What's the story on the Ruger No. 1 "Red Pad" rifles?

[mannyrock]

Dear Guys,
 
   What is the story on the early Ruger No. 1 rifles, with the red factory recoil pads.  It seems as if these are going for $200 to $300 less than the ones that were made later.  (Comparing used rifles to used rifles.)
 
   Were there problems with these?  Bad barrrels?
 
Thanks, Mannyrock
 
 

[Frank46]

Manny, just guessing here but I seem to remember someone stating that ruger used aftermarket barrels (wilson or some other mfgr) and could be that they changed the color of the recoil pads to mark the time since they now make their own barrels. Just a guess on my part. Frank

[Flynmoose]

I have two "red pads" and they both shoot very well, as they should. I understand that the bad barrel era was a short one. The stories about lack of accuracy kept me away from the #1s for many years. I was lucky that I bought these from a friend that I trust and they shoot very well, just like he said. I also bought a new 1V and it is GREAT!
FM
 

[Darrell Davis]

Juat an Ol'Coot's opinion, but I have never had a poor shooting #1 including the ones bought early 70s or before.
 
CRusty Deary Ol'Coot

[sobeit]

Have an 06 , sporter weight No.1 purchased new about 1968....red pad....every year prior to deer season go to range...fire one shot..1.5" high....at 100.....every year....this year.took a trotting coyote at 80yds ..one shot..some shoot..some don't.

[RevGeo]

Gotta #1 red pad .243 that is a tack driver. Unfortunately I use it to hunt deer and not tacks . No, really, it is a fine, accurate, dependable rifle. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat. Never met a Ruger #1 that I didn't like.

[JPShelton]

If the "Red Pad" No.1's go for $200.00 to $300.00 less than their newer kin, I'd personnally view that as a way to enjoy the "Number One Ownership Experience" in a more bank-account friendly way. .
 
I've bought four No. 1's over the years.  I bought three 1-B's in the 80s as new from dealer stock, and in '96, I bought a ten year old Tropical in .375 Holland and Holland.  The only experience I've got with the No. 1 is with the "Red Pad" models.
 
My first one, purchased in 1984, was kind of a dissapointment.  First off, it was a .270 and not the .30-'06 that I really wanted.  But it was the only "non-magnum" I could find for sale new local to me at the time, and it was on sale for ridiculously cheap, so I "settled."  This one shot okay for the first few five shot strings, but it had a roughish bore finish and was prone to copper fouling badly.  Next up was another 1-B in .300 Weatherby Magnum.  That one was a solid M.O.A. shooter with a much nicer bore finish than the first and it wasn't fussy about the diet one fed it.  It was a very satisfactory rifle, but I never warmed up to the cartridge it was chambered to.  In 1989, I bought a 1-B in .30-'06 new in the box from dealer stock that was made two years previously.  I gave that to my dad for Christmas that year after mounting a scope to it and sighting it in.  That one was and is an excellent shooter with a good barrel that doesn't copper foul too quickly and cleans quick and easy.  It is a solid M.O.A. shooter with several different loads and will group even tighter with some.  My dad only fired a couple of shots through it shortly after I gave it to him and never fired it again after that.  I never understood why he let it sit unused for 22 years because one thing we had very much in common was a view of a No. 1-B in .30-'06 as a "Holy Grail" rifle...  He finally fessed up that he didn't like the recoil, and that's why he didn't shoot it.  His shooting days are over for medical reasons, so he re-gifted that rifle back to me this Christmas.  I shot it yesterday and after 22 years of languishing in a gun safe, it put the first round in the center of the bull at 100 yards.  The smallest group I shot with it yesterday was a tick under 3/4" with my dad's favorite handload that I originally sighted it in with and the largest was 1 1/2" with some ancient 180 grain W-W Silvertip factory fodder.  The Tropical that I used for client backup when I was a licensed guide was a good shooter, too.  It would cloverleaf three shot strings all day long if you and your wallet could tolerate plinking with a .375 H&H.  Were it not for a shoulder injury that has my recoil tolerance threshold reduced to "Hot Ought-Six" levels of tolerance, I'd still have that one, though I have no real use for it anymore.
 
My experience with these things is limited, for sure....  But I only got one blooper out of four, and Ruger was gracious about trying to make me happy.  Rather than fix the .270, they asked if I wouldn't mind having a .300 Weatherby to replace it.  Three of them were everything I hoped a No. 1 would be when I was a kid looking at the ads for them in my dad's American Rifleman magazines and telling myself, "Someday...... Someday, I'll get one of those in .30-'06 and I'll never need or want for another big game rifle."
 
The No. 1 still is a "Holy Grail" sort of thing to me.  When I sold my .375 Tropical off, I did so with the intent of replacing it with a 1-B in .30-'06.  I never had any concerns about whether or not a "Red Pad" vintage specimen would be acceptable or not.  The worst one I ever had still would have filled tags every year in spite of not being much of a "range toy" owing to its rough bore.
 
All of this can be distilled for the OP by saying that if you want a No. 1, don't discount the "Red Pad" vintage examples.  Personally, I think the odds of getting a good one are much better than the odds of getting a blooper.
 
Another thing to consider is that guns hit the used market for all kinds of reasons, and it isn't always that a particular gun in question was a blooper.  My dad was 50 years old when I gave him the 1-B he recently re-gifted back to me.  If I had no interest in firearms, this excellent example might have found its way to the used market eventually, but it wouldn't have got there because it had some flaw or didn't perform well.
 
JP

[Rangr44]

.

FWIW, I've owned about 12 different Ruger #1's and 4-5 #3 rifles, and can say that I much prefer a "red pad" #1 - because IMHO they exhibit better workmanship, usually better wood, and a slightly more extensive checkering pattern than later rifles.

I, too, have never found one to be inaccurate.

I think the folks who do,  think of them as target rifles, when in actuality, they're not - they were designed as hunting rifles, period.

Perception is everything, and the inexperienced often perceive the "latest & greatest", or shiniest, as "better" than whatever.................

I guess that's what makes a horse race - right ?


.

[ohiosam]

I have 10 No.1s and 9 are red pads.  They tend to have better wood and I feel the bluing is better and all mine accurate with the right loads. If they sell any cheaper then used black pads I've never noticed it.

[JPShelton]

I haven't noticed a difference in price between "Red Pad" rifles and more recently manufactured ones.  I think the older ones generally have more highly figured wood than the newer ones generally do.  The metalwork seems more highly polished to me, too.
Mention was made in this thread of the No.1 being a hunting rifle, rather than a target rifle.  My primary interest in the No.1 was and is as a "range toy" for recreational target shooting and that's why I leaned towared the 1-B variant.  To be more exact, from the time I was a little kid drooling over advertisements for the No.1,  I saw it as a sporting rifle in the truest sense of the term -a rifle that was a joy to shoot, whether on the range or in the field.  Rightly or wrongly, that's how I still view the No.1 today and that is how my No.1 will be used going forward.
By "target rifle," I don't mean "benchrest rifle."  The only thing I generally use a benchrest for is sighting in.  After that, my target shooting is done standing, sitting, kneeling, and prone.  It's me and the rifle, sans bench and rest.  And in that kind of target shooting, every No.1-B I've had performed very well for me, in so far as I never had anything in the safes that allowed me to shoot better scores on the basis of some mechanical accuracy advantage.  I had a National Match M-1903 Springfield and an "NRA Sporter" M-1903 Springfield variant, both of which were made with that kind of target shooting in mind, as well as an old Model 70 Winchester set up for "any sight" competition at Camp Perry.  Any difference in my score between any one of these rifles or one of the No.1-B's I've had would have more to do with the marksmanship ability I brought to the table on a given day.
For me, the No.1-B is accurate enough to reward my technique when marksmanship fundamentals are adhered to, and convesely, it is accurate enough for a poor score to reflect negatively on my flawed marksmanship.
JP

[Darrell Davis]

Well said!
 
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot