Ruger's single shot No. 1 rifles will be available chambered in the classic .300 H&H cartridge and the 6.5mm Creedmore, which entered production in 2008.
Hat tip: Guns Holsters and Gear
Comment Policy: I reserve the right to remove comments at my discretion. Think of comment threads like a dinner party at someone's house. If you make the party unpleasant for others or me, you won't be invited back. I am happy to tolerate a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but I'm not going to tolerate nastiness, rudeness, trolling, vitriol, or excessive snarkiness toward the author(s) or other commenters. You may make your case passionately, but civility is expected. Please stay on topic and respect the technical nature of this blog.
Spam Filtering: To avoid spam, comments are filtered using Akismet and then manually approved. Do not be alarmed if you comment does not appear instantly. I do not check the spam folder more than once per day.
Glad to hear the original .300 Magnum will be available. Longer than needed, inefficient compared to newer cartridges…but with more history and style than all the rest could ever hope to acquire.
BTW, the photo for the 6.5 Creedmore shows no iron sights and beavertail forearm. Both are unlike any Tropical No. 1 I’ve seen. Wrong image link or caption?
Bill, thanks – yep I copied and pasted and forgot to update the title.
As far as the .300 goes – length it not really that much of an issue in that type of rifle action.
Oh I know the single shot action essentially makes cartridge length a non-issue, but some of the ballistic Illuminati like to hear themselves talk about how the H&H is so obsolete and inefficient due to OAL. Funny that such “experts” rarely mention the fact an elk won’t tell the difference if he is hit with it or the latest .300 Ultra Short Rebated Rim Remfedchester.
Bill, ha, that is true
Can anyone explain to me why single shot shotguns are so cheap and single shot rifles are so expensive? I mean, Ruger No. 1’s tend to cost more than a quality AR-15, so what is it, a lack of demand? There’s just not enough to these rifles to justify the price.
I’m with Matt, the price for a Ruger # 1 quickly has me looking at something else.
The price is well justified if you want a decent looking, exceptionally robust SS rifle available in a number of chamberings and variants. Note that word “decent.” There are many SS rifles a lot more expensive that the No.1. Google “Blaser K-95″ if you want to see an expensive SS.
Look at it this way guys. Many if not most SS enthusiasts would probably say AR’s are way over priced. They’re primarily made of aluminum and plastic, have an ugly finish and are fairly limited in cartridge selection. I personally know several riflemen who would echo Matt’s comment, only aimed at the AR-15…”There’s just not enough to these rifles to justify the price.”
In short, to each his own.
A simple mechanism with few machined components is not worth $1147 MSRP just because those parts are extra shiny and polished. There’s a lot more material and manufacturing that goes into almost any semi-auto than goes into one of these rifles. The best selling semi-auto rifles and pistols cost considerably less than these, as do most bolt action and lever action rifles which have finishes and wood fitting which are comparable to these. You could buy a Marlin Guide Gun and a Savage Varmint Rifle for the price of a Ruger No.1 and do more things in more places with accuracy that was comparable if not better, more utility, and more rapidity. That’s not preference, that’s economics. Don’t even get me started on the Blaser.
why would they offer a No. 1 in 6.5 Creedmoor. Isn’t this a specialty benchrest round?
thomas, it is used as a hunting round. It is a necked down .308. Plenty of power.