In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options

Ruger no 3

HawkshawHawkshaw Member Posts: 1,016 ✭✭
edited July 2011 in Ask the Experts
What are the differences between the Ruger 3, and the no. 1. I love the falling block classic look, but I have never been able to get a No. 1 to shoot MOA, or better. Do I have any better chances to with a no. 3? Is the no 3 forearm supported by a hanger as in the no 1? I've used the hicks device with little to no success. I'm well experienced in bedding bolt actions, usually with improved results. Any other advise or thoughts on a No. 3 as a project. THX HAWKSHAW
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Options
    rufe-snowrufe-snow Member Posts: 18,650 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    #3 was the less expensive light carbine version of the #1. As far as I know they been out of production for years.

    Knew a guy who had one in 45-70. Instead of using light handloads, he shot it with commercial ammo. It bout beat him black and blue, and gave him a permanent flinch.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Hawk CarseHawk Carse Member Posts: 4,369 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    A friend has a No 2 (No 3 barrelled action with No 1 wood, looks nice.) It is a barely 1 moa rifle; .223 rechambered from .22 K Hornet rechambered from .22 Hornet.

    Another friend has a No 1V that does much better.

    Good luck.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    22hipower22hipower Member Posts: 619 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Lots of variation between individual guns I'm sure but generally speaking I think you'll find the #1 better than the #3 from an accuracy perspective. I had #3s in 22 hornet and 45-70 and never could get either one to shoot close to MOA. My experience with #1s is better but if you want MOA or tighter you're likely going to have to play with loads and perhaps add some tuning by a gunsmith. I've generally had better results with the Browning 1885; currently have one in 22-250 that routinely shoots 1/2 MOA. In my opinion looks as good as the Ruger and what could be more classic than John Browning's 1885.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    richardaricharda Member Posts: 405 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Forend is on a hanger. Finger lever is different shape, and there is no separate trigger guard. Barrels only came in one weight & length (22"). No rib on barrel. Much plainer, less expensive stock & forend.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    RCrosbyRCrosby Member Posts: 3,808 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Richarda nailed it as far as the main differences. Never fired the family "3" in .223 enough to know what it could do. My No. 1, unmodified, would typically keep 5 rounds in 3/4". 1/2 on a very good day, 1 1/4 if I was off my feed. Never had the stringing problems you read a lot about. Maybe shouldn't have let it go, but it was heavy, and as I get older I turn more to lighter rifles and quieter rounds; .257 and .222 mostly.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    One difference is in the buttstock. The #3 has a curved steel buttplate instead of a recoil pad. My #3 45/70 can be fairly painful
    even with only mildly heavy loads.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    62fuelie62fuelie Member Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    With my #1 .25-06 it took a bit of searching to find the load that it wanted, but once I tried a 117 grain Sierra BTSP with 49 grains of IMR 4350 it is a dream. I can't imagine the #3 giving better accuracy, velocity, or shooter comfort. My only experience with the #3 was a 45-70 with "trapdoor" loads. It was most uncomfortable!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.