Why are #1's so expensive??

[9ballbilly]

Can someone explain what makes the #1 rifles so expensive?

They are beautiful no doubt, but is there something in the production process that makes them particularly costly to build?

Always wondered about that.

 

[rangerbob]

My take on the #1 is that it was Mr. Bill's pride and joy and the flagship of the line. The barrels seem to be more or less the same blanks used for the M77's in similar calibers. I remember reading in the late sixties when the #1 and the M77 appeared, Mr. Ruger stated that a real rifle should cost about a working man's weekly pay check. Today, one would need to be making $5000 a month to afford a #1. In Louisiana today, that would translate to a American rifle, not a #1 or a M77. I have 3 #1's, all #1A's, in 280, 308, and 303 British. I've had several more, but others wanted them worst than I. I'd love to have one of the new 450 Marlin #1S just because, but don't see that happening. Bob!!

 

[5of7]

To attempt an answer to your question, I think it is because they are a little harder to produce, and they don't sell as many of them as they do the bolt guns.
I happen to own 3 of them and people often ask why I bought a single shot when I could have bought a repeater cheaper.

The No.1 is kinda a gun nut's gun and not so much the typical hunter's gun....IMO, of course. 8)

 

[pisgah]

I have read/heard that the #1 when considered alone has always been a money-loser for Ruger, but is considered the iconic "flagship" of the line. If that's true -- and maybe it's not -- maybe we should be happy to pay the price, as it beats the alternative of no more #1's. Check the prices of similar-grade single-shots on the market if you can find one.

 

[bigskyguy]

I have read/heard that the #1 when considered alone has always been a money-loser for Ruger, but is considered the iconic "flagship" of the line. If that's true -- and maybe it's not -- maybe we should be happy to pay the price, as it beats the alternative of no more #1's. Check the prices of similar-grade single-shots on the market if you can find one.

Can't argue with that statement.

 

[22/45 Fan]

I expect the #1 is significantly more expensive to manufacture even not accounting for the economies of large production numbers. It's receiver is more involved and requires more machine work and fitting than most other designs.

A bolt action is pretty much a tube (the bolt) within a tube (the receiver) screwed to a tube (the barrel) so it's easy to cast or machine. A falling block single shot is quite a bit more intricate.

 

[BigBlue]

I was amazed during the recent sale at Cabela's, that they were able to sell them for $799. When the sale first started they had quite a few different Number 1s to choose from, but quickly sold out at that price.

 

[wunbe]

Do you seriously believe that Ruger 'hand fits' #1 parts together? That would mean that replacement parts are not interchangeable and actually require filing and meshing. And that Ruger on purpose hand fits butt stocks and foreends to the metal in the sloppy style that has become common in most new #1s.

Since the inception of the brand, hand fitting has steadily declined til it is now not even in the job description.

What #1 specific costs are there? The assembly time for mounting the quarter ribs; assembling the receiver moving parts in the right order from bins of identical items; and mounting -- slapping together? -- the stocks. None of that falls under the rubric of hand fitting.

(Pedersoli actually does hand fit its quality guns. And, even then, the costs are competitive with the #1s! )

We will never know the differential time -- and costs --between assembly work on #1s and a Ruger black rifle but you sure as hell are not talking hours -- more like minutes. Profit margins are higher for the individual #1 but high volume sales are what keeps Ruger in business.

The price of the #1 is most effected IMO by the time and production slowdown costs involved in shifting production from other guns more in demand and in Ruger's reading of the market that convinces them a small number of fans -- who can afford it -- will chase the rising MSRPs enough to make it all worth while to keep the tradition alive -- barely

wunbe.

 

[Tom W]

They are so expensive because they are beautiful and people like me just love them....

It's kind like seeing a certain woman and KNOWING that SHE is the one!


Anyway, that's my story.....

 

[kevin masten]

Like a lot of the foregoing comments, I liked and fell in love with the first No 1 I saw; the affair has never wained. For me it was an instant connection. I have my share. Never had a problem with one of them save a 1 B in 7mm Rem Mag. The recoil split the butt stock; I mean made match sticks out of the BS. Ruger replaced it and I never looked back. When most of us are gone to our reward, the No 1 will be a classic for all time and be enjoyed by those that have them.

It is sad that a man of Bill Ruger's genius and foresight must grow old and pass to his reward as must all of us. I have enjoyed all of his vintage designs. Don't care for a lot of their new products! That is why I cling to the old stuff.

Regards to all

 

[RSIno1]

The No1 was Bill Rugers pet project and HALO product - the one that showed the best of Ruger skill at arms making. Great engineering, great workmanship, fit and finish, Great wood. Unfortunately not the case in the last several years.
They were always low production increasing rarity. The production wasn't "limited" to increase cost but due to demand. Spreading engineering, tooling, assembly, advertising etc over a limited number of guns increases cost.
Lots of little things made them expensive to build/sell and today they have held their value. Possibly due to the fact that most are still pristine having been shot very little. All of mine were bought used and are 95-100% ranging from my first one a black pad RSI with a couple small dings in the stock to my red pad 1A which was NIB when I got it last year.
I've got one of each type and of course don't shoot them regularly. Will I buy more? Maybe I'm looking for a stainless just to round out the set. Any others I add will need to have red butt pads as I consider them to be superior in quality to the later ones.
I got my first one the RSI on a trade for my Remington XP100. Then started doing my homework and all the rest are earlier red pad ones.

 

[wunbe]

RSIno1,

Ruger has not needed to retool or re-engineer the number #1 for decades! They just switch ready-made tools in the change over from other production. And design changes in #1s since introduction 50+ years ago are so slight that it takes an expert to tell any difference from the shape of the parts alone. (Quality of fit and finish has slid and that is the main 'tell' of an older gun.)

And when is the last time you saw an ad for a #1? I have not seen one in any of the gun rags since 5-10 years ago.

The annual MSRP jump is for other reasons.

wwunbe