Another Savage 1899, about as close to a Winchester 1894 from the era as one can get…|Page 2|What's New!|Forum|Winchester Collector

Bo Rich said
Next thing you know.  Somebody will bring up a Ruger!  Oh the humanity!😜
  

In the dark days of 1967, the Ruger #1 was a badly needed breath of fresh air. 1968 was a second breath.

Bo Rich said
Next thing you know.  Somebody will bring up a Ruger!  Oh the humanity!😜
  

I can concede one must be wary of the, “slipper slope.”  Ruger followed by Mossberg?

These posts trigger memories for me.  I’ve not been much of a Ruger guy but in the late 70’s I had a M77 in .250-3000 and one in .257 Roberts.  I didn’t have one in .30-06, .270, .308 etc.  It was the chamberings that attracted me.  I recall years ago buying a Winchester M54 in .257 Roberts.  The rifle was in very high original condition with exception that the barrel had been cut to 20 inches!  I wouldn’t have looked twice at it had it been in 30-06, etc. but the chambering pulled me in – combined that it was in a Winchester M54.

I do have an appreciation for Ruger rifles.  The rifles themselves, but also the very wide array of chamberings in the M77’s and No.1’s and No. 3’s.  Chamberings such as .38-55, .405,.35 Whelan, .348 Winchester, .22 Hornet, .218 Bee… Ruger had us covered.  I appreciate how Ruger was able to carry the past forward. –

I was thinking about what rifle came in the most chamberings – ever?  I suspect it was the Winchester Single-Shot with the Ruger No. 1 coming in second.

Gentlemen,  I suspect our differing views on Sturm, Ruger & Co. reflect a usually irrelevant difference in our respective ages. I’m not the oldest active member at almost 82, but if you were born in the Sixties instead of during the Normandy Invasion, you came of age after the California Look was on the wane and it was possible to buy rifles in the classical style again as a matter of course. 

Bill Ruger was a man of considerable taste and discrimination, in addition to being a brilliant and innovative mechanical designer. His #1 and 77 rifles shocked the industry because they were celebrated and successful – not because they were all that accurate; they weren’t, particularly the single shot. They were very handsome compared to the competition, because WBR did something outrageous. He hired a custom gunmaker to design the stocks. Nobody else did that!  And not just any custom stockmaker!  Moreover, Len Brownell trained a group of New England women to hand checker the stocks. Hand checkering was then considered impossible to do at reasonable cost. Wrong again. 

The Ruger 77 was not cheap. The initial list was $149 when the Winchester Model 70 was about $130. A Browning High Power was about $175. Ruger could not build them fast enough.

What does this have to do with Winchester?  A lot because it began to employ outside designers and engineers to consult. Some of you may not care for the new Featherweight but it was and still is a popular and stylish rifle. Ruger kicked Buddha’s gong and shocked Winchester and Remington into doing some things differently. 

In my opinion, the 9422 would not have happened if Bill Ruger hadn’t succeeded.earlier. Nor would Browning have shown how to make and sell the Model 12 at a profit. 

It is extremely difficult for a subsidiary corporation whose officers answer to a parent board of directors, to allow its product creators the latitude to innovate. While John M. Olin made mistakes and 1964 would not have occurred without his consent, he was also a positive influence and wanted Winchester to make the best — and best looking — rifles and shotguns in the World, immediate profits be damned. As long as he had the power to isolate Winchester’s gunmaking operation from Wall Street,  he used it. 

Bill Ruger ran his company with an iron hand and Sturm Ruger never borrowed money. WBR and family owned an overwhelming controlling interest in SR and he answered to nobody. As Jim Carmichael reported, the reason Ruger guns were made a  certain way was because “that’s the way Bill wants it.” 

The positive influence Bill Ruger has had on Winchester products is unmistakable and significant. 

Bert H. said

steve004 said
I was thinking about what rifle came in the most chamberings – ever?  I suspect it was the Winchester Single-Shot with the Ruger No. 1 coming in second.
  

Your suspicion is correct.  The Winchester Single Shot was (by a very wide margin) factory chambered for the largest number of different cartridges.  For a detailed list, read my article – Winter 2021 (winchestercollector.org)
Bert
  

Bert –  I have read your article a couple of times.  It is an impressive number and variety of chamberings.  It does seem that the Ruger single-shot is slowly catching up.

The reason it won’t is because whoever runs the #1 program at Sturm Ruger figured out cheapening the gun and making it available in lots of chamberings was a losing proposition. 

When the #1 was introduced in the mid Sixties, it was never intended to be broadly popular and “affordable.” It was very expensive for the times. Very nice wood and the fit and finishing was special. I handled one in 1967 at McBride’s in Austin but the price was, I think, close to $250. A 30/06.  

Over the years the price went up and the quality went down. You could get one with a laminated stock in some weird metric caliber nobody ever heard of, but fewer people wanted to. 

Finally, Cabela’s came along and cut an exclusive deal – we agree on a single configuration each year, you bring back the quality and we buy the entire year’s production. The price jumped to two grand but the rifles were beautiful. And they sold and still do. But they are not a high volume item for Sturm Ruger. 

I owned two of the fair-to-middling guns in the Seventies and Eighties, a new full-stocked 30/06 with chair leg wood that was accurate because Ruger had started making its own barrels; and an older #1A 243 with handsome wood from when Ruger was buying barrels from outside and that one was hopeless. I was lucky to get inside 3 moa. Sold both.

The #1AB 22 Hornet I have is quite accurate although I’ve never scoped it. Cabela’s specified a 24″ 1-10 .224 barrel with ramped iron sights, an Alexander Henry forearm, barrel band sling swivel, almost exhibition grade Walnut. Well o ver 2K out the door — they probably don’t sell all that many but Ruger uses the gun in its ads as a symbol of high quality.

I personally think Ruger got that idea from John Olin’s insistence on the Winchester 52 Sporting and the Model 21. 

Steve, As much as I admire the Winchester 1885, it was a workingman’s gun and accordingly a high volume seller that could support numerous chamberings.  I think your future odds of seeing a #1 in ,366 Flying Saucer are slim to none.  It’s a niche item for those nostalgic for the Victorian Era.

I know several who shoot the Number one, and complain about it’s accuracy!

I don’t hear that from the many who shoot the M-1885, Single Shot!

Tony

Anthony said
I know several who shoot the Number one, and complain about it’s accuracy!
I don’t hear that from the many who shoot the M-1885, Single Shot!
 
Tony
  

The #1 can require some barrel tuning and bedding work because of Bill Ruger’s angled forearm attachment screw, which was designed to alter barrel tension. 

Another – likely the major –  issue is the who made the barrel?  Initially, Ruger used Douglas Premium barrels but Douglas could not meet volume requirements. Ruger then began to also buy barrels from Wilson Arms, a supplier able to deliver at high volume. These barrels were, to be charitable, hit or miss in quality. Some were very rough. 

The new 1985 Model 77RSI 250 Savage I owned from 1986 until last year was extremely accurate. The 1984 #1A 243 I owned for a year was terrible. I always suspected Douglas made the 250 barrel.

In the late Eighties, Sturm Ruger bought, at a stratospheric price, Steyr hammer forging equipment and began barrel making in-house. By the time (about 1991) of the introduction of the Mark II version of the Model 77, all Ruger centerfire barrels were and still are made and hammer forge rifled entirely in- house. 

The #1AB 22 Hornet I bought in 2021 kwill shoot better than I can hold it because it’s too pretty to scope. I bought it as a stalking rifle to hunt turkeys and varmint grade accuracy is irrelevant.  It has excellent irons on a short rib that even I can use at modest ranges.  

With respect to the 1885,  the few originals I’ve seen locally have been fitted out for targets and varmints with new custom barrels and have optics the size of a magnum of champagne. I would hope for their owners’ sakes that they shoot up to their price tags. 

From all I’ve seen, maximum accuracy from traditional sporting rifles, as opposed to rail guns, comes from one-piece polymer stocks, blue-printed Remington 700 style bolt actions, and pillar bedded high dollar barrels by somebody like Krieger.  Ugly as a blister.

Falling block single shot rifles built with two piece stocks do not compete with the above. But we like them anyway, for our own reasons. I think Alexander Henry rifles are elegant and Farquharson rifles are funny looking. My biggest regret is passing up a Miroku-built Winchester Low Wall 22 Hornet with a tapered octagon barrel and no sights. Had it in my hands and got a fit of the cheaps. 

Great follow up, and very interesting Bill!

Tony

Chuck said
At the end of the 19th century and after the turn of the 20th century the 1885’s were very popular target rifles. Harry Pope had a few and put his barrels on a lot more.  The 1885 was the test mule for almost all the 80+ calibers that Winchester loaded or tested. 
If you want to compare apples to oranges here is a picture of one of my target rifles.  Nobody that shoots for accuracy or long range would use a Ruger.  They do make some starter Precision Rifles. 
The Sharps and the 1885 are very popular nostalgia target rifles.  I’ve yet to see a black powder Ruger on the range.
 

  

Great point also Chuck!

Tony

Chuck said

steve004 said

 

Bert –  I have read your article a couple of times.  It is an impressive number and variety of chamberings.  It does seem that the Ruger single-shot is slowly catching up.
  

No way, it will never happen.
  

Well, the Ruger is supposedly over 70 and the Winchester single-shot is at 91?  Only 20 or so to go, but I have to admit it’s difficult for me to imagine what 20 additional cartridges oculd be….

Ok, maybe not that hard at all. I’ll start my list: .280 Ross, .300 Savage, .32-40, .32 Special, .33 WCF, 22 High Power, .25-35 WCF, .303 Savage, .35 WCF, .45-60, .45-75, .45-90, .50-95, .50-110-300.  (I could easily keep going).