Wondering if those hwo have both would be able to chime in. It seems that a Ruger #1 is NOT a benchrest rifle - no problem. With a little bit of work they tend to shoot pretty decent (Hicks accurizer).

Now would it be fair to say that the RSI (full length stock) #1's are more difficult to get shooting decent over the sporter? Seems to me that full length wood might cause issues?

Logic would tell me, as it does you, that it should be easier to get the Sporter to shoot well.

However, my actual experience has been the exact opposite. My RSI is one of the best shooting factory rifles I have ever had, and over the last 70 years I've had several hundred guns (not just Rugers, of course).

I think it is pretty much luck of the draw with either one. So, I'd just get the one which appeals to me the most visually and "fit"-wise.

I've had both. The RSI shot well out of the box but like all of the other full length stocks I've had they just don't maintain zero very well.
I can say that the RSI did hold zero better than the full length bolt action rifles i've had.