Ruger #1 22lr

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.