Tips on accurizing the #3 Ruger

[tacotime]

What was the tip about putting a rubber washer between the forearm and the hanger?
 
Any other tips besides removing the barrel band and clearing the forearm off the barrel?

[GEMSTATE]

http://varminthuntinginternational.com/accurizingnoruger.html
This is about all I've found and it's for a #1

[Wyo. Coyote Hunter]

Paul Mathews wrote about what he had to d o to his number number 3's in a little book called 60 Years With Rifles...if you can get anyother tips, let me know and I will check and see if I can locate my copy...

[mcwoodduck]

The No3 is a woods carbine.
It is a fast little smooth carbine that is accurate for deer and pigs in 45-70, 44 Mag, or 30-40K is perfect out to 100 yards.
I think mounting a scope on one is sacraligous.
If you want a scope mounted single shot get a No1
The 223 and the 22 Hornet are perfect for Coyote and other small game around the farm, barn, and the hen house.
 

[Silvertp]

Tacotime

I  remember the thread you are referencing, where accuracy is improved on a Number 1 by  sanding and inserting a thin piece of gasket material between the receiver and fore arm.  I recall the material wasn't specifically identified....something like a space age gasket material. 

I spent some time trying to locate the article w/O  any luck.  Hopefully someone will have a copy or remember where it is posted.

Cheers
Silvertp

[Fred M]

I think mounting a scope on one is sacraligous.
If you want a scope mounted single shot get a No1
IHO the above is a very bad statement. I have a #3 with  a scope and it is an absolute  darling.It is however important to select a low powered scope for best performance.
My rifle was badly damaged with the stock broken in two through the pistol grip. The stock is a #1 with a modified leaver.
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/ZERMEL/RugerNo3.html
The scope is a Leuo 1.5-5. It is just ducky in the woods and good for 250 in the fields. Nothing sacraligious that I can see

[mcwoodduck]

I think mounting a scope on one is sacraligous.
If you want a scope mounted single shot get a No1
IHO the above is a very bad statement. I have a #3 with  a scope and it is an absolute  darling.It is however important to select a low powered scope for best performance.
My rifle was badly damaged with the stock broken in two through the pistol grip. The stock is a #1 with a modified leaver.
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/ZERMEL/RugerNo3.html
The scope is a Leuo 1.5-5. It is just ducky in the woods and good for 250 in the fields. Nothing sacraligious that I can see

Heritic!   

[twoshooter]

The problem arises when one can't see.........nothing quite like taking "sound shots" now  ,is there? Only I don't hear so good anymore either. ....... which means just random firing in a likely direction at the appropriate time    OR, put a nice slug gun scope on it

[Fred M]

Taco-time if you go to my web site on page two you find some accurizing tips I did on my Rugers#1and 3 which worked well. Twoshooter you got things right. Some guys like to through fancy words and B.S. around when they have no idea what a scope is and what it is good for.
 

[Jeff H]

I know this thread is slightly "aged," but I like to share my experience with the No. 3 when I can because I think they sometimes are underrated - relegated to the "cute" and "collectible" realm but not that great for real use.  The commonly known "fact" that they are not accurate did not hold up with the one that I had in .223.  They are wonderful guns and to me they have greater value in use than in hiding in the safe with the other "collectibles."
 
While I agree that it is a completely different/better-feeling rifle without a scope, being a .223, mine required a scope for where/what I used it - in flat, Northwest Ohio for varmints, where you can see for a long ways and game can see for a long ways as well.
 
Mine wore a vintage Bushnell fixed six-power with the command post (lever under the windage cap) and it would put three 60 - 63 grain HPs or SPs into three eights of an inch without extended barrel coolingtimes.  I used 25 grains of H335 and seated the bullets longer than would fit in any detachable magazine but it was utterly reliable in terms of hitting whatever I put the crosshairs on out to three hundred yards.  It was sighted an inch high at a hundred and seemed to shoot flatter than it should have for whatever reason.
 
I never did any work to the gun at all.  I bought it used but it could have been sold to me as new because I couldn't see a mark or sign of wear or use anywhere on the gun.  It appeared to be unaltered and there had been no work don to the forearm at all.  Box stock as best as I could tell.
 
The lack of checkering left it rather slippery and I did almost drop it a couple times going into and out of the safe.  When consolidating and slimming down, it was a hard choice to move it but it made a Ruger collector very happy.  He handed over twice what I paid whithout blinking and that gave me enough for its replacement - a CZ 527 Varmint.  The CZ stands in where the No.3 and a couple others once were and it's a great gun but the detachable mag is an abomination.  It's a compromise that serves me well but it's certainly not "better" than my humble No.3.