I find that some of what has been put forward I think is off line. Not trying to be ofefensive so please excuse any bluntness in my post.

"The standards for rifle manufacturing were established in the production of, first, military, then commercial rifles. They are what they are. Appears Ruger has stayed within recognized standards and specifications for .303 rifles, at least as far as groove depth is concerned."

9.3X57 I have to disagree. We are not talking about a rifle made 100 or even 40 years ago and the ability to produce to closer tolerances, should in a modern sporting rifle, be observed.

"Military rifles are by necessity made to tolerances that no sporting rifle manufactuer, today at least, should follow."

"At one level I'd like to agree with you except this is an incorrect statement. Rifle specs are what they are. If originally established in the production of military rifles, then so it is. For Ruger to step outside of those standards would be the aberration, not accepted practice."

Sorry there 9.3 but to me, I believe you are off line with that statement. The No 1 is a modern sporting rifle and not a new, let alone old Military rifle and tolerances should be held tighter. Remembering that modern projectiles are not as likely to slug out to fill the grove.

"There is a standard size for the projectiles for the 303, it stands to reason the barrels should have been dimensioned accordingly."

"Mostly, I agree with you here as for any custom .303 that might be made. However, I believe it is fully acceptable for a modern maker to follow suit of the original design and manufacturing specs for the caliber in question. Where I would diverge is that if Ruger used a deep-grooved barrel, then went on to use some other NON-spec feature of boring {oversize bore/land diamter, radically different rifling forms, etc}, it would be wholly unacceptable."

Couple of things with the above. 1 we are talking about a factory rifle, not a custom rifle, and it should perform to certain standards acceptable of today. 2 Ruger have taken serious liberties with bore dimensions in the past. There version of the 7.62X39 wore a 308 barrel not a .303 barrel. So why not tighten the N01 barrel to .313.

"I think Ruger is making a good rifle as long as they stick to established design specs. If that makes for an "inaccurate" rifle, then so be it. That is what custom gunmakers are for. As for these rifles, I am still not sure what the problem is. Based on personal experience and the established material on the subject, I do not believe GROOVE depth of .315 alone is to blame for bad accuracy of new rifles. And...in fact, looking at many of the standards for accuracy of the older guns shooting the older calibers, find 3-inch 5-shot groups to be, well, dreary, but not outside the realm of "factory acceptable" with factory ammunition and considered acceptable by pretty much all makers, too. Want better than that? Get a custom rifle or shoot handloaded ammo. Or steer away from the No.1 Ruger itself...?"

Once again I find myself dissagreeing with some of the above. If Ruger where making a SMLE I would agree, however they are not, so an inaccurate rifle is not acceptable. Matter of fact my Mk5 Jungle Carbine and a prior SMLE both shot better groups with open sights, factory and handloads.

I tend to agree that the barrel to action fit is the most likely culprit followed by the stocking and then bedding and the grove depth least likely. I use that order based on what I have done to try and find the problem.

I take on board the advice to try FMJ's, only problem is they are not good for hunting. I will use handloads for hunting- unless a factory load shows it really does perform- however as I have said that can void the warranty and the factory rifle should be ale to shoot acceptable hunting groups with some factory ammo.

One thing that comes to mind. If a thou off the the lands can affect the accuraccy of a rifle to a large degree why would a barrel grove depth a 3 to 4 thou over size not be able to do the same? Remembering that not all rifle accuracy improves/degrades markedly with a projectile moved a thou towards or away from the lands.

The No1 has shown that more often than not it is a rifle that will shoot groups beter than 2" with any number of calibres. The design its self is not suspect and yes playing with the bedding may be required-as with any rifle- but the rifle needs to show some promis to start with.

Cheers

Greg