Difference between Ruger #1 and #3?
- Thread starter Guy JR
- Start date
There were a couple of minor differences...the original No. 1 had a trigger that was adjustable, while the No. 3 did not.The #3 needed bases to mound a scope, where the #1 has the Ruger integral mounting system. Barrels, sights and stocks were different, though buttstocks were interchangeable and the forend attachment was identical. The major visible difference was the No. 3 uses an "S" curve lever with a detent to hold it closed while the No. 1 has a triggerguard with a British type lever and latch.
Differences in cartridges they were chambered in too, for instance No 1's were never chambered in .44 mag.....
No 3's were, & this one has an adjustable trigger.
These guns are also more scarce in some calibres also as only limited numbers were made in some calibres.
Both models have there following & are fine firearms....
No 3's were, & this one has an adjustable trigger.
These guns are also more scarce in some calibres also as only limited numbers were made in some calibres.
Both models have there following & are fine firearms....
I have one of each. There is no difference in the basic action except for the lever shape and manner in which it locks. both the #1 and #3 have an adjustable trigger.
The stocks are different in their shapes, the #3 has a typical Ruger somewhat chunky "carbine" butt stock; the #1 has a more classic shape and with the butt and forend checkered. Both work well with a scope.
As already mentioned, the #1 comes with integral mounts and supplied rings. The #3 is drilled and tapped, but you're on your own from there.
As differences are mainly cosmetic there is no reason why one design should shoot better than the other, but I was a little concerned over the forend band contacting the barrel so modified things a bit.
Overall I'd say the #3 was designed to be made a little more cheaply, but the action is just as slick and the wood quite satisfactory.
The stocks are different in their shapes, the #3 has a typical Ruger somewhat chunky "carbine" butt stock; the #1 has a more classic shape and with the butt and forend checkered. Both work well with a scope.
As already mentioned, the #1 comes with integral mounts and supplied rings. The #3 is drilled and tapped, but you're on your own from there.
As differences are mainly cosmetic there is no reason why one design should shoot better than the other, but I was a little concerned over the forend band contacting the barrel so modified things a bit.
Overall I'd say the #3 was designed to be made a little more cheaply, but the action is just as slick and the wood quite satisfactory.
Why not?
Thanks, Ted. It was sitting in the used gun rack looking terribly sad, I could barely make out the grain. The barrel band was missing so rather than replace it I had a gunsmith friend do the Alexander Henry thing with the forend to keep with the general Ruger theme.
Amazing what some fine sandpaper and a few coats of tung oil can do for a nice piece of wood.
Kyle
Thanks, Ted. It was sitting in the used gun rack looking terribly sad, I could barely make out the grain. The barrel band was missing so rather than replace it I had a gunsmith friend do the Alexander Henry thing with the forend to keep with the general Ruger theme.
Amazing what some fine sandpaper and a few coats of tung oil can do for a nice piece of wood.
Kyle
I also think there were a few chambering differences between the two, I know you could get the 375win in the #3 and there were alot more chambering choices in the #1 also the fit and finish were a little better on the #1 but like said above no real action differnces.
