#1 - 500 S&W
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2022 12:21 pm
I reached out to Lipseys with an idea for a Ruger #1 in .500 S&W mag (similar to the BigHorn Armory Model 89 rifle in .500 S&W). I have one of the Bighorn Model 89s, but it won't cycle some of the heavier .500 SW ammo - specifically the 420 grain penetrators from Underwood because the Underwood 420s OAL is about an 1/8" ~ 1/16" longer than the typical .500. The Model 89 shoots them just fine if you feed them single-shot style into the chamber, but if you're going to shoot them single-shot, may as well do it with a #1.
I was thinking a factory offering for a #1 in .500SW would be neat, and fit those states that have straight-wall only hunting requirements, plus be a "shore-nuff" thumper, along the lines the .50 Beowulf and Model 89 already are.
Lipseys replied back that Ruger had already looked at it, and decided against it due to some problems/deficiencies with the #1 and the .500 SW cartridge. Are any of y'all familiar with that, or why Ruger would turn down the .500?
I had been also thinking to get a #1 custom-chambered as a .500 SW, but if there's problems with the two of them, I'd like to understand why Ruger engineers turned it down before I set out to build it.
I don't have any information on it - but doesn't seem like it would be any different from a .44 mag, .480 Ruger or .475 Linebaugh, and those have all been done. Maybe it was something as simple as cost / tooling cost, and expected ROI for mass-marketing. No clue.
I was thinking a factory offering for a #1 in .500SW would be neat, and fit those states that have straight-wall only hunting requirements, plus be a "shore-nuff" thumper, along the lines the .50 Beowulf and Model 89 already are.
Lipseys replied back that Ruger had already looked at it, and decided against it due to some problems/deficiencies with the #1 and the .500 SW cartridge. Are any of y'all familiar with that, or why Ruger would turn down the .500?
I had been also thinking to get a #1 custom-chambered as a .500 SW, but if there's problems with the two of them, I'd like to understand why Ruger engineers turned it down before I set out to build it.
I don't have any information on it - but doesn't seem like it would be any different from a .44 mag, .480 Ruger or .475 Linebaugh, and those have all been done. Maybe it was something as simple as cost / tooling cost, and expected ROI for mass-marketing. No clue.