Ruger No. 1 Modifications

The grand old Ruger No. 1 has been with us since 1967 and has had just about every cartridge known to man chambered in its barrel along the way. There have been many different versions of the gun over the past 50 years of its production but none more serious in appearance than the (1-H) Tropical Rifle version in the classic "African" calibers. The Tropical Rifle most closely imitates the fine English single-shot rifles from over a century ago.

It has a Farquharson-style lever, Henrylike U-shaped groove in the forend, a heavy barrel, usually great wood, and classic lines as much as can be had in a production piece. But since its introduction nearly 50 years ago exactly nothing has been done to the Ruger No. 1 to improve it. Does that mean I think there’s something wrong with the No. 1? Maybe not with all of Ruger’s versions, but I do on the Tropical Rifle. For a rifle designed for serious use against heavy game it has quite a few things wrong with it.

Some of them are easy to fix. Other problems are difficult, short of rebarreling. The basics of the rifle are sound. It has a falling-block action, is stronger by far than just about any other rifle design out there, has simple and rugged parts, sound wood in a pleasing design, and easy maintenance. It also has some of the worst sights known to man.

On these serious rifles—and by "serious" I mean of caliber larger than .30—one of the biggest problems is Ruger’s lousy and thoroughly inadequate recoil 1 Tropical Rifle in .450/400-3" Nitro Express was entirely too light for its power. There were some other problems with it. The author fixed some and left the rest alone. He thinks that after 50 years, some factory upgrades are overdue for this fine rifle. One obvious problem is the unsightly gap under the rib. pad.

One would think that if Ruger asks $1400 for this rifle they could afford to stick on a decent recoil pad. I acquired a No. 1 in .400 Jeffery, one of an earlier production run, some time back and have shot it a bit. The .400 Jeff, officially known as the .450/400 Nitro Express, slings a 400-grain bullet at 2150 fps. That horsepower requires a rifle that weighs about nine pounds or even more for fast handling under fire and to keep recoil down to a reasonable level.

My Ruger weighs eight pounds, which is far too light. Fortunately, Ruger took note of this, and the later versions of this rifle in this caliber have a heavier barrel. With the heavier-barrel version you still have the option of adding more weight if you want it. Instead of asking the factory for a rebarrel job, I filled the bolt hole in the stock under the pad with number 7 1/2 lead shot. To my surprise, a full pound of shot went in, which I capped with a cork wad to prevent rattling.

The result is a nine-pound rifle that feels great under recoil, though the muzzle lifts more than I’d like. The overall balance is not bad, but with the weight moved rearward the muzzle rises drastically. Of course I replaced the pad with a decent one by Pachmayr. Next up is that neat rib on top that holds the iron sights and also acts as the scope-ring base.

I am not going to discuss scopes on the No. 1 because scopes work just fine if you need them, but the iron sights— which I prefer on this kind of rifle— are just plain no good. Let’s first take a look at the rib. What’s that hole under it? Why can we see so much daylight under the rib? Take it off and you’ll find it’s supported by two pins stuck into the barrel along with the three screws. The rib-to-barrel fit on my rifle was not all that good.

In fact, there was lots of tension in the rib, which bent slightly when it was off the gun. I took it off to try to fill in the ugly hole under it but

This is how the rib of the No. 1 ought to look, with no gap beneath it and a forward-slanted Express-type sight. I haven’t yet solved that problem to my satisfaction. I tried to drill some holes under the rib to give traction to my filler, whatever I chose to use. However, the rib is extremely hard, which it needs to be so it can resist the forces imposed by the scope attachments, so I was unable to drill it. I tried to fill the slot with epoxy but it didn’t work well.

I still don’t know how to dispense with the slot under the rib. One solution is to make a cus- There’s a full pound of #7 1/2 shot under it. tom rib, which would not need to be hardened if you don’t plan to scope the rifle. Next are the sights. The rear one folds and has a huge white diamond in its face. My recent tests indicated that in bright light the Ruger’s normal rear sight gives serious aiming errors because of all the glare, much of it from the large white triangle.

The factory rear sight gives the choice of a U-notch or a square-bottom one. I didn’t care for either so I took off the blade (don’t lose those tiny screws!), filed a vee-notch in it, ground off the inside edges of the blade’s support to match the vee, and put the original blade in backwards, with er support to prevent it cutting me as I raised and lowered the blade.

This simple modification gave me a decent rear sight on the rifle, and it still has some degree of adjustment for elevation, which the optional Ruger Express sight does not give. My alteration to the rear sight made the front bead easier to see and with no glare to the rear sight the shots now go where the sights look. Ruger makes an upright vee-type Express sight that fits the slot for the original sight. I prefer one that slants forward and the only way I know to get that is to make one myself.

The end result would be a solid, clean vee with no elevation adjustment but I have found that what I did to the original sight is plenty good enough for now. I believe an aperture rear sight would be too far forward to work well on the No. 1. Aperture sights need to be close to the eye, not way out there, so that’s pretty much not an option here. That front sight would be a whole lot better, easier to see in all light, and far better protected with a proper hood over it.

Ruger apparently had a design for a hooded front sight on the early No. 1 but it never went into production. So Ruger has never offered a hood for this rifle and we don’t know why. The design makes it hard to put one on because of the gouges cast in the side of the front sight base. Some sort of Sshaped hood might work but then you’d have to come up with away to retain it. There are many ways to do that but why doesn’t Ruger do this themselves? the white diamond hidden against the support.

This gave me an acceptable rear sight in the form of a wideangle vee. I rounded the outer edges of there ar sight’s out- I have one final complaint about what is basically a dangerous-game rifle. Once you’ve fired a shot, you want that empty brass to get completely out of the gun and get out quickly. Ruger makes the No. 1 with an ejector and it always works unless you intentionally disable it. But each and every ejected fired case on this rifle banged into the tang safety’s front end and stopped dead

That big white diamond causes glare in certain lights. Note the vee-notch already cut into the sliding insert. That was an improvement, but it got better. 1. The white lines could be filled with something black. in the race. Each and every empty case should have gone zinging over my shoulder as it was ejected. The safety cannot be pushed rearward out of the way to the "on" position once the rifle has fired.

You must first open the action and cock the hammer, which means the front leg of the safety blocks ejection every time. That’s fine if you’re on the range and you want to keep your brass out of the dirt, but it’s not fine for a serious rifle. My solution for this was to disassemble the rifle, remove the safety button, and cut off the front end of it, bevel it to look decent, slap some cold blue on it, and put it back together. This simple modification is all that was needed.

Now the empties go flying properly on ejection. The only problem is there’s nowa hole in front of the safety button where debris can enter and I don’t know how to fix that. While I was inside the Ruger’s guts I cleared away some metal that was hindering the easy operation of the safety. This was no big deal, and many of these rifles won’t have that problem, but mine did. That’s pretty much it.

I could complain that the lovely buttstock wood is not matched by the forend, or that there’s too many words stamped into the barrel, but the rifle works well as it now is. However, I believe it’s time for Ruger to step up and take a hard look at the No. 1 and make some of what I consider to be necessary corrections, at least on the serious-caliber Tropical version.

The No. 1 is not listed in the most recent Ruger catalog but is mentioned on the Ruger website as being available in, "…select, limited-edition models each year." Though none of the current selection of seven calibers is worthy of the Tropical Rifle designation, hopefully Ruger will pay attention to some of my suggestions, upgrade it, and make the future No. 1 Tropical Rifles worthy of special promotion. AG Far Ruger apparently began production of the No. 1 with provisions for a hood but abandoned the idea.

Have you ever seen a hood on ANY Ruger rifle? Why not?