Poll for the Ruger no. 1 .303

[Amphibious]

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

thank you for backing up the argument that a long barrel is not needed in a Ruger #1

 

[Hi-Standard]

thank you for backing up the argument that a long barrel is not needed in a Ruger #1

I'm confussed? How am I backing up the argument that a longer barrel is not needed on a Ruger action? You need barrel to burn powder. Longer barrel = more powder burn, hence more velocity.

 

[1899]

I think we should deal with this the old Irish way. Each camp (RSI, 1-A and 1-S) can choose a "Captain". We will all pitch in to buy a nice bottle of Whiskey - or two. Last Captain standing wins it for the team. I think Bartell and Amphib may be ineligible as they are professionals - that is unless they want the RSI in which case I'll vote for either.

 

[Canuck444]

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

Your right, its easier to chop it off than to add some. But to me its not about getting the extra 50 or 100 fps out of it, there are lots of guns way faster than the 303 and I don't see the need to try and stretch its range an extra bit. I would prefer it to be short and light as I would be using it for a hunting rifle with open sights out to 200 yrds max. I could go for the 20, 22 or 24" barrel but think the 26 would be to much.

Hopefully Ruger comes back with "we can make it" and "two configurations in quantities of 125 each are not problem". Not likely though.

 

[pharaoh2]

I'm confussed? How am I backing up the argument that a longer barrel is not needed on a Ruger action? You need barrel to burn powder. Longer barrel = more powder burn, hence more velocity.

But once all the powder has been consumed and the gasses expanded the pressure required to push the bullet out of the end decreases and now you are dealing with parasitic drag which will slow the bullet down. This is why you don't see 36 inch barrels on rifles anymore.

 

[Hi-Standard]

But once all the powder has been consumed and the gasses expanded the pressure required to push the bullet out of the end decreases and now you are dealing with parasitic drag which will slow the bullet down. This is why you don't see 36 inch barrels on rifles anymore.

Yes I agree pharaoh, there is a fine line between consumed powder and parasitic drag, but we are not talking about a 36" barrel here. And if people needed a carbine why not just by a No.5 Mk.1 for $400.00? As a reloader, I would like to bring the 303 up to its full potential. The 30-06 was taken up to 7mm Remington Magnum ballistics and the 45-70 Government is not too far behind the 458 Winchester Magnum in strong actioned guns. If your are going to give the 303 British a chance at modernization, you'll need between 24-26" of barrel. Otherwise you end up with a reduced velocity, a lot of noise, and a great big flame out the barrel. If you want Jungle Carbine ballistics, why not just buy a 30-30 Winchester?

 

[Gatehouse]

I'm confussed? How am I backing up the argument that a longer barrel is not needed on a Ruger action? You need barrel to burn powder. Longer barrel = more powder burn, hence more velocity.

ALl the powder is going to get consumed in the first few inches of barrel. An extra 2-4" of barrel for the expanding gas to push the bullet down is going to give you an extra 50-100fps or so. This won't make a difference at most hunting distances.

 

[rem338win]

Yes I agree pharaoh, there is a fine line between consumed powder and parasitic drag, but we are not talking about a 36" barrel here. And if people needed a carbine why not just by a No.5 Mk.1 for $400.00? As a reloader, I would like to bring the 303 up to its full potential. The 30-06 was taken up to 7mm Remington Magnum ballistics and the 45-70 Government is not too far behind the 458 Winchester Magnum in strong actioned guns. If your are going to give the 303 British a chance at modernization, you'll need between 24-26" of barrel. Otherwise you end up with a reduced velocity, a lot of noise, and a great big flame out the barrel. If you want Jungle Carbine ballistics, why not just buy a 30-30 Winchester?

Ok stop the horrible, old fashioned, gunwriter dribble. Long barrels don't produce higher velocity due to total consumption of powder. A 7mm Rem Mag case full of RL25 is fully burned in the first 18"-20" of barrel. The rest of the gained velocity is rocket effect due to the powder gases fully expanding and such. Barsness did articles on it, Jamison sat in a lab somewhere and tested it, and the US military spent a ton of time studying barrel length/powder/gas expansion, etc, not to mention #### Casull.
With the case capacity vs bore and the fast powders we use in the 303 the difference between a 20" and 26" barrel is so minute, that to propagate it as a good reason for every one to vote for it isn't worth the post. This rifle isn't going to resurrect the .303 British onto the front page of Handloader or Shooting Times as the sleeping giant of the twenty first century.
The majority of the people looking at this cartridge in this rifle are looking for a single shot stalking rifle uniquely Canadian. That means some of use plan on packing these things through dark timber, alder thickets, ridge backs, and even up scree slopes and alpines. 1.25lbs and an extra 2-4" means more to that than an extra 60fps on a chrony or some guy trying to stuff enough 7828 to turn the 303 into a rimmed WSM.
The .303 has already seen it's potential. It helped win two World Wars, fought in numerous other conflicts in the hands of commonwealth soldiers, killed elephants in the hands of Mr. Bell, shot tigers, and was the first centerfire cartridge many here in Canada shot. We don't need to see a 174gr RN cross a chrony screen at 2600fps+ to tell us what it's potential is. There are few cartridges out there with the historical pedigree to look it in the eye for goodness sake.
The old fella with the need for a longer sight picture due to aging eyeballs is by far a more reasonable argument for a longer barrel on a .303. I for one have no ambition to pack what could be considered a gangly teenager of a rifle when I have the chance to carry a lithe and classy dame.

 

[Gatehouse]

Ok stop the horrible, old fashioned, gunwriter dribble. Long barrels don't produce higher velocity due to total consumption of powder. A 7mm Rem Mag case full of RL25 is fully burned in the first 18"-20" of barrel. The rest of the gained velocity is rocket effect due to the powder gases fully expanding and such. Barsness did articles on it, Jamison sat in a lab somewhere and tested it, and the US military spent a ton of time studying barrel length/powder/gas expansion, etc, not to mention #### Casull.
With the case capacity vs bore and the fast powders we use in the 303 the difference between a 20" and 26" barrel is so minute, that to propagate it as a good reason for every one to vote for it isn't worth the post. This rifle isn't going to resurrect the .303 British onto the front page of Handloader or Shooting Times as the sleeping giant of the twenty first century.
The majority of the people looking at this cartridge in this rifle are looking for a single shot stalking rifle uniquely Canadian. That means some of use plan on packing these things through dark timber, alder thickets, ridge backs, and even up scree slopes and alpines. 1.25lbs and an extra 2-4" means more to that than an extra 60fps on a chrony or some guy trying to stuff enough 7828 to turn the 303 into a rimmed WSM.
The .303 has already seen it's potential. It helped win two World Wars, fought in numerous other conflicts in the hands of commonwealth soldiers, killed elephants in the hands of Mr. Bell, shot tigers, and was the first centerfire cartridge many here in Canada shot. We don't need to see a 174gr RN cross a chrony screen at 2600fps+ to tell us what it's potential is. There are few cartridges out there with the historical pedigree to look it in the eye for goodness sake.
The old fella with the need for a longer sight picture due to aging eyeballs is by far a more reasonable argument for a longer barrel on a .303. I for one have no ambition to pack what could be considered a gangly teenager of a rifle when I have the chance to carry a lithe and classy dame.

Exactly!

As I said before- I have a .300 Magnum. If I want to shot animal at 400+ yards, I will use that. I don't want a Ruger #1 in .303 to do that, and a 22" barrel .303 in a strong action will easily kill at 300 yards.

 

[todbartell]

well said

cant add a damn thing

 

[SuperCub]

hmmm, so according to the Poll so far, 103 out of 169 want a short pipe, or 61%....

Interesting observation .......

If you crunch the numbers that way there is an obvious slant towards a short bbl, but at the same time there is a majority (58%) voters who want the sporter style with the AH forend.


So if you add your 61% to my 58%, you will get a grand total of 119% who want the 1-A model. I guess the 1-A wins.


.

 

[catnthehatt]

On my quick load program, the difference between a 24 and 26" barrel for the .303 is a whole 45FPS.
Cat

 

[Hi-Standard]

On my quick load program, the difference between a 24 and 26" barrel for the .303 is a whole 45FPS.
Cat

Does that include homerolled, or just factory? The question though is not between 24" and 26". Some members wanted a 20". But the rifles in the poll are either 20 or 26", with 24" not being an option. I still have my preference for the 26".

 

[pharaoh2]

The poll has the 1-S at either 24 or 26 and the 1-A at 22.

 

[delta1]

What exactly are the members here looking for? Is it a 303 British for the sake of the caliber. 303 just because it is in the Ruger#1? Or should it look similar to the old 303 British we grew up with and collect? THAT folks would make it the RSI to look as close as possible to the original with the designation of Canada or Commonwealth or the C before or after the serial number.
Just my 2 cents

 

[deadman]

The poll has the 1-S at either 24 or 26 and the 1-A at 22.

i put the hypothetical 24 or 26" barrels for the 1-S because there were people expressing interest in them, and if going with a 22" barrel, it might as well be a standard config 1-A. the 1-S was just for something a bit different. i should have kept the poll simple:

RSI 20"
1-A 22"

 

[popcan]

Well if we go with a shorter barrel, then I would go all the way and change vote to RSI.

 

[TheTooner]

What exactly are the members here looking for? Is it a 303 British for the sake of the caliber. 303 just because it is in the Ruger#1? Or should it look similar to the old 303 British we grew up with and collect? THAT folks would make it the RSI to look as close as possible to the original with the designation of Canada or Commonwealth or the C before or after the serial number.
Just my 2 cents

I'm looking for exactly a single shot in .303British. I'm pretty thoroughly into this calibre for my big game hunting and I like a simple single shot rifle. Frankly, I'd be happier to see a N.E.F. Handi-Rifle or H&R Ultra offered in this calibre because I have a Handi-Rifle I like very much and they are much cheaper than this Ruger. The Ruger No.1 is designed with much more consideration for classic notions of what makes a gun look good than the Handi-Rifle is, but that isn't something I personally would buy on its own.

I'm getting a single shot in .303British one way or another - I've actually got a Martini action I'm going to have made into one. But I'm into this project because in this internet age it is easier than ever for a mass manufacturer to be responsive to niche markets like this and if Ruger will do this for us it would be good for us all that they can be seen to have a little success with it.

I vote for the RSI because a 20" barrel is enough, the resulting overall length makes the rifle easy to handle, and I love the look of the full length stock. But to me it doesn't look any more "like the original" than the 1-A or 1-S does.

 

[LeRoy]

I think that I have drank the short barrel kool-aid
I too would like to change my vote to the RSI !!

Thank you very much....

 

[Hi-Standard]

The poll has the 1-S at either 24 or 26 and the 1-A at 22.

Right you are pharaoh. I stand corrected I thought I read somewhere that the medium sporter was not offered in a 24" barrel, perhaps I was mistaken. No matter, the only way this will be resolved is word from Ruger itself, indicating what it exact model and barrel length is possible. I think the problem with this project is going to be the fact that we all have a vision of what this rifle should be, and I fear it may come down to barrel lengths. For me personally, I do a lot more target shooting then hunting, due to the big game hunting pool we have down here. Others carry and hunt much more, so I can see where the shorter barrel would be an asset, especially for deer, which we don't have.