Quote:

---

I have read those specs 9.3X57 and one must remember that .316 was considered the end of servicable life.

I'm not nitpicking, or at least not trying to, and I understand your frustrations, as I haven't bought a new gun in years that worked right from the start...

But your statement here is incorrect. It is not the end of service life. Depending on date of production, it may have been the BEGINNING of acceptable service life. Reynolds expounds on production criteria and tolerances {reiterated in Skennerton}, and suffice it to say a barrel with a groove depth of .315 or .316 is well within original new production tolerance. High end, maybe, but acceptable nonetheless.

Now the grove diameter might not be the reason for the rifles inability to shoot to an acceptable degree, that is why when my LGS told me that Ruger said it was within specs I told them to tell the importer to get it to shoot before they send it back otherwise rebarrel it.

The rifle just will not shoot factory loads so in my mind it is a defective item. Just have to wait and see what happens.

How much have you shot it? What are the groups; Number shots, range, group size?

In my opinion it is still poor form for a modern company to make a barrel that grove size is not far off the end of it's service life.

First, again, based on original documents, this statement is incorrect. I do feel a kinship for you, tho, as like you I would hope they would assess what would be the BEST for new production and spec out the barrel accordingly. However, what you {and I} are really hoping for is a modern barrel built around CUSTOM specifications for the .303 round for custom performance. And that cannot be expected of a modern company, especially when they likely used original specification criteria for their boring and worked successfully within that.

Rembering that, that service life is for a military (Infantry) rifle. The figures published are at the upper end of what the grove sizes where that came out of the factories. Grove size was acceptable from .310 to .316

Here's the rub, and I am not picking a fight with you, just presenting what the facts are and suggesting that Ruger will not bend and can't really be expected to.

Use another example; Barrel/Cylinder gaps on Smith and Wesson revolvers vary. On the low side, .002" and on the high for acceptable new production, .010". For many years the production criteria were a bit tighter, but even using .008 as an upper limit we see the exact same situation as what is described here w/ Ruger rifles. If you bought a brand new Smith Model 10 and it sported a .008 B/C gap, it was "within spec" and the company would not tighten it unless you paid for it. With a fitting such as this that is subject to wear, it was frustrating if you got one at the upper end of acceptable, as you knew the gun would digest fewer rounds {sometimes very few indeed} before it was outside spec and might start spitting lead, etc, but nevertheless THAT was spec and that was that. And realisitcally, what else can the company do?

In this Ruger case we see standards for barrel/bore production that .315 fits well within, with rejection being .3205. Those of us that have slugged lots of .303 barrels can attest that .315 is not uncommon even on new guns at all.

In the final analysis for me, this whole discussion is exactly why I shy away from such guns. I don't mind customizing for an old gun, but with a new round I, like you, want it "on", whatever that means. Truth is, and I don't mean to sound Anglophobic here, but .303 rifles are some of the most cattywampusly-made powder-burners ever to have been tossed off the loading dock of a factory. Chambers are all over the map, bores are, etc.

And more importantly, since no or almost no new .303 caliber rifles have been made for half a century it really is hard to knock whatever standards Ruger might use, as long as they are reasonable at all and in my opinion a .315 groove depth boring is totally reasonable.

THIS is the "fun" part about a new .303, i.e., making it shoot. If a guy wants a well-standardized caliber he's better off with a .308.

Last part just my $.02...

See what you can get from Ruger, but I don't think the barrel thing is going to go anywhere unless the boring is badly executed or land diameter really out of whack.

Best,

Rod

---