Author Topic: The Gun I Wish Ruger Would Make (Read 10791 times)

good ag · « **on:** July 31, 2008, 05:41:27 PM »

I remember a thread about the guns people wish Ruger would make. Although I searched for it, I couldn’t find it, but I thought I’d make a thread of my own.

The gun I wish Ruger would make is an affordable single shot rifle priced to compete with the H&R Handi-Rifle. I’ve always liked the concept of the handi-rifle and the price, but when I’ve handled them, I’ve always found them to be aesthetically unpleasing. I wonder if Ruger could make a similarly priced rifle based on an investment-cast version of the Remington rolling block action. The rolling block is a simple and time-tested action and I would think it could be produced relatively inexpensively with modern methods.

I’m thinking not of a reproduction, but a rifle that is neo-traditional in the manner of the old Ruger #3. I imagine a simple, plain-jane rifle with a hardwood or polymer stock, an alloy (or even polymer) triggerguard, no sights, and integral scope bases cast into the receiver. It would make sense to chamber it in the .30-06 family of cartridges (.243, .308. .25-06, .270, .30-06) and .45-70. I don’t know if it would sell, but a .35 Whelen or .358 chambering would be great by me. I think it would make sense to sell a standard version with a 22 or 24” barrel and a 20” carbine version in the most popular calibers. It also would be possible to market an upper end rifle on the same action with a case hardened receiver, a brass trigger guard, and a walnut stock. I wonder how practical a magnum version would be chambered in 7mm magnum, 300 Winchester magnum , and maybe even large historical calibers like the .405 Winchester? The one problem I foresee is the need for some sort of passive safety as in the handi-rifle, but it seems like there must be some effective way to update the action.

Just my two cents. I’d buy at least one. I'm curious what others think of this idea?

Sanders
Chickasha, Oklahoma

MGMorden · « **Reply #1 on:** August 01, 2008, 03:38:45 AM »

It would certainly be interesting (I like the rolling/falling block design far more for a single shot than the break-action design), but the market may already be saturated. The Handi's and such already command the low-low end market ( as far as price - nothing wrong with the way they shoot). Most people who just want a new gun for as low a price as possible are still going to go there unless Ruger beat them in price. Then, many modern shooters, regardless of practicality, prefer a repeater to a single shot, so right above the Handi's are the Mossberg and Stevens bolt guns that are also pretty cheap.

So, they'd essentially have to compete on cost alone. Now, to do that, they'd have to go with the cheapest of everything you mentioned. Synthetic stock/triggerguard, bad metal finish, etc. Also, extra chambering options cost extra money - the more simple a production line the more cheaply it can run. So .35 Whelen and such wouldn't be likely. As a matter of fact initially it might would only be .30-06 and .270 - sure sellers (which is exactly what Mossberg first did with their ATR-100 line).

Now, lets assume that they do manage to produce this rifle that beats the Handi in price/performance - who's going to buy them? Well, obviously, the beginning hunter who needs a new rifle is going to be a good customer. There aren't a lot of those though. It's my feeling that most people, once they have 1 good "working" rifle in the stable, are willing to pay a bit more on subsequent guns. They might still want to keep the price reasonable, but there's no longer a need to cut certain corners to get things done. For example, deer season is 2 weeks away for me. If I didn't have any rifle at all, I might very well just go out and buy whatever I could get my hands on so I'd be able to go out and hunt. Many/most hunters do have a go-to rifle already though. I don't think such customers would be interested and an absolutely bottom of the barrel budget rifle in any uninteresting chamberings like .30-06 or such. Sure they'd buy them in more exotic stuff to try out, but that makes them more expensive again.

All in all, I'm not sure it would sell well. A budget version of the M-77 might fare better IMHO.

BlkHawk73 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2008, 02:52:29 AM »

IMO, most ppl now go with a repeater, be it a blt or the now popular semi-auto. I think much is for "image" while some is also to compenstae for one well placed shot. They can get the shots off quicker.

Single shots just aren't as popular as they once were. the H&R models remain due to thier simplicity (great for learning on) and thier price (beginners and spend-thrifts). They can be very accurate as my .357 max one is a fantastic shooter. The class and style of the #1's though is in an entirely different class. These are appreciated more by those wanting a classic and classy firearm and are willing to pay for those things. For Ruger to digress from the #1 and go with a H&R knock-off would be risky. While they'd be relying a lot on thier name, they'd need to forsee a huge market to expend the R&D costs for such a project. With the market going away from this type of rifle, can't say that's a worthwhile venture. Also, what would thier offer the established H&R's don't?

Tom W. · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2008, 09:14:57 AM »

The #1's are fine rifles. I'll get another as soon as I can save up for it. The #3 in .480 Ruger would be a nice plaything, as would one of their lever guns in the same caliber....

I don't see Ruger putting out a low end single shot again, but I've been wrong more than once.

Rangr44 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2008, 03:32:43 PM »

Besides the repeater/nonrepeater issues involved, and economics aside, there remains the 900 pound gorilla in your idea, sitting quietly in the corner, that makes it a non-starter IMHO.

In order to contain the high pressures of the cartridges you want in a RB action, the rollers would have to be of so great a diameter (read: thickness from boltface to pivot pin, aka one of the interlocking surfaces), that the action depth would have to be twice as deep as anything on the market now - making it ungainly & awkward.

That is why rollers are chambered in relatively low-pressured cartridges - especially the more petite, graceful rifles like a Remington #4.

.

good ag · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2008, 02:06:09 PM »

Maybe you all are correct and the market is saturated. As I consider the offerings from NEF, Remington/Baikal, and Rossi, it does seem more likely. Nevertheless, I would prefer a Ruger, a classic action, and a solid frame if the price were at all similar. I maybe alone in this.

I guess the real question may be who is really buying all the Handi-Rifles. Graybeard's Handi-Rifle forum makes it sound like a lot of gun enthusiasts on limited budgets own several handi-rifles, but this may represent a small niche market. If MGMorden and BlkHawk73 are right (and they may be) that the major market for this sort of rifle are beginning hunters and shooters, then my line of reasoning maybe flawed. I imagine that such buyers would just buy whatever gives them the best value. Personally, I've wanted a .270 for some time (just to play with), but I have two little boys and a stay-at-home wife/mother and can't justify buying a Ruger No. 1. In that context, the Remington SPR18 has been looking pretty good . . . and I have an old Weaver K3 that my dad gave me several years ago.

As to Rangr44's observation, I'm certainly very interested and as a history professor I should stay away from commenting on anything involving moving parts. I had presumed that since smokeless cartridges such as the 7x57, .30-40, and even the .30-06 were chambered in the Remington No. 5 rolling block action, that modern steels would only make this more feasible. As to my dream of a rolling block in 7mm magnum, maybe that is a whole order of magnitude more pressure and impractical, but certainly a traditionally sized rolling block in .30-06 or .270 should be possible? If anyone knows, just how much bigger would a magnum rolling block have to be? Wouldn't an action 5% bigger have 25% bigger bearing surfaces? Is that not really enough when you're dealing with 61,000 PSI?
Thanks for all your thoughtful responses. They've given me something to think about other than work.
Sanders

K.K · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2008, 02:52:34 PM »

How about a 44 carbine style rifle chambered in .480 Ruger, 454, and perhaps .460?

I'd also like to see Ruger a lever action centerfire hunting rifle for bottle-necked cartridges like .308, etc, much like they did with the .44 Mag.

lastly, how about a .22LR version of the #1? It would be a classy rifle for Dad, and a great training rifle for my two young boys!

K.K.

30-06man · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2008, 03:02:14 PM »

Quote from: good ag on August 03, 2008, 02:06:09 PM

Graybeard's Handi-Rifle forum makes it sound like a lot of gun enthusiasts on limited budgets own several handi-rifles, but this may represent a small niche market.

That is the most popular forum on this site. It isn't that small of a market and seeing what some of those guys have defiantly isn't too many guys on a limited budget but some are. The handi rifle in one mans had can be superior the the Ruger #1 or the TC Encore but for a beginner you still have many that like the Handi Rifle. For Ruger to make a rifle like the Handi rifle they would basically have to copy the design like the Rossi which isn't very popular at all. The market is saturated and there is basically no use in another single shot. Anyway I hear since Remington bought NEF they will get some well needed updates and will be nicer.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #8 on:** August 07, 2008, 02:13:54 AM »

Bring out the XGI at a decent price---and offer at least 10 round mags for it.

CaptOnion · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2008, 04:58:31 AM »

I would like to see their 44mag lever in 357mag,and 22 Hornet.

billm08 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2008, 10:38:01 AM »

I would like to see a full underlug on a Ruger Redhawk and a Super Redhawk with a barrel that does not look like it was an after thought (something that matches the contour of the frame/barrel threading nub).

superdown · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2008, 03:11:04 PM »

Quote

Posted by: Omaha-BeenGlockin
Insert Quote
Bring out the XGI at a decent price---and offer at least 10 round mags for it.

What is the XGI ?

Swampman · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2008, 04:26:04 PM »

A Ruger #3 in .30-40 Krag is the only Ruger centerfire longgun I'd really care to own. I had one in .45-70 and I wish I still owned it. I don't think it would be possible for Ruger to make anything that would sell for less than $600.00. I'd rather have a Handi.

Malicious_Intent · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2008, 08:16:41 AM »

Well I would definately be interested a Ruger Mini calibered in a more powerful round for deer. It seems that Ruger has only invested in the more controllable semi-auto rounds i.e. 7.62 x 39mm and 6.8mm Rem SPC. I'm hoping that they will develop a Mini action in let say something like .308 Winchester or 30.06. Don't get me wrong. I find that the 6.8mm Rem SPC is an amazing round and I am looking towards purchasing one before next hunting season, but I do wish they came out with a larger harder hitting round in their Mini series.

Graybeard · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2008, 09:05:41 AM »

I really can't think of anything Ruger might make that would be of interest to me. I have only one Ruger and it likely will leave shortly after I complete and post the results of the review of it.

Swampman · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2008, 04:31:24 PM »

Sounds like you like Rugers about as much as I do. I do have a 10-22 and I like it well enough for what it cost.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #16 on:** August 23, 2008, 04:24:53 AM »

XGI:

http://www.rugerauction.com/Auction6.html#

Swampman · « **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2008, 04:40:29 AM »

Lot of money for a wall hanger.

superdown · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2008, 06:36:49 AM »

WOW that's really cool they should definitely bring that out.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2008, 12:01:42 PM »

I think that a Mini in the regular short action calibers like .308, etc, wouldn't sell worth a darn, especially with the accuracy rep of the regular Mini's. Besides, at the price point it would likely have, you can get a Springfield Armory M1A and not have any accuracy issues. If it's the aftermarket extras for the Mini that interest you, well, there's a few available for the M1A too. Springfield pretty much has that market (a semi auto that's not AK/FN/AR based) wrapped up completely.

Oh, and they should make a #1S in .303 British and 30-40 Krag. Those would be CLASSIC.

Malicious_Intent · « **Reply #20 on:** August 24, 2008, 06:08:45 AM »

I second the motion for a Ruger in .303 British. The .303 is a classic round that I think is well overdue for a new firearm chambered in it. I was on the fence with the Mini's, especially with the reviews of Mini's without flash hiders on the barrel for weight and their accuracy. The M1A is definately the better choice now that you brought them up. Thanx.

Casey

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #21 on:** August 25, 2008, 06:27:23 AM »

That's just the point---if Ruger brought out a .308 semi-auto---you wouldn't be looking at the $1500 Springfield is getting for an M1A---but more like $800-$900 street price for the Ruger.

Swampman · « **Reply #22 on:** August 25, 2008, 07:11:46 AM »

But like the Mini-14 & Mini-30, you wouldn't be able to hit anything with it.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #23 on:** August 25, 2008, 02:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Omaha-BeenGlockin on August 25, 2008, 06:27:23 AM

That's just the point---if Ruger brought out a .308 semi-auto---you wouldn't be looking at the $1500 Springfield is getting for an M1A---but more like $800-$900 street price for the Ruger.

Then just like the Mini's, you'd have to spend $500-$600 on aftermarket extra's and gunsmithing to be able to accurately hit anything past 100 yds. Then you'd have a M1A wannabe when for the same money and a whole lot less time and effort you could get the real deal.

Omaha-BeenGlockin · « **Reply #24 on:** August 26, 2008, 02:33:24 AM »

Thing is---I had a Springfield---and it was junk----it will be a cold day before I ever buy anything from them again.

Swampman · « **Reply #25 on:** August 26, 2008, 02:42:30 AM »

I feel the same way about Rugers.

kyelkhunter3006 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 26, 2008, 11:26:01 AM »

Quote from: Omaha-BeenGlockin on August 26, 2008, 02:33:24 AM

Thing is---I had a Springfield---and it was junk----it will be a cold day before I ever buy anything from them again.

Every company makes a clunker sometime....my friend has 2 Mini's, an M1A, and three Bushmasters. The Mini's don't shoot with any degree of accuracy, the M1A and Bushy's will drill coke cans at 300 yds every time....

Tallwalker · « **Reply #27 on:** August 27, 2008, 02:52:01 PM »

Does anyone here remember the original ads for the Mini 14? There was a big banner that proclaimed it to be "The worlds most expensive plinker!" Gotta admit that they succeeded at that.

I am somewhat surprised that more compainies don't make better use of the components that they already have in stock. Distributors like Davidson's make good use of that, and as the "mass" markets get filled the nich markets become more important. I'm surprised that Ruger hasn't offered the .450 Marlin in their "Alaskan" bolt action for example. I would think that some would welcome an afordable 20" barrel bolt . 450. They certainly have all the components. Actually I'm a bit surprised with the popularity of the 45-70 that other companies haven't picked up on that yet either. The .450 Marlin uses a standard Magnum bolt face.

jumpsteady · « **Reply #28 on:** August 29, 2008, 07:37:52 PM »

Super Redhawk in .44mag with the Target Grey finish
SP101 in .357mag with 2.25" barrel in either or both Target Grey or Blackened finish
Super Redhawk Alaskan in a Blackened finish
Bring back 357max Blackhawk
Super Redhawk and Alaskan in .445 Supermag
#1-B & #K1-B in .338 Federal
#1-B & #K1-B in 6.5mm JDJ
#1-B & #k1-B in 6.5mm Creedmore
Lower price across the board on #1's
Super Redhawk and GP100 with Dan Wesson style removable barrels and shrouds

JPShelton · « **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2008, 11:39:28 PM »

Quote from: good ag on July 31, 2008, 05:41:27 PM

The gun I wish Ruger would make is an affordable single shot rifle priced to compete with the H&R Handi-Rifle.

Sanders
Chickasha, Oklahoma

The Ruger No.1 is the rifle that I lusted after as a youngster. It was just soooooo darn classy looking.

I bought one while in college. A Number 1 B in .270. It was a monumentally huge dissapointment. It had a very rough bore and copper fouled badly. Accuracy was so-so for the first 10 shots or so, then it would start to pattern, rather than group. I have rarely been as underwhelmed with a firearm purchase. I parted with that Number 1 before I graduated from college.

I was a sucker for the style of that rife, though, and couldn't resist trying again when Ruger began offering the .300 Weatherby Magnum as an available chambering. That one didn't copper foul badly, but it had other issues. It wasn't particularly accurate, either. It sure looked good, though. I wound up parting with that one, too.

I bought a Handi-Rifle a while back and to be frank, I didn't expect much from the rifle, due largely to its low cost. What I got was a rifle with a stock that fits me like is was custom made ( I am probably one of the few people who like the Handi-Rifle's stocking in terms of fit), a crisp, relatively creep-free and light trigger pull, and M.O.A. accuracy or slightly better with some loads, with no tweaking required. It is perhaps more "purposeful" in terms of aesthetics than "pretty," in comparison to the Number 1.

My Handi-Rifle has fast become one of my all-time favorite firearms and I will buy another in a different (larger) caliber soon, based on my very favorable experince with the first one.

Having owned both the Number 1 and the Handi Rifle, as well as a T/C Contender Carbine, I know which one I perfer, in spite of price. The Number 1 isn't the most expensive single shot on the market, but it isn't exactly cheap, either. Both of mine were relatively expensive mistakes, and my experience with them has caaused me to believe that if Ruger couldn't "get it right" with the Number1's I owned at the price I paid for them, they probably wouldn't do any better with a "popularly priced" single shot.

That said, I STILL don't think there are many rifles out there that can match the Number 1 for style points. I wish I owned one that shot as beautifully as it looked. Maybe I will, someday...........

-JP
Tahlequah, Oklahoma