Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Ruger #1 Scope mounting

Hello the Camp!

Looking for someone with more than one Rodeo under their belt mounting scopes on Ruger #1's.

The gun: #1 custom from Colton in Brooks, Oregon (circa 1984), chambered in .257 Colton: proprietary cartridge which is a "sensible" belted magnum (a shortened .264 with a sharper shoulder). Almost a perfect little brother cartridge to my .276 Ackley.

The scope: (came with it and my favorite): 3x-9x Leupold Compact.

It's on there and operational. But I want it back further. I am aware of offset rings by Ruger and Leupold (usually sold in singles) for the #1, but the Compact's issue is that the TURRET is the obstacle to rearward positioning rather than the bell. (Currently I've still got about 1/4 inch of tube before touching the flare of the objective bell, but the rear ring is against the rear of the turret). It's my understanding that the offset rings are primarily designed for positioning on the front.

Buy the offset ring and put it on the rear? Buy two offset rings? Anything other than Leupold or Ruger to explore?

Anyone struggling with this previously and finding success would save me a lot of trial and error.

Thanks in advance.

Google Eabco and EGW rails.

DF

Preservation of the Ruger quarter rib is essential. A Picatinny type rail would detract from the gun.

If you have the factory Ruger rib set up, the offset rings work fine and I might swap that out for a longer tubed scope if need be.....

I ran 6x often, but also a 2-8x36, a 3-10x40 or 3-9x40 may have more scope mounting latitude. I believe I only used one reverse ring...on the front for that variable......might want 2 for your scope.

For Custom options, many ways to go.......one of my #1's was custom, a Burris mount, it seems off memory it was a TC contender base - 1 piece..and may have been reversed for whatever reason. Pac-Nor did it........worked well.

This is the original quarter rib (albeit on a Shilen barrel).
I believe with the measure of your advice on top of my speculation, two offsets may be in order here.

The scope (as I mentioned previously) is in my opinion the best field optic for big game Leupold ever designed. Perfect for "little guns" (lightweight and small), but no stranger to lots of my medium hunting guns, either. What I'm trying to convey here is that this custom #1 has been designed as a "graceful" #1. Barrel contour is what I would call "light sporter". (Not the borderline varmint-weight of it's original barrel).

I'm also real hesitant to jump into this as I usually do on other guns, with trial and error experimentation. I will need to have whatever rings I buy stripped and refinished to match the overall subdued finish on this gun.

Awaiting further replies, and thank you.

The only thing I do not like about the Ruger Offset rings is that they are kind of heavy and blocky. The Leupold version does look better to my eyes. I streamlined a pair of Ruger offsets and refinished them matte black. RJ

I run an extension at the rear location.
Larger span between rings looks better IMHO.
Older Leupold scopes don't have much step from turret body to main tube, so the turret body can go back over the extension ring lower section.
Using mediums, many newer scopes will not slide over.

The old Vari X II is back a half inch over the extension (not visible in the pic).
I would not run an extension at the front w a reg at rear...........looks funky to my crooked eye as they are too close together.
IMHO two offsets is doable (don't care for the look).
Better, to have just one, at rear location.

Sorta does distract, but it works.

DF

I used a Ruger extension ring on the back only for a pair of Leupold VX-3i's. A 1.75-6 & a 2.5-8

While I think I could have gotten away with a regular ring on the back I did not like that much scope hanging out there unsupported

Here is a rail with low Weavers vs. Ruger Offset ring. The rail worked, but I thought the offset ring looked better. I had to grind some off the ring to clear the scope turet housing.

I agree, the Leupold offset ring is slimmer and lighter, doesn't look like it would need grinding. The Ruger offset is a chunk of steel, surprisingly heavy.

Too bad the quarter rib wasn't made to extend over the receiver like some custom guns. There wouldn't have been a problem, or as big a problem. Ideally, the quarter rib would extend back over the receiver with the front ring positioned back a bit.

Back in the day, scopes were longer and not as hard to mount. These newer, shorter tube scopes can be a challenge on a #1, especially if one (like me) likes the scope set back a bit. I'm not a stock crawler, prefer a more erect head position.

A shorter LOP could be of some help, but who wants to cut a nice #1 stock, just because you can't seem to get the ER adjusted to suit.

DF

I have an older red pad in 257 Bob. Don't really care for the Ruger rings, my scope is a 30mm tube and the rings I have that work are pic/weaver style rings.
Burris sells an Ruger-to-Weaver adaptor that fits the notches for the Ruger rings. It is two pieces and a low profile; hardly noticeable and gave me some room to get the scope lower and farther back.https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/mounts-and-bases/ruger-to-weaver-base-adaptor
I made sure, using my ring alignment bars from the Wheeler scope ring alignment & lapping kit to get everything lined up perfectly and it has stayed on solid so far.

I had to look that one up.

I can see how it may work.

https://www.burrisoptics.com/mounting-systems/mounts-and-bases/ruger-to-weaver-base-adaptor

DF

Zeiss Conquest 3-9X40 MC mounted in Ruger low rings....Zeiss Conquest 4X32 MC in Ruger low rings.

I was looking/eye balling a VX3i 3.5-10X40 in the photo below. Looked like it might fit. I never swapped out the scopes. Looking at the bell on the VX3i I'm not sure it will clear the 1/4 rib in low mounts. With the medium mounts it clearly works as seen in dSmith photos.

I cannot go the Burris Ruger to Weaver adapters. By the time you ad the height of them and the height of the scope rings, (even the lowest scope rings), on top of the height of the Ruger No.1 factory scope rail, your scope is up in the stratosphere. RJ

If it were mine, I’d rather change scopes than suffer the blocky extension rings. My last No.1 was a .243 Varmint, the same as currently listed. A VX-3i 3.5-10x40 fit, and while I had it, functioned as designed.

Good rifle, but when I lost access to the farm I was hunting on, it’s reason for being was lost as well, so off it went. Heavy bugger.

I bought the offset rings and mounted a Hawke Endurance 2x7 which has EXCELLENT eye relief. Ive always been accused of mounting my scopes TOO far back...but JeffO taught me how...

I'm a Conquest fan, bought several when they were closing them out at $285 or so. One of the best scope buys ever, IMO.

Those are long enough to not present a problem. Too many of the newer scopes are way too short, creating issues with guns like the #1.

And, I like my scopes set back a bit, too, like Ingwe. I don't like to stock crawl, prefer an more heads up position.

DF

By the time you ad the height of them and the height of the scope rings, (even the lowest scope rings), on top of the height of the Ruger No.1 factory scope rail, your scope is up in the stratosphere. RJ


Precisely.

Our mileage varies a lot. I can't imagine being happy with that scope on my No.1, offset rings or not.