Is there a "Break Point" in Ruger No. 1 Quality?

[bushmaster1313]

Other than the original no pre-fix guns, is there a later point in time when the quality of the No. 1's seemed to go down?

 

[gewehrfreund]

Not really, but there have been several changes in features over the years (checkering patterns, triggers, barrel suppliers, etc.),
If you're interested in the No. 1, you should get a reprint copy of the Ruger No.1 book by Clayton and join Red Eagle News Exchange that Chad Hiddleson runs so you can get the pocket collector's guide.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

I think the more recent #1s if anything are better shooters. But alot more of them come out of the factory with plainer wood. Used to be a #1 was a guarantee of nicely figured walnut.

 

[mcknight77]

Serial number 130-05000 is about the end of Douglas Premium barrels and serious quality control.

There are some very good shooters after that date/number, and certainly some very nice wood, but there's a better chance of getting a rifle that may take some accurizing. In addition, in the 1975-76 timeframe there are some rifle with salt dried wood. They are to be avoided. You can usually tell them by a line of rust at the junction of the buttstock and receiver. Unfortunately some of the salt dried wood has some of the best figure available.

 

[picketpin]

To expand on Jim's point about salt dried wood. It was in general use in 1975 and 1976 time period and sadly it was used more for highly figured wood as it was usually denser so took longer to dry without the short cut. There is some that shows up later as the wood was not segregated by time frame. The two best #1s I have ever owned were both 1976 salt wood guns, before I knew better.

The primary reason for the drop in QC was the HUGE expansion in production of #1s in this time frame. While serial numbers as indicated by Ruger is NOT a true and accurate indicator of total production I think it is probably close enough to use as a rough estimate..

If you look at the non prefix guns, 1967-1969 with some assembled and shipped in 1970 and 1971 and as late as 1973 they were making anywhere from 1200 to 2200 #1s a year. In 1974 they increased to approximately 7000. In 1975 they made approximately 5000. THEN in 1976 production went to roughly 23,000, unless they simply skipped HUGE blocks of serial numbers. It became harder and harder for the suppliers to meet the demand for highly figured wood, hence the shortcut with salt wood. This not only effected Ruger but Browning and Weatherby for sure. There is a very good post by a former Browning smith that spent a LOT of time fixing salt wood guns. (Try a search)

So not just salt wood but a huge increase in total production which probably made QC a much more iffy proposition.

If I was looking for one with the highest likelihood of good QC AND a Douglas barrel I would keep it under 130-5000. You would also get a rounded edge 1st generation butt pad, no barrel warning, a three screw adjustable trigger, first generation checkering and serial numbered breach blocks. As a semi collector, I'd say that once you get to 1980 the only true rarity is in the cartridge it's chambered in, as the engineering and cosmetic changes have all been done and the rifles are essentially unchanged since then with a few exceptions. (1984 change to the front angle of the front of the receiver)

All of that said one of the most accurate #1s I own started life as a Wilson barreled 218 Bee "S" that was rechambered to 22BR. The stock was so plain I sanded it and painted it blue. ;-)

There are still the #1 that shows up with killer wood but if fit and finish is your goal the chances are much higher with an early gun. They simply had more TIME and a different attitude regarding the #1 in that time frame.

Ross

PS: You NEED the book. ;-)

 

[gewehrfreund]

I agree that the fit and finish of the wood/metal is better on the earlier rifles, but as stated, some of the most accurate No. 1s can be from the 1980's/'90's.
Also, there is no hard and fast rule on the "salt wood". I have a non-prefix BH that seems to have this problem (rust pitting at the buttstock/receiver interface). Luckily, most of the damage (which I have halted pretty successfully) is hidden from view and doesn't affect the safety/function of the rifle at all. Also have a Liberty 1H 458 that showed some corrosion at the stock/receiver junction, but not bad and it too has been treated to prevent further damage. The caveat is that if you have one of these, you have to check it regularly to make sure it doesn't keep rusting, especially if you live in a humid summer location like I do :-(

 

[wunbe]

The best test for salt wood is to put a few drops of silver nitrate on a segment of bare wood. Salt wood will leech out a milky white. Guns that have been used a lot in the rain and left standing w/o adequate drying off can also have a little rust at the metal /wood joins and under the wood w/o being part of the slat wood era.

I am still waiting for a Ruger 1 "break point" when they use serious recoil pads and iron sights; inletted safeties to allow fired rounds to eject w/o hanging up; triggers that are adjustable; barrels that are free floated; stock scope mounts that allow adequate backward positioning; and offer an alternative to the A/H forearm on all models. Maybe much of that will come when MSRP hits $2000??

wunbe

 

[Clark]

I'm no No. 1 junkie but these are my limited observations.

I have a recent production No. 1 RSI and I really can't complain about it at all. It shoots good, the wood on it is very good for a factory and I think the fit and finish is better than any other mass produced gun.

It seems like plenty of people on here post pictures of fairly new No. 1's that have very nice wood. I rarely read any complaints concerning new production and it seems like most guns will shoot minute of deer without any problems.

So I do wonder if any "drop" in quality is simply sentimental, real or just assumed that the older the gun the better it was made?

Clark

 

[Lloyd Smale]

first one i had was in 72 and the last one i bought was last year and have owned quite a few inbetween. I guess im lucky in that i never saw anyting resembling salt wood. I also will say that the fit and finish of my newest one a 1a 257 is as good as any ive owned. Yes the wood quality has gone down. Used to be a plain stock was an exception now its abou to the point where an exceptional stock is rare. that said most are still better figured then the average over the counter rifle. As to accuracy ill say this. I did have a couple bad ones in the past but overall my #1s have hands down outshot the 77s i had, especially the tang saftey 77s.