Home
Who was the market in 1984 when Ruger made a No. 1 in .223 with a bull barrel?
varmint hunters.

The interesting thing, this fast forwarding to this year, the new K1V has a 1 in 8" twist barrel, and a throat that should be nice for VLD style heavy bullets. So now it's starting to look real attractive for other uses. No magazine to tie your hands on cartridge OAL.
Ruger got it right with that one the perfect melding of looks and function!
Posted By: Fotis Re: Why a Ruger No. 1 in .223 - 01/22/16
I just bought one....
One minor gripe is I normally use Ruger's offset rings on #1's - but they don't make SS offset rings, nor offset 30mm rings. So I haven't mounted a scope yet. Nobody tell DeFlave smile
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
One minor gripe is I normally use Ruger's offset rings on #1's - but they don't make SS offset rings, nor offset 30mm rings. So I haven't mounted a scope yet. Nobody tell DeFlave smile


Was cruising Midway last night and they do list stainless, medium height, offset rings. Can't remember if there was a 30mm offering but there was an offset stainless available (Ruger brand).
Originally Posted by Bushmaster1313
Who was the market in 1984 when Ruger made a No. 1 in .223 with a bull barrel?

I remember seeing a bunch of g hog shooters carrying them in Pa. after they first came out .... ranges were about 350-400 yds, max. perfect .223 area.
Originally Posted by War_Eagle
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
One minor gripe is I normally use Ruger's offset rings on #1's - but they don't make SS offset rings, nor offset 30mm rings. So I haven't mounted a scope yet. Nobody tell DeFlave smile


Was cruising Midway last night and they do list stainless, medium height, offset rings. Can't remember if there was a 30mm offering but there was an offset stainless available (Ruger brand).


thanks, they must have added them since I last searched. Midway is $5 ea cheaper, but they have none in stock. I usually buy direct from Ruger.
Posted By: Mntngoat Re: Why a Ruger No. 1 in .223 - 01/31/16
A BR or ppc would be more interesting than the boring .223 in my opinion.

ML
Posted By: ingwe Re: Why a Ruger No. 1 in .223 - 01/31/16
The .222 is skookum in a #1

[Linked Image]
Originally Posted by Mntngoat
A BR or ppc would be more interesting than the boring .223 in my opinion.

ML


They did build 22, and 6mm PPC's in the #1. They are quite rare and are sought-after by collectors. A downside is the have a slower twist, so heavy bullets are out.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=538912822
Bushmaster1313: "I" was the market back then for a heavy barrel Ruger #1 in 223 Remington.
I have owned two of these in the past and they both shot pretty well.
I used them for Rock Chuck Hunting as well as Prairie Doggin.
Today I own heavy barrel Ruger #1's in 204 Ruger and two guns in 22-250 Remington.
I had a heavy barrel #1-V in caliber 220 Swift but it shot not quite up to my Varminting standards so I sold it.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
Posted By: dale06 Re: Why a Ruger No. 1 in .223 - 02/03/16
Originally Posted by dvdegeorge
Ruger got it right with that one the perfect melding of looks and function!


Your are correct. Wish they has gotten accuracy though.
I have had four #1s all were dogs in the accuracy or holding zero department. Mine were 223, 22PPC(2) and these three were heavy varmint barrels. The other was a 22H in sporter.
Posted By: Clarkm Re: Why a Ruger No. 1 in .223 - 02/06/16
In Nov 2002 for $445 + $45 tax I got a like new Ruger #1 223 made in 2000 with long skinny barrel. It would shoot a 1" group. I loved that rifle and thousands of rodents died.

In April 2007, through my own incompetence, I lost that rifle.

In May 2007, on an online auction I found a Ruger #1V 223 with short fat barrel for $500 + $42 shipping and FFL, made in 1999.
The bore was full of Copper.
It will shoot a 1/2" group.

[Linked Image]
© 24hourcampfire