Page 1 of 2

Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:11 am
by omgb
I see all kinds of rifles being shot in BP matches and informal shooting. However, I never see any Rugers. I know, the design strays from the 19th century, but the Farquarson it is inspired by, was 19th century. Still, I never see them. Why?

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:22 am
by Woody
They are prohibited by rule in BPCR silhouette. No exposed hammer. They are allowed in BPTR competition.

Woody

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:09 am
by SSShooter
The Ruger No.1 is based on the Farquharson action from 1872, so is older than the 1874/77 Sharps, 1885 Winchester, 1879 Rem-Hepburn or 1906 Stevens 44 1/2. Only the Rolling Block is older in design. But, rules are rules and there is not enough interest to make the change for BPCR, so the No.1 and Borchardt will languish in BPTR.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:47 am
by James
What we call a 1874 model Sharps came out in 1871, no one seems to know why we call them a 74.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 9:54 am
by James
A correction, it was late 1870 that the rifle we call a 74 was first produced according to Sellers book. And the lack of an exposed hammer is the rule as stated.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:16 am
by omgb
I figured it had to be the hammer issue. I just bought a custom 45-70 with a 30” barrel and AA wood. I won’t have my hands on it for a few weeks. I’m anticipating it will shoot as well as my Sharps and better than my trapdoor. Time will tell.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:59 am
by gunlaker
Up here in Canada when long range BP shooting got going back in the early days there were lots of Ruger #1's in use.

Chris.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:15 am
by Luke
Sharps reorganized in 1874. When the stillborn model we now call the 1875 was being shown at the Worlds Fair they decided to rename their "Old" model by the date of that reorganization.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:25 am
by Ray Newman
Maybe this will help:

RE. origins of some of the NRA silhouette rules, from the Fall 1999, Issue 27, “The Black Powder Cartridge News”:

“a limited equipment” sport…

“Thanks Al and Doc for BPCR by Bill Pace

“When Carlsen and I conceived of BPCRS, we thought in terms of a very simple game without a lot of gadgetry, especially one that would avoid the usual equipment race you see in so many other shooting competitions. You know just basically a rifle – a Sharps or a Rolling Block – and the stuff a Buffalo Hunter would have had.

“Al Hill, NRA Silhouette Committee member and one of the co-founders of BPCRS, was speaking to another shooter at the 1996 NRA BPCRS Championship. I listened as Al talked about their early shooting experiments, how they arrived at the models allowed and dimensions, etc. This was my first national BPCRS match at Raton and over the next three days I had an opportunity to consider and remember Al’s comments.”

The rest of the article is a tongue in cheek discussion of what equipment/gadgets are needed.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 8:57 pm
by omgb
It all makes sense I guess. Since there were enclosed hammer guns in the 19th century, it would be nice if they were permitted. I suppose the faster lock times and coil springs might pose too much of an advantage over the hammer guns.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 8:00 am
by Luke
Hasn't happened it BPTR, so I doubt it. I think the barrel is far more important than the lockwork.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:43 am
by bohemianway
And yet a CPA repro of the 44.5 Stevens is allowed and it was a smokeless action primarily and came out when?

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 11:38 am
by SSShooter
bohemianway wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 10:43 am And yet a CPA repro of the 44.5 Stevens is allowed and it was a smokeless action primarily and came out when?
1906. With 20-30% of competitors shooting one (including me), I don't expect them to go anywhere.

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 12:47 pm
by Woody
The CPA was specifically approved as being in the "spirit" and as the safer alternative to the 44 action. Not all our pet actions made the cut, but I will say the originators of this silhouette variety did a good job in preventing the classic arms race a lot of these games turn into. I've been shooting BPCR silhouette since 98 and am still not tired of it. Willie Pool just won the BPTR cartridge Creedmoor in Tennessee last weekend using an early Bryon Shiloh. So much for an arms race. (I know the rifle. It was my first Shiloh. Shouldn't have parted with it.)

Woody

Re: Why no Ruger #1s?

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 6:32 am
by RB1Shooter
I believe the originators of the BPCR Silhouette game, did a superb job in designing a terrific team sport, while including the little nuances that make the game so compettitive. It is the little things, barrel weight for example; which even the playing field for all, while incorporating natural vibration phenomena that every shooter needs to be aware of and take into consideration. And there are countless other aspects from load deveopment, to eqipment, to shooting, to spotting that make the game what it is. It really forces each of us to really know and understand the art of BPCR Silhouette shooting in a simple, open format.

Many of the monthly match directors will allow, shooters to use non-regulation guns. However, as far as competing against and classifications in the BPCR Silhouette game, they are not ellegable and rightly so. If you want to play and compete in the game, follow the rules otherwise, simply enjoy shooting. Personally, I love it and grateful for such a well thought out team sport.

Just my thoughts.

"There are no shortcuts in match BPCR Silhouette load development & shooting"