TXGunNut said

The question comes to mind; why build MOA hunting rifles when very few hunters are capable of true MOA groups? The 77 above consistently shoots 2" or a little over with ammo it likes but my brother has killed more deer and hogs with it than with both his M70's combined due to a run of bad weather last several years. He has a Kawasaki Mule and rain gear and he isn't afraid to use them. This ugly M77 handles and shoots better than most folks can shoot and it keeps a couple of beautiful Winchesters looking new. It also likes the same ammo the Winchesters like and has similar optics so it's an easy switch when Mother Nature has a hissy on a hunt weekend. 
 
Mike
  

It doesn't as long as you don't shoot at something small or the animal is not more that 2 to 3 hundred yards away.  A 1 MOA gun doesn't always shoot 3" groups at 300 yds.  It is often worse. And if your aim is off who knows.   Small groups will raise your chances that you might actually hit where you are aiming. 

The question comes to mind; why build MOA hunting rifles when very few hunters are capable of true MOA groups? The 77 above consistently shoots 2" or a little over with ammo it likes but my brother has killed more deer and hogs with it than with both his M70's combined due to a run of bad weather last several years. He has a Kawasaki Mule and rain gear and he isn't afraid to use them. This ugly M77 handles and shoots better than most folks can shoot and it keeps a couple of beautiful Winchesters looking new. It also likes the same ammo the Winchesters like and has similar optics so it's an easy switch when Mother Nature has a hissy on a hunt weekend. 

Mike

Bert H. said

98 is the number for the Winchester Single Shot.
  

How many of these were built during the production of the original 1885's?  Or Winchester was still the original company.  I might have to update my list.

The Ruger 77 is capable of excellent varmint accuracy in its heavy barreled version. I had one in 25-06 that was a half minute rifle. It was never designed nor intended for benchrest competition. Neither was the pre-64 Winchester Model 70 even in its target versions. Both were and still can be competitive in traditional High Power competition because there a shooter's relative skill is paramount.  Both were and are primarily hunting rifles. 

The same is true to an even greater degree of the #1.  It is a hunter's rifle, more than adequately accurate for that purpose. The heavy barreled Swift and 22-250 versions can be made to shoot with sufficient accuracy to kill varmints at extended ranges but varmint hunters who buy them do so because they like the rifle, not because it's the instrument best suited to the purpose. 

Bill Ruger was far more concerned with style amd functionality than making tiny groups on paper. He saw his rifles from a hunter's perspective but with a connoisseurs eye for tradition, line and beauty. 

I'm not sure all of you really get how outrageous and unconventional WBR was in hiring an outsider to design his stocks. The industry took it as an insult. And 1966 industry pundits laughed behind his back at the notion of a single shot rifle selling at all. 

Sturm Ruger is the now the largest American maker of firearms. It has in the past been given and declined the opportunity to buy the gunmaking operations of Winchester, Remington, Savage, Colt, and Smith &Wesson. Of course it has bought Marlin. 

That the company doesn't hang its head in shame for not fielding contraptions whose sole purpose is to shoot 1000 yard targets off a tripod, is unsurprising. Those who delight in such creations should not wonder at Ruger's absence from their games. 

What Sturm Ruger did do is lead mythe way back to handsome hunting rifles by showing its competitors how to make them profitably. It's my opinion the current Winchester Model 70 Super Grade, for all its reported manufacturing flaws, would not exist today in the absence of Bill Ruger. Nor would the 9422 or any of the Browning reproductions of the Models 1886, 1892, 1894, 1895, 52 Sporting, 53, 65, 12 and 42. Browning and FN were encouraged by Sturm Ruger's success and profited from it. Large corporations are not innovators, although they may have once been when smaller. 

So, I don't collect Rugers.but the #1 and 77 African I own are not for sale. 

steve004 said

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).
  

98 is the number for the Winchester Single Shot.

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).

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

Zebulon said

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. 
  

Anthony said
Great follow up, and very interesting Bill!
 
Tony
  

Tony

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.

Bert H. said
I am definitely in the "Or more..." category.  At last count, I have (16) shotguns, only one of which is not a Winchester (my Auto-5 Light Twenty).
Bert
  

You have an admirable lack of self restraint. 

My own balance tilts the other way: 4 Winchester and 8 Browning. But the fat lady may not have sung yet. 

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. 

Tedk said
Lenard Brownell designed the stocks for the Ruger No. 1, Ruger Model 77 and all of Ruger’s Mannlicher stocked guns
  

Yes and I was fortunate enough in 1985 to get a 77RSI in 250 Savage that had an excellent barrel. Killed most of my Whitetails and Rios with it, with factory and handloaded ammunition. My load for turkeys was a Hornady 87 grain fmj spirepoint over a dose of enough 4759 to yield 1800 foot seconds. That consistently shot sub MOA 3 shot groups at 100 yards. 

The 77 RSI bore a close resemblance to a full stocked carbine made by Brownell illustrated in Gun Digest. The only significant difference was in the grade of Walnut. Brownell favored tang safeties and his custom job and my RSI both had them. Despite those safeties being sear blockers, not the striker blockers I prefer, a tang safety is mighty handy.