Ruger No.1 Questions*Ejecting Shells and Scoping*

Moose Masher

Moose Masher

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
49   0   0
Location
Oak Hammok Manitoba
I have never owned or even shot a no.1.
I am considering a 1-S.

I have read that ejected cases will stop against the safety tab when it is in the fire position on some rifles, and that some people cut back the tab to let the shells clear.
Does anyone have experience with this?

Also, I would want to mount a low powered scope and would like to avoid the extension rings. I am considering the Leupold FX-II 2.5x20 and 4x33.
Has anyone used these scopes on their No.1?
Do they have enough eye releif to use the factory rings?

Thanks for any input,
Christian
 
I just posted in the other #1 thead about the safety issue so you might want to have a look at that.

As for scoping a #1, I'm using extension rings on my #1V. It' isn't a big deal but I'd be happy if I hadn't needed to. Make sure your scope has a long enough tube for some freedom in mounting it further back. When I got my #1V it had an old fixed 10x Tasco with a fairly long tube. It was fine like that. I bought a new Weaver KT-15 which had a shorter tube and then I needed extension rings.

Like you I've also got an interest in getting a #1S (or maybe a #1A) and I would likely go with one of the scopes you mention or a Leupold 1-4x20 or a 1.5-5x20. I've got a 1.5-5x20 on my .35 Whelen (a Remington 700) and I think it would be perfect for what you're looking at. Lots of eye relief, huge field of view, enough magnification for long shots, 9 inches long and only 9 ounces in weight. It would make for a pretty slick package! On the other hand, if you don't need the extra magnification the 2.5x would be just as good.

When I bought a scope for my#1B I learned from the previous experience. I got Leupold VX-III 3.5-10x40. It has lots of eye relief and the mounting of that one in standard rings suits me fine.
 
Moose Masher said:
I have read that ejected cases will stop against the safety tab when it is in the fire position on some rifles...
Click to expand...

MM, the ejected case will stop on all #1's unless the safety is altered. On a bench gun or gopher whacker this is fine, even desirable, but on a big game gun it needs to be fixed.

To fix it you disassemble the rifle remove the safety and grind/file the front end thin and bend it slightly down. It has been a long time since I did one, but IIRC you may need a temp pin to get the safety linkage off (maybe it was to change my 88 safety to lefty?).

While you have it apart, now is the time to adjust the ejector spring to ensure the empty case is throwing clear. FYI, you can make those cases fly with authority if you want, just remember to keep your face and teeth out of the way!

As for the scope, that is one of the issues with the #1. If you use a straight tube scope (1-4x20 or the like) and a reverse front, it should get back far enough. With the short tube scopes you mention, you will likely have a problem.
 
The ejected casing didn't hit the safety on my .270 Winchester. This might be a problem with a larger, rimmed case such as the .45-70.

I had a Leupold 1.5x-5x Vari-X III on my #1A. At low power it was fine but needed the extension rings at 5x. I believe the 2.5 has enough eye relief that the extension rings wouldn't be required.
 
MM
re ejection problems..never experienced that.

re scoping:
I'm having the same difficulties in scoping a 1A with a Leup VXII 1-4. Factory rings have me crawling too far up the stock for a good site picture. I tried weaver bases and rings which gained me about 3/4" of rearward scope position...still not ideal.
So I slapped on my trusty old Burris scout scope moved forwward on the factory rings. I'm pleased with the result but feel I'm limited to 125yds. I will have to try the ugly extension rings at some point ....or shorten the LOP.:eek:

here are some other forum links that may help (MODS, pls remove if not acceptable...I couldn't see anything under the FAQS indicating if it is ok to link to other forums)

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=79148

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/3830268/1
 
Last edited:
Pudelpointer said:
MM, the ejected case will stop on all #1's unless the safety is altered....
Click to expand...

Of the 6 I have owned not one had that problem. If it does have the problem the PROPER fix doesnt involve a dremel or bench grinder.
safety.jpg
 
Sooooooooooooooo. Some cold water thrown on the Ruger #1. Ah but it prolly wont be an issue with the .303 British because that is a classic cartridge eh.
 
I have a Ruger #1 in .45-70. The shells are indeed stopped by the safety. It has pretty stout recoil when loaded up, but I've never had problems with eye relief. I use factory rings with a 3x9 Bushnell scope and it's perfect.

Chris.
 
I shoot a No.1T in 375H+H and have the same problem with the empty shells. I have a Leupold VX 1 3-9 with the standard rings and have no issue. Used to have a M8 4x(33mm) on it but found the reticle too small.
Clint
 
I have had a 1-v 22-250, a 1-b 270 win, and a 1-s in 375 H&H, and they all stopped the shell upon ejection. I also know 2 other individuals with a 1/2 dozen or more #1's between them that have had EVERY #1 they have owned due the same until filed down and bent a little. These are all newer (<15 y/o) rifles, and I know that on the brand new ones this WILL be an issue, but maybe the older ones were set up better, or someone has already done the alteration.

FYI, filing the front of the safety and tapping it in the vise to change the angle a touch is not rocket science. As much as I would love to have double gun's money to send them all off to Martini to be rebuilt (holy fak, how much would that cost?!?) I do not. If it bugs you - then fix it - if it doesn't, then don't.
 
Pudelpointer said:
...FYI, filing the front of the safety and tapping it in the vise to change the angle a touch is not rocket science. As much as I would love to have double gun's money to send them all off to Martini to be rebuilt (holy fak, how much would that cost?!?) I do not. If it bugs you - then fix it - if it doesn't, then don't.
Click to expand...

I never had the conversion done - didnt need to. But if I did I certainly wouldnt be filing/tapping it. I agree with you on the - if it aint broke dont fix it.
 
Here is what a new #1's safety will look like:

DSC_1766.jpg


Here is one filed to not interfere, but not bent. BTW, I did not do this one, someone else did. The one I filed and bent a little I have since sold and have no pic. If you are going to file it yourself, it is easy to file it too far and then there is an opening into the tang (I have seena few "professional" jobs like this) when the safety is "ON", so go slow and keep trying it until it does not interfere anymore.

ETA, if you screw it up, a replacement is +- $15.

DSC_1769.jpg
 
My No. 1 in 45-70 had both mods ... i.e., front of the safety slide filed to a taper and bent down to match the contour of the tang. No more ejected empties being stopped. As to scope mounts, I went with "Low" Ruger Ringmounts (IIRC, most are shipped with Mediums) and mounted a Leupold VXII 1-4 x 20. No problems whatsoever with heavy loads - once Ruger's POS recoil pad (recycled hockey puck ?) was replaced with a Pachmayr Old English Decelerator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom