Don Lovel
Hunter
A custom shop you could order a #1/#3 action in different configurations and calibers would be very cool
Bring Back The Ruger No. 3 !!!!
- Thread starter surveyor47
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
I would have to "guess" if they limited the quantities made to the the numbers they "used" to set as ,as 'set' figure, seems like it was around 1500 for any "batch" and use these so called "cells" of production, or stick with the distributor "limited quantity say between 500 to 1000 made, cut the "fancy finish " ( man hours in fit and finish) as said above use a basic glassbead, or parked finish, off set it from its BIG, fancy brother, the No.1, and yes offer it in these calibers as suggested above, they just may be able to pull it off..... or better yet, as they did YEARS ago, sell the actions, barreled or NOT, to dealers or gunsmiths, why not??????
Nah, wishful thinking on our parts......................................
Nah, wishful thinking on our parts......................................
CZARNINA KID
Bearcat
I'd like to see a new#3 in the new RCM's with a Henry style or Mannlicher style fore end, a semi-pistol grip buttstock and a loop lever and #1 style open sights (I just think it would look better with open sights on it). The RCM's are designed for shorter barrels so I think they would make a neat,short but powerful combination. BTW, I have a #3 in .45/70.
MADISON
Single-Sixer
There are 2 basic differences between the Ruger #1 and #3:
The price
The "Lever"
I woooould also, like to see them bring back the #3, in all their calibers.
The price
The "Lever"
I woooould also, like to see them bring back the #3, in all their calibers.
clayflingythingy
Single-Sixer
Don't forget the curved carbine buttplate. 
A million huh? :roll: They didn't sell 50,000 the first time around and with people thinking they need super ultra magnums in a multi-shot platform they wouldn't do it this time either. Like the #1, it would be a niche market and a very small niche at that.
SHOOTER":2ulh8evv said:
Negative? No, realistic, yes. Look at it without personal wants and such being a guide. the single shot market is a small one and those wanting one of Ruger quality AND be willing to pay for it aren't many at all in the grand scheme of the market. The majority of people simply want MORE, more power & more capacity. A single shot design simply is a fading one. Yes, there's the H&R's and T/C's but there you have very inexpensive and very versatile - the Ruger design is neither. The #1 itself is slowly having chamberings dropped. The number of people wiling to pay the $ for one are lessening too. Why re-introduce such a model to such a small market when the resources (materials, production time, etc) can be used on model with much more market interest? Yeah, I'd love to see the #3 return but from a business standpoint, there's much better models to having shipping.
However, if one was SO positive that the #1 would be such a HUGE seller, maybe put some $ forward, coordinate with a dealer/distributor and contact a run. :wink:
gewehrfreund
Buckeye
I'm reluctant to wade in here, because we have had this type of thread in one form or another for years now, and the end result is always the same: we're lucky to still have the #1 being produced, let alone bringing back the ugly cousin #3. The only factory original #3 I have ever purchased was a 223 from a local shop for around $300 back in the '90s. I quickly bought a 375 Win. barrel from Numrich and had it put on. It now has has nice aftermarket wood with a Mannlicher forend - and only looks and handles around 1000% better than a stock #3. The other "#3" I have is a custom gun by JK Cloward in 222 Rem with an aftermarket barrel and English walnut stocks. The highest calling for the #3 seems to have been as the basis for custom guns in one form or another, since it's easier to do fancy things with its lever versus the #1.
Here's my take on this subject: the #3 will only be a viable offering if Ruger decides to drop the #1, and go with this "cheaper" alternative. As some have already said, why buy #3 when you can get a good used #1 for only a little more money? If Ruger offered the #3 as an action only option, they might sell some for those who want to make up their own dream rifle, but in this market (and liability concerns) with the current managment, it's not going to happen. One thing is sure, I won't be buying any $600+ #3s when there are so many nice #1s still out there somewhere waiting for me.
LC
Here's my take on this subject: the #3 will only be a viable offering if Ruger decides to drop the #1, and go with this "cheaper" alternative. As some have already said, why buy #3 when you can get a good used #1 for only a little more money? If Ruger offered the #3 as an action only option, they might sell some for those who want to make up their own dream rifle, but in this market (and liability concerns) with the current managment, it's not going to happen. One thing is sure, I won't be buying any $600+ #3s when there are so many nice #1s still out there somewhere waiting for me.
LC
felix cortinas
Bearcat
I used to have 2 number 3s in .22 hornet and .223, I tried several good scopes on both of them, Leupolds, Weavers, Redfields, could not get anything out of them, sprayed all over the place, wish I still had them, they were beautiful carbines with the dovetail stock. even though they were not shooters I wish I had kept them.
four70nitro
Single-Sixer
As mentioned above the only differences between the No. 1 and the No. 3 is the lever and the stock (and hence the price).
25 years ago when I worked in a gun store where the owner, the manager, and I were all single shot enthusiasts we kept a LARGE stock of No. 1's and No. 3's on hand all the time in EVERY caliber available at the time and virtually every configuration. We sold them locally and all over the U.S. through an ad in the Shotgun News. We sold a lot of Ruger No. 1's and a fair amount of No. 3's because we liked them and we had every caliber and every configuration in stock virtually all the time over the five years I worked there.
Even with our personal emphasis on single shot rifles (we also sold Brownings, and Shiloh Sharps, and C. Sharps Arms) single shot rifles probably accounted for less than 5% of all the long arms we sold, maybe only 2 or 3% -- I really don't know what the actual numbers were, and that was a long time ago.
The split between No. 1 sales and No. 3 sales was probably 12-15 No. 1's for every No. 3 sold. They simply were not that popular. They certainly were offered in a more limited caliber range, and essentially one configuration, but they just didn't sell. No. 1's were far and away more popular in what was already a very tiny niche of the retail firearms market. There just wasn't enough of a price differential between the two to entice people to buy the No. 3. Most of the people that did buy No. 3's already owned No. 1's and wanted a No. 3 because you couldn't get the No. 1 in .22 Hornet or .375 Win.
The long and short of it is I was not the least bit surprised when they quit making the No. 3 -- the was simply no reason for them to compete with themselves for sales. They sold a lot more No. 1's than they did No. 3's so why dilute their own market?
If they brought them back they would just be competing with themselves again because the No. 3 wouldn't be that much less expensive than the No. 1's are. I'd really hate to see them re-introduce the No. 3 and tank the market for both No. 1's and No. 3's by competing with themselves for the same block of customers and sales.
Dave
25 years ago when I worked in a gun store where the owner, the manager, and I were all single shot enthusiasts we kept a LARGE stock of No. 1's and No. 3's on hand all the time in EVERY caliber available at the time and virtually every configuration. We sold them locally and all over the U.S. through an ad in the Shotgun News. We sold a lot of Ruger No. 1's and a fair amount of No. 3's because we liked them and we had every caliber and every configuration in stock virtually all the time over the five years I worked there.
Even with our personal emphasis on single shot rifles (we also sold Brownings, and Shiloh Sharps, and C. Sharps Arms) single shot rifles probably accounted for less than 5% of all the long arms we sold, maybe only 2 or 3% -- I really don't know what the actual numbers were, and that was a long time ago.
The split between No. 1 sales and No. 3 sales was probably 12-15 No. 1's for every No. 3 sold. They simply were not that popular. They certainly were offered in a more limited caliber range, and essentially one configuration, but they just didn't sell. No. 1's were far and away more popular in what was already a very tiny niche of the retail firearms market. There just wasn't enough of a price differential between the two to entice people to buy the No. 3. Most of the people that did buy No. 3's already owned No. 1's and wanted a No. 3 because you couldn't get the No. 1 in .22 Hornet or .375 Win.
The long and short of it is I was not the least bit surprised when they quit making the No. 3 -- the was simply no reason for them to compete with themselves for sales. They sold a lot more No. 1's than they did No. 3's so why dilute their own market?
If they brought them back they would just be competing with themselves again because the No. 3 wouldn't be that much less expensive than the No. 1's are. I'd really hate to see them re-introduce the No. 3 and tank the market for both No. 1's and No. 3's by competing with themselves for the same block of customers and sales.
Dave
felix cortinas":1ytxsc1n said:
My #3 chambered in .223 is very accurate, with good factory premium ammo and not bad with the cheap stuff. I have an inexpensive Simmoms 4x12x40 scope on it also. I have shot 3 shot groups of 3/8". Most average around 1/2". Just my personal experince........
Dave
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
Making one is not a bad idea. What if Ruger offered just the actions and stocks? Stocks being key since wood working is EXPENSIVE!
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
I sure would like to find a #3 in 44 mag if anyone knows of one?
DavidMc116":14e6u0lh said:
Here you go, and considering the condition, box, papers .... imo a very good priced package. I would buy it myself but am gun poor with all the good stuff coming out of the woods this past year.
I have one FS in 99% condition, $900, no box, papers and I won't budge a inch/buck. Ruger only made 200 and not making them anymore.
Let us know if you pull the trigger.
Good Luck.
http://www.gunsamerica.com//927965658/G ... 3.htm?wl=1
mrwickwire
Bearcat
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 62
I understand the utility. But, for some reason. The #3 does not look as nice as the #1.
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
Obviously you're not a man that carries his firearm afield. Think like a dove hunter carrying a shotgun all day long. The just over 6lbs compared to the just under 8lb #1, and you'll figure it out.
DavidMc116":3mq24kuu said:
Have carried a #1V afield all day more than once and never felt it was too heavy for all 127lbs of me. IMO, if 8lbs is too heavy, a new hobby needs to be looked into. Worse still when ppl start looking at reducing weight by ounces. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Likely bringing a 8-9lb #1 afield this year...guess I better hit the gym. :wink: :roll:
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
Well naturally sonny, you need an anchor! 'Get back to me when your weekend warrior days have passed and you've actually done some serious trek hunting.
