And Now for Something Completely Different...

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

First, the back story.

I went to my local enablers shop on Tuesday to pick-up a S&W 617-5 that was clear of OGAM jail (Thanks, Bluesky Bob). While there I spotted a rifle that was on a display rack. What drew me to it was first the red butt-pad, but when I got closer, it became evident that the wood was absolutely spectacular. I gave it a cursory once over, but the wood pretty much blinded me to anything else about the gun.

Went home and just couldn't stop thinking about it. Did a passel of research on it and realized that it was something special. I went back the next day and bought it. It was on consignment. I will bet that the previous owner decided to get rid of it because they couldn't get it to shoot worth a hoot. "Why is that", you may ask. While examining it, pre-purchase, I noticed that the front scope ring (This gun had a very nice Colorado Redfield Widefield 4X scope on it) was angled forward - which means that, A) The front ring was not really supporting the scope across the whole width of the ring; and, B) There may not have been enough elevation adjustment to compensate for the downward angle of the mount. I assumed that it had the wrong mount or somebody had installed the mount backwards. Since it was mounted where the barrel tapers, it caused it to be angled forward.

Today I disassembled it. I found the mounts were the correct ones. Examining the one in question, really didn't reveal anything - it looked perfectly symmetrical. But, I decided to rotate it 180 degrees and when I remounted it, everything leveled out just fine. Since I had it apart anyway, I took the opportunity to change out the scope to a nice Leupold 2X-7X variable that I had collecting dust. Seemed better suited to the gun. OK, you have waded through all of the above, you deserve to see what I'm talking about...

 

I purposely have not told you what this gun is, because I want you to guess - not as easy as it seems. There are two clues to the true identity of this gun. I will tell you that it is chambered in .22 Hornet, but that is really no help. Also, this gun is 45 years old - it's from 1975 and they stopped making it in 1986,

Good luck. This may go quick.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[10X 3,304]

It looks a lot like a Ruger #1, though not the current production models.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

Ruger No. 1?

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

Ruger # 3 from 1973 - 1986

[Bklynracer 1,265]

I don't know rifles, but do know a a beauty when I see one. Nice find.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

48 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Ruger # 3 from 1973 - 1986

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

The Ruger #1 and Ruger #3 used the same falling-block receiver. The #3 was like a Chevrolet to the #1's Cadillac. In the 70's the #3 sold new for appx $165 and the #1 for $265. That action is one of the strongest rifle actions out there and can chamber anything from the .22 Hornet to the .458 Magnum (I've shot a #1 in .458 - not fun).

Someone must have found this gorgeous take-off wood (from a #1B) - I can't imagine what went back on the #1 it came from - and installed it on this #3 receiver. The giveaways that this is really a #3 are the under-lever shape (that actuates the falling-block) and the barrel configuration at 22".

The original configuration of the #3 was a straight wrist, plain walnut stock (no pistol grip) with a steel butt-plate. They also had a barrel band at the end of the forearm - which a lot of folks removed as it was deemed detrimental to accuracy.

This may actually call for a recreational trip to the range, as I now have two rifles to sight in. This #3 and a CZ 527 Royal in .223.

Thanks for playing.

Adios,

Pizza Bob

[CMJeepster 2,779]

Jeez, Bob!  Leave some firearms for the rest of us!  Nice pick up.

[silverado427 10,746]

Clean looking rifle.