Yeah, but I'd wait until we have full information from Ruger about cost etc.
Poll for the Ruger no. 1 .303
- Thread starter deadman
- Start date
Yeah, but I'd wait until we have full information from Ruger about cost etc.
Not necessarily so. I have a Mannlicher stocked Husqvarna that weighs 7.4 lbs with a Leupold VX-II 3-9x40 scope mounted. Given that the scope weighs 12 oz according to Leupold, and allowing 4oz for rings and bases, the rifle alone weighs about 6.4 lbs. Other manufacturers make wood stocked rifles with comparable weights; eg. Remington Model Seven CDL, Ruger M77 Ultra Light, Kimber, etc. Wood stocks are not incompatible with a lightweight rifle.
As for desired rifle weight, that would depend on whether you spend more time carrying the rifle or shooting it off of a bench.
if it goes to a 1-S I'll have to consult a smith about taking it down to 20" - 22" before purchasing. I spend my hunting days on foot and in motion, have little use for an heavy rifle.
considering the strength of the Ruger #1 action and the specs of the .303 brit, I don't see any practical use for a barrel over 22"
considering the strength of the Ruger #1 action and the specs of the .303 brit, I don't see any practical use for a barrel over 22"
according to the specs on the ruger site, a 1-A with a 22" barrel weighs 7 or 7.25 lbs (depending on caliber), an international with a 20" barrel weighs 7 lbs, and a 1-S with a 26" barrel (.300 H+H mag) weighs 7.25 lbs.
website specs, and what they really weigh varies greatly between caliber and camberings.
add at least another pound for optics and rings.
website specs, and what they really weigh varies greatly between caliber and camberings.
Absolutely right and that goes for a lot of other riifles too....
that's right, website specs. i'll take their word for it. my no.1 rifles all weigh what the specs say,according to my scale (yes i just checked. even took the scope off one). whether these weights are exact or not, we are not talking about big differences. all i was trying to do was illustrate that the weights don't get drastically different unless you are comparing a sporter to a standard or varmint. i think arguing about barrel length as a method of weight saving is pointless, as the differences are negligible.
You are so on the wrong forum.
I noticed the .300 H&H's weight a while back and I think it is an error on Ruger's website. Notice that the 1-S Kudu is the same as the regular 1-S and it weighs 8 1/4 lbs.
And 7 lbs vs 8.25lbs is a very big difference in a rifle. The difference is also magnified by the extra 6" in length - all of which is at the front. I prefer the shorter and lighter version because it is handier on a hunt.
I am actually getting excited because the RSI is in 2nd place. I'm one of those on the fence folks.
I really think that the 26" barrel on a 303 would be to long. I have two # 1's with 26" barrels but in calibres that can use the longer pipe, 22-250 and 7mm RM. My vote was for the 20" RSI but a 22" 1a would also be nice.
BTW, both of these guns weigh over 9lbs with a piece of glass on them, I like them a lot but think a 303 should be a nice light quick handling gun.
BTW, both of these guns weigh over 9lbs with a piece of glass on them, I like them a lot but think a 303 should be a nice light quick handling gun.
Hi-Standard
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Newfoundland
Not when you consider that a Lee-Enfield barrel is 25 1/4". A Ross is pretty near 29-30". I would imagine that a P14 would be similar in length, although I don't own one yet. The idea of a longer barrel would be to utilize the 303's full potential. The Ruger #1 is a very strong action, and handloaders can stoke up the old 303 to better ballistics potential then was previously possible with the weaker Lee action, which is what the cartridge was originally loaded for. 20" of pipe is just not going to cut it. It is easier to buy a rifle with lots of pipe and cut it down, then to glue it back on
