Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner

Ruger #1 22lr

770 Views 24 Replies 15 Participants Last post by  gewehrfreund
Here are a few pictures of my Ruger Number 1 that I had converted to 22lr. I had Mark Penrod do the work. I don't have pictures of the completed gun yet.
The work is excellent and I needed to get it scoped up and get it to the range to see how it shoots. I think he put a 1 in 15 twist Shilen rachet for shooting 100 to 200 yards.

Household hardware Cylinder Gas Wood Nickel
Household hardware Cylinder Gas Aluminium Metal
Gas Engineering Auto part Metal Wood

Rim Automotive tire Composite material Machine Bicycle part
See less See more
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Mark Penrod is THE gunsmith for Ruger #1 work as well as everything else. He built two #1's for me and a Rem. 700. Not only is he an outstanding gunsmith but a super guy as well. He loves taking pictures of Eagles. You will have allot of enjoyment from your Ruger custom.
I will have lots of fun with it, Mark has built 5 or 6 guns for me at least all have been great guns.
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Thanks I have been thinking about getting one in 17m2 if I could find a older red pad #1 that didn't cost a arm and leg.
  • Helpful
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Hmmmm, I have a Bicentennial in 25-06 gathering dust, I may have to re-barrel it to .22 or maybe even 17WSM.
I didn't know I wanted a Ruger #1 in .22 LR, but now I do!

Can we see pictures of the entire rifle?
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I am headed to Bristol Tn. tomorrow I will post pictures soon.
I thought I some pics of the complete gun but I can not find them. It's hell to get old
Looks like quite the whack on the rim there. Anxious to see the finished product.
Thanks for sharing.


what’s the saying……..getting old isn’t for the weak ;-)
Many dream of a No. 1 in .22 LR, and Ruger considered it for a time, but it never happened for a number of reasons. This may be too much information, but I think it is worth noting some of the potential issues.

It appears Penrod will be using an extractor similar to the original No. 1 extractor design. He definitely knows what he's doing, so I will defer on that, but I've had a No. 1 converted to .22 LR, and done similar conversions of falling blocks myself, and it's not as simple as most would assume.

First, one can achieve rimfire strikes either by 1) offsetting the barrel when chambering, 2) repositioning the firing pin in the bolt to strike higher or lower, or 3) raising or lowering the bolt travel. The Moyer conversion, the one I had done, takes the latter approach. By the way, Ruger was so interested in Moyer's conversion, the engineers invited him for several days to test his design. In the end, as we know, Ruger never elected to make a .22 LR No. 1. As good as the design was, certain problems arose.

One issue was the extractor/ejector. The Ruger #1 extractor engages only a very small portion of the case rim, in and of itself a potential problem for small rimfires. The rim on .22 LR cases is also quite shallow and rounded, compared to most centerfire rims, making positive engagement more problematic. The spring-loaded Ruger works with rimless cartridges, obviously, but, again, even the rim of a "rimless" case is easier to bite on than a small rimfire rim. Even on the Winchester Single Shots, on which Winchester elected to use a completely different extractor configuration on the rimfire version, the extractor engages nearly 180 degrees of the bottom half of the rim. Further, the BSA International, a rifle exhibiting the most energetic rimfire ejector of which I am aware, also uses an ejector with 180 degrees of engagement. The Ruger design might engage 10-15 degrees, if that.

Also, the Ruger extractor engages at about the 9 o'clock position, pulling back and down, with the "down" part being most significant. After the first .150" to .200" of travel, the rim engagement can be lost as the extractor arcs downward. This can leave the case in the chamber unextracted, especially with a tight chamber. Also, the further the case is backed rearward, the more it tends to cant to the right, away from the extractor, allowing it to slip away from the extractor edge, exacerbating the already minimal rim engagement.

Finally, the Ruger extractor remains rearward and down after it has actuated and then snaps around the case rim after the cartridge is chambered, the lever lifted, and the bolt closed. I may be a bit anal in this, but the "snapping around" on a live rimfire cartridge gives me that uneasy feeling in my crotch. Even point loading on the rear of the rim when extracting a live round bothers me. Of course, one can "double clutch" the lever and force the extractor back to the forward position before chambering a round, but who wants to do that? Also, judging from the OP's pics, it appears Penrod has accommodated for this, but the usual cut out for a No. 1 extractor is way too deep for a rimfire, leaving too much of the case unsupported. This causes bulging in the fired case. Granted, the cases are not reloaded, but that bulge can be disconcerting.

In the Moyer design, the extractor is replaced with a similarly shaped and actuated arm that does not engage the case itself. Instead, it engages the rear of an extractor plate that encircles the upper 180 degrees of the rim, kicking it in the arse to eject, so to speak. While the plate allows much more grip on the minimal rimfire rim, the arm also snaps back around the hardened steel plate when closing the bolt, instead of around the live brass rim. Just think of an ejector for an O/U shotgun that telescopes straight out and snaps back into place with a pull spring after the case is ejected. In this design, the extractor is always tight against the breech, allowing loading of a round, even with the bolt completely down and the ejector arm still in the rearward position. Thus, the extractor plate moves straight out, instead of arcing down and away from the rim…does that make sense? I would rate the energy of the ejector as similar to the original Winchester SS rimfire ejector but less than that of a BSA International.

There was also a problem with modifying the block travel to achieve a firing pin strike on the rim. The Moyer design lowers the bolt to strike at 6 o'clock. This works pretty well, but the modifications to the linkage do not limit upward bolt movement. Most of the time, this is not an issue, but in mine, and the one Moyer took to Ruger, inertia would occasionally cause the bolt to travel up beyond the new, lower position and wedge against the rear of the barrel. When this happens, the firing pin would strike the center of the cartridge. I believe this was the biggest flaw and the reason Ruger rejected the design.

Lastly, the Moyer conversion mills the top of the breech bolt and a clearance cut on the right side of the receiver wall. This is to allow easier access for fingers to reach in to load and then remove, if necessary, the .22 case or cartridge. I think those cuts dramatically alter the otherwise attractive aesthetics of the No. 1.

I have heard good things about Penrod's conversion, and I look forward to seeing the entire rifle and hearing how it functions.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 2
It would be nice if someone made a scaled down number one that was sized for the 22.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
My dad has one he had done in the early 80s by an Methodist preacher (IIRC) in PA named John Korzinek. It also sports a Shilen barrel.
I also would love an 80% sized No. 1 in any of the small rimfires. We already have a downsized, high quality falling block rimfire in the Miroku 1885, but everyone thinks they are too expensive and not accurate enough. Hard to imagine a mini No. 1 being any cheaper or more accurate, but they would probably look better.
That is very nice, very nice indeed.
Just wow!!
It would be nice if someone made a scaled down number one that was sized for the 22.
I think Dakota makes one. 7lb 6oz scoped...Tom
I think Dakota makes one. 7lb 6oz scoped...Tom
Let me rephrase that. I meant one that doesn't cost you your first born.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts