Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Loads for .300 Win Mag in Ruger No. 1

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Loads for .300 Win Mag in Ruger No. 1

    By coincidence I ran into a couple of good deals on Ruger No. 1s in .300 Win Mag and now I have two of them. Figure I might as well work up some loads and select the best shooting of the two to hunt with this fall.

    Anybody got any good suggestions for loads to start with for these? I'll probably stick with the more popular bullets and powders if I have a choice. Intended game will be caribou or maybe a moose.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    564

    Default

    The barnes 168 or 180gr TSX is a good place to start.

  3. #3

    Default

    First thing I would do is determine just how far out you can seat those bullets. In most calibers the #1's allow a little longer seating, which frees up powder space in the stubby 300 and adds a lot to velocity. You could easily end up with rounds that are waaaaay too long for magazine rifles, while adding significantly to the velocity. Especially with the little extra barrel length mixed in.

    I've only loaded for two #1's in 300, older models, and both had longish throats that fit this description. I won't give you loads because in those days the only ones suitable were 4350 and H4831. And the loads I have would be downright dangerous in standard length loads, if that turns out to be the situation with your rifles. The broader selection of slower powders today would be really encouraging to me, especially with heavier bullets.

    Gotta say my pick-of-the-litter bullets for game performance was the 200-grain Nosler partition. If your throats are shorter, you might profit from one of the sleeker bullets like Barnes, simply because they could be seated out a lot further before engaging the rifling.

    But I said, all this theory starts with a careful measure of throat length in both your rifles. You'll be tempted to keep both based on performance if the throats are long!

    BTW- Read up on free-floating #1 forends. Accuracy will improve dramatically if you do that.

    BTW #2- If the throats should turn out to be standard, I'd still think about having one lengthened to allow seating your pick of bullet all the way out with it's base at the base of the 300's neck. Hold a bullet up next to a case in that position, and compare it to the standard load length. You'll see just how much powder space is lost at standard lengths, and probably get as revved as I am about longer throats for 300's.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default Ruger No. 1 300 Win Mag

    Both of my guns are earlier guns - 132- and 133- prefixed serial nos. with the red recoil pads. I'll have to check the throads - I don't know when the changed the chamberings. I've read the early 7x57s were way too long but that is another story. The ability to seat the bullets out is definely an advantage in some guns. The Win 70 classic also shared that advanatge with its long action and magazine but I tore mine appart to make a .375 H&H.

    I'll read up again on the forearms bedding. I know there were a lot of tricks with No. 1s but I haven't kept up with them. If I recall the trick was to hang the forearm off the hanger so pressure on the forearm didn't disturb the barrel pressure. I have an extra forearm off a No. 3 so I can experiment with it.

    Thanks for the suggestions and advice.

    Quote Originally Posted by BrownBear View Post
    First thing I would do is determine just how far out you can seat those bullets. In most calibers the #1's allow a little longer seating, which frees up powder space in the stubby 300 and adds a lot to velocity. You could easily end up with rounds that are waaaaay too long for magazine rifles, while adding significantly to the velocity. Especially with the little extra barrel length mixed in.

    I've only loaded for two #1's in 300, older models, and both had longish throats that fit this description. I won't give you loads because in those days the only ones suitable were 4350 and H4831. And the loads I have would be downright dangerous in standard length loads, if that turns out to be the situation with your rifles. The broader selection of slower powders today would be really encouraging to me, especially with heavier bullets.

    Gotta say my pick-of-the-litter bullets for game performance was the 200-grain Nosler partition. If your throats are shorter, you might profit from one of the sleeker bullets like Barnes, simply because they could be seated out a lot further before engaging the rifling.

    But I said, all this theory starts with a careful measure of throat length in both your rifles. You'll be tempted to keep both based on performance if the throats are long!

    BTW- Read up on free-floating #1 forends. Accuracy will improve dramatically if you do that.

    BTW #2- If the throats should turn out to be standard, I'd still think about having one lengthened to allow seating your pick of bullet all the way out with it's base at the base of the 300's neck. Hold a bullet up next to a case in that position, and compare it to the standard load length. You'll see just how much powder space is lost at standard lengths, and probably get as revved as I am about longer throats for 300's.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •