Bunch of bull. A No.1 is easily accurate enough for hunting use or recreational use. They are fantastic rifles and the myth that they're terribly inaccurate is in itself an inaccurate claim. For those who think they have to have incredible accuracy afield to take game or hunt thats just not true. In many field conditions and positions theres times when its impossible to extract that kind of accuracy.
The truth is nobody can shoot sub MOA accuracy with a rifle without some form of support so the claims for certain rifles are just bogus. The reality is people shoot at shooting ranges with seats and benches and maybe prone. Few bring rifles afield and practice in field conditions and in the terrain they hunt in. Most of this is because folks don't have access to areas to do so and because of this the measure of a sport hunting rifle is measured in how accurate it'll throw 3 shots downrange, which really is a shame and tells us nothing.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. I collect Ruger #1s and have quite a few that are good shooters. However, I have several that over a period of years have yet to find something that comes close to reasonable hunting accuracy. One is a 25-05 and two are 30-06, all in the "B" configuration. Another, an "A" in 7x57 was so bad that I have my gunsmith check it out. A chamber cast showed a throat in excess of two inches. That one went back to Ruger and came back with a new barrel.Some of the most accurate seem to be the ones with the smaller bores used in the "B" models, .22Hornet, 6MM REM. one 25-05, there's a story on that one and four .300 Win. Mags, a "B" and three "S" models Two do from .375" to .50" from the bench. FWIW, currently I have Ruger #1s running from .22 Hornet to .416 Rigby. I like the rifles and I like to hunt with them. I consider 1.50" or less to be good hunting accuracy.
Paul B.
