Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Ruger no. 1 the good/bad/ugly
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TonyRumore" data-source="post: 2332952" data-attributes="member: 416"><p>The forend isn't the only issue with number ones. I have a 243 that I got in 1978 and it shot 4" groups out of the box. Floating the forend cut them to 2". </p><p></p><p>The final fix was 100% bedding the buttstock to the receiver. The gun now shoots 5/8" for five at 100.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TonyRumore, post: 2332952, member: 416"] The forend isn't the only issue with number ones. I have a 243 that I got in 1978 and it shot 4" groups out of the box. Floating the forend cut them to 2". The final fix was 100% bedding the buttstock to the receiver. The gun now shoots 5/8" for five at 100. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Ruger no. 1 the good/bad/ugly
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom