itâ€™s certainly distinctive and cool, but I find myself wondering where that distinctive forend came from, what its history is and what the original purpose was. And who was Alexander Henry?

Do any of you Ruger No. 1 aficionados have any of those answers? Whatâ€™s the history of the Alexander Henry forend and what was it originally designed to do?

I ask because I just purchased my VERY FIRST Ruger No. 1, a Medium Sporter in 9.3x74R. Itâ€™s a fascinating rifle, but I just know that someone is going to ask me about that curious forend. Where did it come from?

16 July 2008, 20:18

richj

A Henry made rifles in the mid to late 1800's. Check British Single shot rifles. I forget which volume, I'll check when I get home.

Here's a pic of a D. Fraser copy, he started out working for Henry in Scotland.

18 July 2008, 04:34

Paul B

So why in bloody ass hell did Rugre drop the #1S Medium Sporter which also had the Alex Henry forend and a 26" barrel? My favorite version of the #1 and they drop it except for special runs and the 45-70 that has a too short 22" barrel. GRRRR!

Ever since Ruger brought that model out, I've been looking for one, preferably in either 7x57 or 30-06. I kept ordering the damn things and alway got a "NOT AVAILBLE AT THIS TIME" line of bullshit.

I finally fell into one in .300 Win. mag. and snapped it up. Within a month, I found two more,both in .300 Win. mag but they were 200th year models and the price was right.
I do think the A. Henry forend is a hell of a lot better looking that that ugly thing they stick on the front of the #1B. JMHO.
Paul B.

18 July 2008, 18:35

Dr. Lou

+1 for the Alexander Henry forend. I too will only buy the #1A,S and H. I believe the B forend is butt ugly. Lou

19 July 2008, 00:51

Paul B

quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Lou:
+1 for the Alexander Henry forend. I too will only buy the #1A,S and H. I believe the B forend is butt ungly. Lou

There seems to be enough wood which makes me wonder what my gunsmith would charge to convert a "B" forend to the Henry style and rechecker? Dang! With all the "B"s I have it would bankrupt me to get that done.
Paul B.

19 July 2008, 05:45

Low Wall

I would have to agree with both Paul and Dr. Lou...It is to bad Ruger doesn't have a custom shop so we could order the configuration we prefer....I guess I shouldn't whine because with out the #1 our only hammerless falling blocks made in north amer.(that I know about) are the Hagen and Dakota #10..Fine rifles both but well over the price of a many Ruger #1's...
richj...That's a nice looking Fraser copy...Is that your 405?...First time I have seen it since you had it stocked..

21 July 2008, 01:06

richj

Yep that's the 405.

Rich

21 July 2008, 03:57

asdf

richj, thanks for the pictures. Now I know what Ruger had in mind, even if they weren't able to execute it properly. I've always thought the "Henry" forend Ruger uses is quite ungraceful. It's too bad they couldn't have copied your Fraser's. Ruger completely missed the boat. Ruger's forend is convex instead of concave, and the groove near the tip is clumsily done compared to that graceful Fraser. Indeed, your Fraser is one gorgeous rifle.

21 July 2008, 03:59

Bad Ass Wallace

Here is my original Alex Henry 577/450 and the forearm looks nothing like a Ruger !!!!!!

21 July 2008, 04:39

ireload2

quote:
Originally posted by Bad Ass Wallace:
Here is my original Alex Henry 577/450 and the forearm looks nothing like a Ruger !!!!!!

Your rifle sort of looks like a #3 with a hammer on the correct side for easy loading.

21 July 2008, 04:47

ireload2

quote:
Originally posted by Paul B:
So why in bloody ass hell did Rugre drop the #1S Medium Sporter which also had the Alex Henry forend and a 26" barrel? My favorite version of the #1 and they drop it except for special runs and the 45-70 that has a too short 22" barrel. GRRRR! Ever since Ruger brought that model out, I've been looking for one, preferably in either 7x57 or 30-06. I kept ordering the damn things and alway got a "NOT AVAILBLE AT THIS TIME" line of bullshit. I finally fell into one in .300 Win. mag. and snapped it up. Within a month, I found two more,both in .300 Win. mag but they were 200th year models and the price was right.
I do think the A. Henry forend is a hell of a lot better looking that that ugly thing they stick on the front of the #1B. JMHO.
Paul B.

I bought a used but like new 1S in 7MM Mag about 15 years ago because it had spectacular exhibition grade wood on it from the factory. I thought about about rebarreling it but I never have. The rifle is too heavy for a lot of hunting with that barrel in 7MM. It deserves a target caliber barrel or a big bore barrel and I think it would look better if it were 27 or 28 inches long.
I have spent the ensuing years looking for it's .338 Win Mag brother but I have never seen one, just a .300 Win every now and then.

21 July 2008, 10:05

fredj338

I also think the #1S & the #1H are the best looking of the Ruger #1. I had one in 7RM that I had Dakota rechamber to 7mmDakota, great shooter, my long range rig. The other one was a #1H in 375h&h but I got bored w/ it so had it rebarreled to 338x74Keith. Great looking, looong round that pretty much duplictes the 338winmag w/ a flanged case. I would think any good gunsmith w/ a pantagram can dupicate the Henry forearm for a price.

30 July 2008, 02:42

Atkinson

I would not own a Ruger no. 1 without a Alex Hendry forend..but I have a couple of forends in my shop just in case I get deal on one with the forend stump type of handle..

03 August 2008, 23:01

richj

from British SSR #1

04 August 2008, 02:23

Timberline

Richj, Thanks for the additional photos! Fascinating stuff.

On figures 157, 108 and especially 92, the historical Henry forend does indeed look very much like the present day Ruger version.

In addition to the wonderful images, have you uncovered any written references explaining that distinctive forend design?

In your studied opinion was the design purely cosmetic or was there an intended practicality?

Who might know?

P.S.
Hereâ€™s my own Ruger No. 1 Medium Sporter in 9.3x74R. Shoots Hornady factory 286-grain soft points into about Â¾ inch at 100 yards.

04 August 2008, 08:22

asdf

Thanks again, richj. I see Ruger did a respectable job of copying the Henry, but I still think they should have copied your Fraser.

04 August 2008, 19:28

bishopgrandpa

Timberline, what scope rings are you using on that #1 ?

04 August 2008, 23:25

Timberline

bishopgrandpa, those are Ruger Medium-Extended rings.

Ruger standard High rings came with my rifle, but I found them just a bit too high for my tastes, and they didn't allow me to move my scope back far enough to fit my shooting style and eyes. I orderd the Medium-Extended rings directly from Ruger (AZ) and recieved them in about one week's time. They work great.

10 August 2008, 08:42

DanEP

The 1S (and 1A) have open sights -- not just the Henry fore-stock.
I had the impression the front slot was intended to be used with a shooting stick?
I am very fond of this configuration -- very sad so many calibers have been dropped (not only most of the 1S line, but .338 win has been dropped from even the 1B's!).

Dan

21 August 2008, 03:49

6.5BR

NICE looking 9.3, what's that thing weigh? Big hole might = less weight? Elk hunter? Good looking package. 2.5 vx or 3.5 leupy?

28 August 2008, 07:45

Timberline

6.5BR - The above 9.3x74R set up exactly as shown weighs a handy 8 pounds 7 ounces. That's rifle, mounts and scope, with no sling and empty.

The scope is a Leupold VX-III 1.75-6 and seems to match the rifle very well.

I'm anticipating that this setup will be ideal in the Colorado dark timber for elk.

08 September 2008, 06:58

6.5BR

Having been a fan of 338/06 for a nice mid bore, NO belt, nor 'Mag' nomenclature....the 9.3 is growing on me......

That must be the 'E' model and it looks just right. Good luck as you are 'properly gunned' no doubt with a fine rig!

Let us know how she does on your next elk!

BTW, what speed do those factory 286's move? Super accuracy for out the box gun/ammo.

08 September 2008, 08:59

Code4

My Ruger No.1S in .218Bee came with the Alexander Henry Forend. I found it quite a short forend but made the rifle balance rather nicely with the 26" medium weight barrel.

Because the forend was quite short, I used to grasp it when shooting off hand and wrap my forefinger around the tip and grasp the groove. It gave me more control over the rifle.

Was that reason for the groove ?

08 September 2008, 20:41

nitro450exp

Hello All,

Can anyone tell me the pupose of the groove in the forend, is there a technique for holding said forearm. Any historical data would be interesting.

Thanks

"Man is a predator or at least those of us that kill and eat our own meat are. The rest are scavengers, eating what others kill for them." Hugh Randall
DRSS, BASA
470 Krieghoff, 45-70 inserts, 12 ga paradox, 20 ga DR Simson/Schimmel, 12 ga DR O/U Famars, 12 ga DR SXS Greener

09 September 2008, 00:34

Paul B

quote:
Hello All,

Can anyone tell me the pupose of the groove in the forend, is there a technique for holding said forearm. Any historical data would be interesting

Damned if I know. I just think they look great and when I compare the balance of two of my .300 Win. Mag.s one the "B" model and the other the "S" model, the "S" model wins hands down. So which one does Ruger drop? The "S" model of course.

I guess most people just preferred the clubby "B" models. Something that didn't help was try and special order any "S" model. back in 1975 when I bought my first #1, I order it in the "S" model, was told none available and they sent me the "B" model. GRRRRR! Now I only see the "S" model in the 45-70 with a way too short barrel in my opinion or in limited run guns that sell out before I even hear of their existance. Oh well, I find then where I can.
Paul B.

09 September 2008, 01:49

50 Calshtr

Many of the earlier rifles seem to lack a front sling swivel band or base as do two of those Richj shows. Could it be that the grove was intended to be used with one of the earlier slings with a leather thong end, such as Jeff's Outfitters sells, that are usually tied through a ring? It could be tied around the forend, in that grove, and barrel then back at the butt for a light and quiet sling. I seem to remember an old photo of a rifle set up like that.