Ruger #1 & #3 Weight Question

[Swampman]

I have a pretty nice digital bathroom scale. Last night I put my scoped laminated/stainless #1 in .45-70 on it, and it said 7.4 lbs. I put my scoped #3 in .45-70 on it and it said 7.4 lbs. So.....thinking it isn't very accurate at low range I hold each rifle and weigh myself. The reading was the same to the tenth. I would have thought the #3 would have been lighter. Does 7.4 lbs sound right to you?

[gunnut69]

I would have thought the No.3 to be lighter but scope weights could be some difference? The stock on the No. 1 is larger usually than the No.3 but wood can vary considerably in density and thus weight. Of course some weight on a heavy kicker is not a bad thing.

[muznut 54]

I would think it should be heavier those rugers 1&3s are built.  

[rbursek]

I have a #3 in 45-70 I have never weighed it but is listed at 6lb, then add a scope, which weigh about 16oz give or take a couple and rings and bases and you are right about 7.5lb. I would not trust a bath room scale at the low end, since the are designed to weigh people which in my guess would be between 120 to 220lb and most scales max out at 250 or 260 lb. I would use a scale that is more designed for 0-25lb. Do you have a lumber yard that sells nails and screws by the pound that has a scale to measure them? Usually those old style are also have a balance beam adjustment on them.
I have no idea how much more a #1 is listed at but the only difference in those 2 is the stock, and the breech lever, so it is very possible depending on the scope they would weigh the same. Then add in the unaccuracy of the bathroom scale at that range and to weigh down to ounces, I would say you are just getting a close guess to the comparison weight. Just because you have a digital scale means nothing in its accuracy, it just has a digital read out instead of a dial and needle.

[alinark]

Then add in the unaccuracy of the bathroom scale at that range and to weigh down to ounces,

I know exactly what you mean every time i get on my scale it flashes "one at a time please"
al

[PowPow]

Put a sand bag, bag of dog food or kitty litter on the scale; something of a fixed dead weight that hits the sweet spot of the scale.
Then put each rifle on top of it, and go with the difference.

[streak]

Put a sand bag, bag of dog food or kitty litter on the scale; something of a fixed dead weight that hits the sweet spot of the scale.
Then put each rifle on top of it, and go with the difference.

Now that`s what I call putting "The Old Gray Matter" to good use!!

[crankshaft]

 I have nothing accurate enough to measure the weight of my number 3, but it certainly feels like it could weigh less than 7#.  I bought it second hand and took the wood off it for some reconturing.  Out of the rifle butt came about a 1/2 lb of shotgun pellets.  The wood on the gun is very lightweight.  I don't know what type it is, but it had the consistancy of redwood and a reddish hue to it.  Very difficult to sand smoothly.  Finally got it sealed and finished.  Shorter barrel and the stock weight could easily make it 1.5lbs lighter lighter than a #1.
 
 
 
 
 

[Swampman]

Both have 22" barrels.  The #3 should be walnut.

[crankshaft]

Most barrels are 22" but not all.  24" were available once.  If the stock on mine is walnut it must be heartwood.  Very porus and has a tendancy to come out in small crumb like pieces when sanded.  It appears to be an anomoly so I guess not a good comparison.
 

[Swampman]

Some .45-70s have 26" barrels now.  Mine is a 22"....walnut is very porus and most companies use a filler.  It's so hard to find a #3 that hasn't been altered these days.  Eventually they'll be worth a fortune.

[Graycg]

My #3 in 45-70 is as it was the day it left the factory and weighs 6 lbs and 3 ounces, it is not tapped for scope mounts by the way.
 
regards,
 Graycg