Nice butt stock on one side.Blueing looks the same.Some guys like to embellish what they are selling, with phony claims.I would ask for proof of limited run.
Posts: 4372 | Location: NE Wisconsin | Registered: 31 March 2007
This is a limited run of 250 that Lipsey's ordered. I'm a dealer and just bought two of them and they are both spoken for already. Both guns had nice but not spectacular wood.
Quick, Cheap, or Good: Pick Two
Posts: 2176 | Location: Tennessee | Registered: 18 February 2007
Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter: Can anyone explain Ruger's reluctance to fit #1's with proper length barrels? This would be a great rifle as a #1B.
Rich DRSS
Ruger didn't make many Roberts No 1s and most were in the "B" configuration. I have a 1B Roberts, nice rifle but a little heavier then it needs to be.
Posts: 2395 | Location: NE Ohio | Registered: 06 August 2005
Well,I saw the two newest ones ,the .303 and the .257 Rbts,both had 22" barrels with sights,too bad they were not 26",I would have bought both. but,they are handy....
I pray for mud on my boots the day I die... Go see the nights of Africa.....
Posts: 208 | Location: back home in the Tarheel state | Registered: 16 July 2007
According to J. D. Clayton’s book “Ruger No.1”, the Roberts was first cataloged in 1980 and only in the 1B. It was offered as a catalog item up to 1996 when this book was last updated. I always thought a No. 1S would have been a good platform for the Roberts and a few other cartridges but Ruger really never did much with the “S” before they discontinued it.
Posts: 2650 | Location: Lakewood, CO | Registered: 15 February 2003
Just purchased a .257 Roberts in the Ruger No. 1A. Ruger indicated they were making a "run" of only 250 of them. Very nice wood on mine with a serial number in the low 30's. I did not pay near the asking cost shown on Gun-Brooker.Com.
but Ruger really never did much with the “S” before they discontinued it.
That's something that has alays bothered me. I bought my first #1 way bak in 1975. I ordered it in the "S" configuration and Ruger sent me a "B". A fwe years later I ordered one in .300 Win. Mag., again asking for an "S" model and got a "B". Damned if i know why Ruger was so reluctent to give a customer what he wanted in the first place, but their attitude has me a bit pissed off. I finally found two rifles in the "S" configuration, both in .300 Win. mag. of all things. The first one is very accurate. I haven't shot the second one year as it's a 200th year model. My #1B in .257 Bob is extremely accurate. It came with 5 boxes of Norma 100 gr. ammo and aLeupold 3x9 scope for a very decent price. When I took it to the range, the first 5 shots with that Norma ammo went into .75" yes, the gun is a bit heavier than I like, but damned it's awfully accurate. Paul B.
Posts: 2814 | Location: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: 11 May 2001
Walk two miles three days a week (not to the DQ and back) carrying a 5lb dumbell in each hand. In three months the rifle will feel lighter. 26 inch barrels just "look" right.
Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter: Nice rifle, good cartridge, too short barrel.
Can anyone explain Ruger's reluctance to fit #1's with proper length barrels? This would be a great rifle as a #1B.
Rich DRSS
Ruger the man had that peculiar hang up of the northeast woods hunter. They think they can't carry a rifle with a normal length barrel in the same county as a tree. Why else would he design that dopey .44 Magnum autoloading carbine and many of the others that followed.
Posts: 13978 | Location: http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/tarawa2.jpg | Registered: 03 December 2008
A fwe years later I ordered one in .300 Win. Mag., again asking for an "S" model and got a "B". Damned if i know why Ruger was so reluctent to give a customer what he wanted in the first place, but their attitude has me a bit pissed off. I finally found two rifles in the "S" configuration, both in .300 Win. mag. of all things. The first one is very accurate. I haven't shot the second one year as it's a 200th year model.
