I have a Ruger # 1 B 300 win mag. I have installed a Hicks Accuraiser in the forearm. This rifle will shoot 5 shot groups of less than minute of angle at 200 yards, when I do my part. The problem I am having is as follows: The bullet group point of impact on target is very dependent on where the forearm is placed in the rifle rest.
Anyone else experiencing this problem? Suggestions?

You can look back through other posts, but Ruger forends have been a subject before. There is an article in one of The Single Shot Rifle books that outlines an entire panametric study of Ruger forend bedding, pressure and accuracy. I think it is a pretty well documented fact, although a lot of people spend a lot of time discussing it. It is simply the nature of the beast. The article was pretty well in line with my observations over the years. The Rugers shoot well if you don't rest them on the middle to front of the forearm. If you hold or rest them on the rear part of the forearm, they are consistent. Any number of bedding schemes will work as long as the rest is at the rear of the forearm. This requirement seems to always be regarded as a problem with the Ruger, but everyone accepts the fact that a double can't be laid on a rest or sandbag directly without seriously impacting its regulation. It's just part of being a double. Same with the No. 1.

quote:

my observations over the years. The Rugers shoot well if you don't rest them on the middle to front of the forearm. If you hold or rest them on the rear part of the forearm, they are consistent. Any number of bedding schemes will work as long as the rest is at the rear of the forearm. This requirement seems to always be regarded as a problem with the Ruger, but everyone accepts the fact that a double can't be laid on a rest or sandbag directly without seriously impacting its regulation. It's just part of being a double. Same with the No. 1.

I think the above quote is correct, and would add this one bit...

Like double rifles, I have found my Ruger No.1s quite accurate when fired offhand or sitting (haven't tried prone)...pretty much any way except when the barrel or forend is rested on something solid.

My 7.5 MAS exhibits the same characteristic. roger

quote:

Originally posted by bartsche:
My 7.5 MAS exhibits the same characteristic. roger

Roger, this is just from memory, because I don't want to go fish my MAS 7.5 out of the vault...

But, isn't the front sight of the MAS inside and part of the front "stock & barrel" band?

If so, any looseness of the band or bending of the stock could cause a point of impact change IF using the iron sights...no?

The reason I ask is not to be a smart ass. My MAS 7.5 does not display any changes in impact point relative to where the stock is on the bags, so I started wondering why yours does.

The only thing I can come up with so far is that my stock/barrel band is on so tightly that I can't get it off the rifle, no matter how hard I try. (So I can't disassemble the rifle either.)

Maybe that is what keeps mine from having the same problem, and maybe it is something you could check out to prevent its happening with your rifle?

I'll E-mail you a photo of my sporterized scope mounted Frenchy. Never posted a pic and don't know how. Vapo Dog always helped me. roger

Okay Roger, but mine is scoped too. I just thought if your rifle wasn't that maybe the front sight was contributing to your rifle's problem.

I still suspect that looseness of that band might possibly be a contributor. if it has been sporterized to where it no longer has a band, maybe that is part of its problem?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Okay Roger, but mine is scoped too. I just thought if your rifle wasn't that maybe the front sight was contributing to your rifle's problem.

I still suspect that looseness of that band might possibly be a contributor. if it has been sporterized to where it no longer has a band, maybe that is part of its problem?

The Band is still there and it is a Mannlicher in appearance. Hopefully you have the E-Mailed pics by now.
when supported under the metal below the action there is not bad repeatability. roger

For what it's worth, In just got back home and looked up the reference. It is Chapter 6 in "Mr. Single Shots Gunsmithing Idea Book" published by DeHaas in 1983. It is far and away the most complete and systematic study of this I have seen. It is worth a read if you are interested in the subject.