Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Rifles Ruger 77 Hawkeye RSI 260 Rem

I just acquired a new in the box RSI in .260. I would like to put the smallest/lightest scope on it. The Leupold FX-ll Ultralight 2.5X20. Not enough scope for this rifle...or great for roaming around the WV mountains?

I had one of those on a No. 1 RSI ‘06 and thought it was a great combo for woods hunting. Because I’m an idiot however, I sold the scope. It was replaced with a 1-5 only because the 2.5 is hard to come by.

Not the smallest or lightest, but I would be looking at one of the SWFA SS Ultralights

I had one with a Vx-2 1-4x20mm on it (Mine was a 275 Rigby, but close enough, right?) I think that scope was 8.7 oz? I liked the versatility of being able to dial up to 4 if need be but I wouldn't feel bad about the 2.5x. Had one before as well. Faster than irons and more precise than a non magnified red dot and people shoot those plenty far.

You can drop an ounce or two in weight by just switching to lighter rings. I like the Leupold Lows but even a lower Ruger setup means less steel and ergo less weight.

I have six short action 77 RSIs and like the 2-7x28 Leupolds on a 243, 250-3000, 260, and 308. Also have a 2.5-7x28 Weaver RV7 on one in 25 Souper.

The 28mm objective seems to be about the largest diameter that will work with a low ring set up without removing the rear sight. The 2-7x33 Leupolds don't fit as well, having to be mounted farther back than I prefer. I had a Leupold VarI-X III 1.5-5x20 on the 308 but didn't care for it.

Did it have anything to do with the balance?

Not in this case, although it seems as though I'm more particular about how a rifle balances than many. I like scopes to be mounted as low over the bore as possible, depending of course on the configuration of the stock's comb height, and scopes with larger objectives need to be mounted either higher or farther back.than I prefer.

As far as 77 RSI balance goes, i prefer the balance of the long action RSIs to the short action RSIs, but I only have four of them in 6.5x55, 257 Roberts, 270, and 7x57. I have an old Bushnell 3-8X36 ScopeChief on the 257 Roberts, but I had to remove the rear sight.

I've had a Weaver V-3 1-3x20mm on my Marlin 336 for a number of years and have nothing bad to say about it. Looking at specs, it is 2 ozs heavier than the Leupold 2.5 (6.5 vs 8.5 oz), but it's also a lot more affordable. It has good eye relief, and it's also a true 1x magnification; I usually leave it at 1x when walking around our hunting lease (lots of feral hogs around that we've encountered many times at short range), then I put it on 3x when I've settled in to a hunting spot.

I think the 2.5x would work fine. The 1x4 or 1.5x5 would also be a good choice. The only time low magnification could have hampered me was a deer bedded at around 80 yards away in the brush. I could make out the brush and could see a "window" to shoot through with my 7x binocular but not my 1x4 set on 4x. It was a doe and even though legal I would have passed on the shot anyway because she was sky lighted on a ridge.

260Remguy,

Got you. I can see why you prefer the long actions. And I know what you mean about the low scope.

Because of how the rifle felt with the standard Ruger rings and the scope lacking a front bell, I ended up just hunting with the irons on it. No big deal for the shooting distances here.

Nitpicky for sure and maybe not even noticable for most, like you said, but I would have preferred one of your scopes. Even something like one ring height down and a cheap Redfield Revolution 2-7x33 if that were possible without removing the rear sight.

The bare rifle handled super well.

I had a NEGC peep sight on my 250-3000 RSI, worked well for a number of years, switched to a 2x7 Leupold.