Building on Ruger#1

[reynolds357]

I have a question that I am sure some of you can answer. I have a Ruger #1 in .416 Rigby that has a badly rust pitted bore. I must admit that it occurred because of my own stupidity. I am going to re-barrel it into some kind of wildcat. I have never built anything off a #1, strictly bolt guns. My first question is about the strength of the #1 action. I have been told by people I kind of trust that it is as strong as the Weatherby mark V bolt action. I have been told by a couple of highly respected gun builders that they dont have a clue how strong the action is because no one wants custom rifles built on #1's and they have never messed with them. In you opinion, is the 1 as strong as a Mark 5 or at least a 700 Rem? Assuming the #1 is strong enough, My next question is would I have to do any modification to the action to build a .338 Lapua, or would it be much easier to build a .338-416? I already have dies, brass, and reamers for both so cost would be the same either way.
Anyone have any ideas of another wildcat that can be built without major action modification? I would love something in the 7mm to 8mm range, but I have not turned up anything that looks like a half way easy build.

[StoneChimney]

Either cartridge would be a fairly straightforward rebarrel.

[LDBennett]

Here's the reason people don't build on a Ruger #1 action: the design has inherent accuracy problems.

I have some old NRA sold gun books published about the time the #1 was first released. In one of those article an attempt to get a #1 to shoot got results that proved the gun has front stock hanger issues. Depending on where you hold the front stock effects the accuracy and can cause vertical stringing.

It seems if you add a set screw to the hanger to force the hanger away from the barrel and float the front hand guard off the receiver then the vertical stringing can be minimize. So I tried it on mine, a Ruger #1 in 270. No luck! The gun still has accuracy problems.

Now, for a game gun in a large caliber where shots may be in closer, it may not make any difference(???).

LDBennett

[StoneChimney]

People do build on Ruger #1 actions. It will probably never be as accurate as a blueprinted bolt action, but they are elegant single-shots that can be superb hunting rifles.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by LDBennett

Here's the reason people don't build on a Ruger #1 action: the design has inherent accuracy problems.

I have some old NRA sold gun books published about the time the #1 was first released. In one of those article an attempt to get a #1 to shoot got results that proved the gun has front stock hanger issues. Depending on where you hold the front stock effects the accuracy and can cause vertical stringing.

It seems if you add a set screw to the hanger to force the hanger away from the barrel and float the front hand guard off the receiver then the vertical stringing can be minimize. So I tried it on mine, a Ruger #1 in 270. No luck! The gun still has accuracy problems.

Now, for a game gun in a large caliber where shots may be in closer, it may not make any difference(???).

LDBennett

Thanks for the heads up on the accuracy problem. This is a 1H tropical in .416 Rigby. I am planning on getting Shillen to duplicate the contour of the .416 in .338 or possibly .300. 28 inches long with a 3" long brake. In .300 this would almost be a bull barrel. Do you think the pure weight of the barrel would mitigate the vertical stringing? I have also heard that some people have had a little bit of luck bedding the foreend to the barrel without using release agent and getting good accuracy in the #1. The downside of that is if you ever have to re-barrel, you have to buy another foreend, or if it hurts accuracy I would just be pretty much screwed.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by StoneChimney

People do build on Ruger #1 actions. It will probably never be as accurate as a blueprinted bolt action, but they are elegant single-shots that can be superb hunting rifles.

As far as strength, are they as strong as a 700 or Mark V?

[LDBennett]

reynolds357:

It appears that when the barrel vibrates harmonically with the shot fired it moves in respect to the receiver which has the hanger for the front stock (fore arm) attached to it. The article attempted to make the hanger move with the barrel (set screw in hanger pushing pretty hard on the on the bottom of the barrel). That should mean the fore arm should be free from touching the receiver. The design does not easily permit that. The article achieved success but found that the set screw torque was very sensitive. I could never get mine right. Also where the fore arm was rested on a bench rest bag made a difference to various degrees in the testing

The Winchester 1885, I believe, attaches the fore arm to the barrel and as such has no legacy of inaccuracy to the best of my knowledge. Black powder shooters love this action for accuracy but maybe their accuracy requirements are not as great as for a modern gun (??).

I still have the article somewhere. If you send me your email address I'll scan it and send it to you. PM me with it. This is a very old article and someone through the years may have found a better way. Maybe you should search out a Ruger #1 specific gunsmith.

LDBennett

[StoneChimney]

Reynolds, they are very strong actions and will have no issue with either cartridge.

[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by LDBennett

reynolds357:

It appears that when the barrel vibrates harmonically with the shot fired it moves in respect to the receiver which has the hanger for the front stock (fore arm) attached to it. The article attempted to make the hanger move with the barrel (set screw in hanger pushing pretty hard on the on the bottom of the barrel). That should mean the fore arm should be free from touching the receiver. The design does not easily permit that. The article achieved success but found that the set screw torque was very sensitive. I could never get mine right. Also where the fore arm was rested on a bench rest bag made a difference to various degrees in the testing

The Winchester 1885, I believe, attaches the fore arm to the barrel and as such has no legacy of inaccuracy to the best of my knowledge. Black powder shooters love this action for accuracy but maybe their accuracy requirements are not as great as for a modern gun (??).

I still have the article somewhere. If you send me your email address I'll scan it and send it to you. PM me with it. This is a very old article and someone through the years may have found a better way. Maybe you should search out a Ruger #1 specific gunsmith.

LDBennett

Using a Ruger #1 Gunsmith would probably by far be the best idea, but my goal in this project is to turn something unusable into something usable for a decent cost. The way I figure it, I will end up with about $300 in it doing it myself. I will come up with something to hopefully cure the accuracy problem. I might just change the foreend and go with a full bull barrel. I had a bench rest rifle that the stock warped on and was pushing the crap out of the barrel at 7oclock position and it never effected the accuracy in the least. Yeah, it is a dinosaur built with a wood stock. Pressure on a light weight barrel totally screws it up. I am hoping I can get 3/4" MOA out of the rifle. I am sure it will never work its way into my 1000 yard bench rest collection.