I'm thinking of purchasing a new or good used #1 in 220 swift. How's that accuracy in these rifles? Seems like they would be tack drivers... Thanks for any responses

Ziggy,

If you want the No. 1 I think you should buy it and not worry about the potential accuracy problem. Every rifle has the potential for a problem.

I think the accuracy concern is based on a two-piece stock. My No.1's are accurate and the fellas I know that have No.1's are also accurate.

Personally, I think the Swift is an ideal chambering in a No.1 because of the handiness of a 26" barrel in a single shot and the Swift has somewhat of a rim for the ejector to work against.

Regards,

Buliwyf

I have a Ruger #1V in .223 Rem. that is a consistant half inch rifle. I also have Ruger #1Bs in .22 Hornet, 6MM Rem. and .257 Bob that are .50 to .75" rifles. I would imagine that one in .220 Swift would be a decent shooter.
Paul B.

If you plan to use the rifle for something like winter stalking of coyotes in the snow, I would defnitely buy a "newer" version...in stainless steel.

For pretty much every other purpose, it likely wouldn't make much difference to me. I prefer blued rifles wherever there isn't a definite advantage to stainless. I agree with Paul as to accuracy, functioning, etc. Any rifle has the potential for both good and bad. Luck has a lot to do with which a guy gets in the drawing which is life.

To guys with all the accurate #1's are you hand loading?

I now have three #1's. My most accurate is the 45/70. The .223 and .243 are good for 1.5 inch groups with off the shelf ammo. I read how many #1's need the bullet seated a bit further out for good accuracy. My results seem similar to those of a good many other people.

With the .243 and .223 in good bolt actions I regularly get under sometimes well under one inch groups.

Nor am I calling anyone a liar about their groups. In any given ten rifles some will happen to be better than others. I just think overall #1's are a bit less accurate than a bolt action from what I have read and seen myself.

I have a #1V in 223. I regularly shoots sub 3/4 of an inch with my handloads and used to shoot right around 1 inch with cheap Federal ammo. Best group with handloads was just under 1/2 inch.
Pete

esldude
I think most all #1s are or have the potintal for good accuracy.
The trick to a less than M.O.A. #1 if your not already getting it is the seyfried modification.
A quick explanation of this is you drill a 6/32 hole as far out on the forend hanger as you can from top to bottom all the way through. You tap the hole and buy a 6/32 headless machine screw.
Run the screw through the hanger till it touches the barrel and give it a little tention. This will pull the forarm off the barrel and relive any stress there. Then by adjusting the tention on the screw back and forth you can find the sweet spot that gives you the best hamonics for your barrel.
By doing this and load development my #1 .300 went from 2 inches out of the box to 1/2.
You can also lightly sand the back of the forarm where it touches the reciver to relive tention. Some people blueprint the screw holes on the ribs to make sure there isn't any binding going on there that would cause stress on the barrel. That manover is a little beyond where I want to go anyway I allready got the accuracy I wanted

My 6mm BR pac-nor built shot 3 105 amaxs into a .498 group at 330 yds last time at the range with a 4-16x.

That is not a typo. It averages under .5 moa, the forearm is glassed tight along the barrel, it has a Kepplinger trigger, not taking the forearm off to look at anything as I am afraid to do anything that might change how good it shoots!

If anyone is interested it is for sale as it does not get much use, accounted for my longest deer 400 yds, a bobcat at 168, and a headshot coyote this year at 175, along with a head shot doe at an impressive 40 paces!

It can double duty target, varmint, and deer hunt. Had about 300 rounds down barrel, 3 groove 26" 8 twist same contour as a #1V.

PM me if interested.

i have a 1v in swift that the accuracy on wasn't half bad. after shooting out the barrel I had jim kobe rebarrel it with a top end sheilin go over the trigger etc. then i restocked it with a nice piece of bastone walnut. Now its even better.

that #1 V in a 220 swift would be ausome, a good friend has one its a tack driver i ordered one years ago a waited almost a year,then i found a tang safety 77V 220 swift bought it and boy i was very happy the Ruger # 1 are ausome rifles,yes i think they shoot better with hand-loads but thats a given.. you know theres something Special about them falling blocks ie 1885 brownings etc,maybe someday hey, but 4 now i re-load for one 7mm magnum #1-b,one 1885 270wsm,men i''m telling you their ausome in their own rights...regards jjmp

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
To guys with all the accurate #1's are you hand loading?

I now have three #1's. My most accurate is the 45/70. The .223 and .243 are good for 1.5 inch groups with off the shelf ammo. I read how many #1's need the bullet seated a bit further out for good accuracy. My results seem similar to those of a good many other people.

With the .243 and .223 in good bolt actions I regularly get under sometimes well under one inch groups.

Nor am I calling anyone a liar about their groups. In any given ten rifles some will happen to be better than others. I just think overall #1's are a bit less accurate than a bolt action from what I have read and seen myself.

I have ALWAYS handloaded for my No. 1's, and every other rifle I have, as well. I know that from time to time, one will find a certain lot # of factory ammo that will really shoot, but if you have a rifle that will GENERALLY shoot 1.5" groups with FACTORY AMMO, that is an exceptional combination-much better than you have a right to expect!

I have a No. 1 that is quite accurate, but knowof others that are not. My understanding, which might be wrong, is that Ruger at one time bought poor quality barrels, but has upgraded in recent years. I'm sure other folks here have better info and will respond.

I own only two* Ruger #1s, and the last two groups they shot were there best ever:

1) .223 32X scope .5" 5 shot group 100 yards
12-8-06 33 gr Vmax moly 15 gr Blue Dot 3500 fps

2) 7mmRemMag 6.5X scope .9" 3 shot group 100 yards
10-28-06 175 gr Hornady spire moly 65 gr H4831sc 2850 fps



Both rifle were bought with the intent of rebarrelling, but both were too accurate to change.

*I think I should get more.

Is 0.75" in 9.3x74R accurate enough?

LRH,

actually, that's pretty marginal...but we know it's a new rifle so we're cutting you some slack until it warms up and you can get to the range a few more times.

Rich

Yeah, all it does is kill things real dead..............

quote:

Originally posted by LRH270:
Is 0.75" in 9.3x74R accurate enough?

Or three shots in 1" with a 175-grainer at 200 yards from a 1B, 7mm Rem. Mag.

Here's a good buy on a 220 Swift:
http://www.auctionarms.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=7804534&aa

Mine are all plenty accurate for hunting - they'll shoot tighter than I can hold them...

I have a small collection of Ruger #1s in various configurations. I expect my rifles in varmint cartridges to groups in one inch or less, preferably less. Rifles in big game cartridges I expect accuracy commeasurate with the game being hunted. For example. for deer on up to moose, 1.5" or less is just fine. I expect at least that good from my #1H in .375 H&H. However, if either the .404 jeffery or .416 Rigby never do better than two inches what the hell. Considering the game they're designed for, and at the ranges you'd normally use them, that would be good enough. Actually, both do a hell of a lot better than that, but if they didn't, I would not have lost any sleep over the fact.
Sometimes, I wonder over this obession over high velocity and extreme accuracy. It's almost like my daddy can kick your daddy's ass. Ain't no bench rests out in the game fields.
One strong suggestion I can make on Ruger #1s, or their other rifles as well. Make damn sure the inside wood is properly sealed. IMHO, Ruger does a very shitty job in that respect. I learned that one the hard way when I got caught in a heavy rain storm during an elk hunt. The wood in a #1B in .300 Win. Mag.soaked up so much water that when I got home, the rifle was shooting six feet high and very erratically. I pulled the wood and sure as hell, there was little or no sealing, just raw wood. it took that rifle almsot six years to dry out enough to stop shooting erraticaly. I then sealed up all the wood and now it shoots just fine. I've sealed up all my Ruger rifles since that episode.
Paul B.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul B:

One strong suggestion I can make on Ruger #1s, or their other rifles as well. Make damn sure the inside wood is properly sealed. IMHO, Ruger does a very shitty job in that respect. I learned that one the hard way when I got caught in a heavy rain storm during an elk hunt. The wood in a #1B in .300 Win. Mag.soaked up so much water that when I got home, the rifle was shooting six feet high and very erratically. I pulled the wood and sure as hell, there was little or no sealing, just raw wood. it took that rifle almsot six years to dry out enough to stop shooting erraticaly. I then sealed up all the wood and now it shoots just fine. I've sealed up all my Ruger rifles since that episode.
Paul B.

Was betwee the forstock and barrel?
I have cut enough clearance under one of mine for a dozen dollar bills.

quote:

Was betwee the forstock and barrel?
I have cut enough clearance under one of mine for a dozen dollar bills.

YUP! And ther rifle was strictly stock with no alterations.
Paul B.

My stock .223 #1 went from 1" to 1/2" when I simply took off some wood at the end of the fore stock.

And the rifle was already too good to re barrel at 1".

Have 3 Ruger No 1's and all are very good shooters:
1B- 30-06
1V-.220 Swift
and my pet No 1 International - .270

Love them all!!