So I picked up a Ruger Hawkeye AW in .308 earlier this year, and a SS 1-4 for it a few weeks later. So mounting it is next, and there is where we hit a wall. It seems the lowest ring Ruger makes is a No. 4 medium. This would need to be used on the front mounting point, and as a higher one must be used on the rear, a No. 5 high ring would be needed. This will place the scope far higher than I want it, and look retarded to boot. Anyone else have this issue, and has anyone come across a good solution for it? Short of spending more coin than I want on a Picatinny base and rings, I have not found a workable solution.

Leupold appears to save you a little height.

Or you might call Conetrol to see if they can help.

Good luck with your search.

Thanks. I have looked at the Leupold stuff. Have to check on Conetrol, hadn't thought of them. Must be a pretty unusual combo, no answers but yours here, and very limited results, none matching the subject even on Google. I must be the weird one out. Oh, well.

I have used Leupold's Ringmount system for the Ruger I have, a Hawkeye AW in .308 Win.

Using a "Low", here they are mounting a 3-9X40 one inch Leupold VX-II.

It worked, but gave me no latitude if I were to need to slide the scope back. Bear in mind this is a 40MM objective, so anything smaller at that end won't suffer from this restriction.

APredator's problem is (I think) that he is using a 30mm scope rather than a 1".

Yes, the SS 1-4 is indeed a 30mm tube. Something I overlooked and thanks for pointing that out. It also makes my post totally pointless....duhhh

Leupold does have a 30MM medium that is .90" tall. Ruger doesn't give dimensions to their rings, so I measured some Leupold ringmounts against the Rugers, and it appears the Leupold mediums are very close in dimension to Ruger's #4 and #5.

It looks like either your suggestion of Conetrol or a Picatinny/Weaver setup is the way he'll have to go. And, I'll go back to just monitoring...(grin)

It was an effort to help, so never pointless.

Regarding the Conetrols: My Google Fu was strong.

Hope something works AP though.

Burris makes a Ruger to Weaver 2 piece setup....might work for you

I have looked at the Conetrol setup, and it seems the most likely solution so far although pricey. I also looked at the Burris setup, but they specify the use of Burris' Zee rings. I guess others can be used, but not sure, and I am not impressed with that setup. Weigand also makes a conversion rail, but it appears to add so much height that nothing is gained. Love the gun and the mounting system, not so enamored with the lack of ring choice for the platform. Who makes an integral mounting system on a rifle and doesn't offer a low set of rings for it? Ruger. You gotta laugh. I appreciate the help, guys. To be honest, I am also looking into a 1" scope as a solution. I can put the SS on an AR I have, so no real loss. Had no idea this was going to be such an issue. Wow.

https://alaskaarmsllc.com/products/ruger-scope-ring-set-blued-finish-30mm-high-left-levers-r43lr53l

Best option? I contacted them but he said it was uneconomical or physically impossible to make a -3 or low Ruger 30mm ring.

http://warnescopemounts.com/product/14rlm-30mm-ruger-quick-detach-medium-matte-rings/

I am happy with the 1" version of these.

APredator , I have the Burris coversion on a couple of 77 s...they work OK , and they will take any Weaver rings

I used them for the same reason as you....was mounting a 30mm scope

Good to know. I am planning this as a hard-use/truck rifle. I hunt oak thickets, brushy ravines and the like, and sometimes crawl to a position. I wanted a setup that would take the knocks an bumps, mud, water and such without breaking my heart. I am concerned about making sure the entire assembly is up to the use I intend for it. You say they work OK. What does that mean to you? OK does not come across as a ringing endorsement.

well , Im not gonna say they are as tough as the original Ruger rings , you do depend on 4 more screws to hold the mounts , but the setup is reasonably sturdy

I doubt they will hold up if beat against rocks or hit with ball peen hammers , but I would not expect any scope or mount to hold zero under that sort of abuse

and if you were using regular Weaver bases , you would also be depending on 4 little screws to secure the whole setup to rifle

Yeah, I am going to try the out, I guess. Least expensive fix first. They may do the job fine. Just not seeing anything else giving me the result I need. Failing the Burris setup, I am stuck either going to a different platform, which I could do, or using a 1" scope, which means buying one. Different platform would likely be a Tikka, different scope a Leupy or Burris, so the additional investment either way would warrant at least trying the Burris bases first, methinks. Thanks for the information. I will try them out and let everyone know what I think after deer season.

I think you're on to something here.

Most people really stretch it for a reason to buy a new gun or equipment.

Sounds to me like you have a valid reason for both....

Torques me off that Ruger, in their infinite wisdom, elect not to manufacture a low mounting option for those who do not need a Hubble telescope to stalk deer to close range and drop them for meat. But, they are a company doing business, and I do not own them, so my opinion means zip as it should. My options are to use the platform with the accessories and configuration I can obtain, or use a different platform. What happens here will hinge on whether I am satisfied with the available mount system. We will see soon enough. I will post my impressions here for others who have a need to know.

I wonder what the height difference would actually be using the #4 and 5?

Of course I agree with getting the scope as low as you can, though. I've sent the rings from the last couple Rugers I had back to the factory and switched them to the matte lows. They did it for free because the rings were new and unopened.

Ruger rings have been totally solid for me and I really like them. (After lapping .)

If it were me, to use the factory solid set-up, I'd stay with them and just use a Triad cheek piece to get the cheek weld I wanted. WIth the scope in the medium rings, you wouldn't have a problem carrying the rifle with your hand around the receiver!

I have used Warne rings/mounts on 338 win and 375 Rugers with 30mm tubed scopes. I am not one to remove / replace the scope with any regularity, so as repeat-ability to zero I can not speak. But, as to maintaining zero, I have no issues. One 375 Ruger with Warne has about 300 and something miles of being hauled around in an Argo, has had ample amount of spills and tumbles, some wheeler miles and no issues with zero.

I also have some Alaska Arm Rings on a 416 Ruger, another 375 Ruger, and my son has them on a 375 Ruger, absolutely no issues with them either.
The Alaska Arms are my favorite Ruger ring and I am replacing most existing Warnes with them. But, have never had an issue with Warnes. I prefer the less bulk of the Alaska Arms and the levers on the left side of a right-hand rifle.

I am not sure about the SS 1-4 scope, but some of my 30mm straight tubed scopes have ocular diameters that can be as much factor with bolt clearance as is a belled objective and barrel clearance. I have begrudgingly accepted the extra height on some of the smaller ocular ones.

With any of the lever release type, I am always conscious of lever movement in brush, etc; thus far no problems.