Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots Single Shot Scope

Hi all, I wanted to share something I figured out recently regarding scoping Model 10s, although I believe it applies to most single shots. I realize this is probably old news to some but I may have something useful to ad.

Scope mounts on single shot rifles are usually both in front of the receiver. This makes it difficult to mount the scope as rearward as most would like.

As evidence, most pictures show scopes mounted as far rearward as possible, until stopped by a mount. This tells me, for function and aesthetics many would like the scope to mount more rearward, as I did.

Extension rings are one option; not for me even if they made them for Dakota. The other option is a scope with long eye relief. I spent some time in search of such a scope; in my case limited to Leupold.

Most scopes are in the 3 to 4 inch range for eye relief. The Leupold scope with longer eye relief than any other I could find is the Non-AO 4-12X40 with a whopping 4.9 inches of eye relief at 4X. I wish it was a trifle smaller, but 12 inches long isn't too bad for a scope these days. Placement-wise on the rifle there is room to spare.

I bought two VX-I 4-12X40 (here) because that's what I could find at the time, then switched to a VX-1 and a VX-2, all with the same long eye relief. The Leupold Rifleman 4-12X40 purportedly has the same eye relief.

I believe they also present a more balanced appearance versus a scope mounted as far rearward as it will go...Tom

I have actually thought of having a rail mounted further up the barrel for a scout scope set up I did that on a Ruger take-down 10-22 and that set up works great. Not so sure I would like the looks on a #1.

I did mount a EWG rail on a #1 that extends over the receiver allowing the rear ring to be mounted further back similar the Model 10. I had to get the front of the rail milled down in order to use low mounts.

I tried the scout scope thing. Didn't like it at all. Now on my single shots I have, 4X compact Burris on my Henry 357, a 3-9 on my CVA Scout 44, and a Pro Point red dot on the Hands 45-70. Contender carbine have 6-18 on the 223, 4X TC on the 22, and a 3-9 on the 30-30 but it is getting a 6-18 when I start my cast bullet experiments.
All the TCs are surprisingly accurate.

I just mounted a 3.5-10X VX3 on my 280 AI using Leupold mounts with the rear extended. To my eyes they are nicer looking rings than the factory ones. A bit lighter as well.

The scope mounting problem that the OP refers to is one that I've encountered several time as I have a fondness for falling block single shots (#1's & 1885's). After mounting a Swarovski z5 2.4-12x50 using standard rings and being pleased with its placement, I started to use this scope as my baseline for comparing other scopes. Since the physical shape of the scope (specifically where the front bell starts to flare out from the tube & the location of the turrets) has a significant impact on whether its a good fit, I started drafting various scopes I was interested in to see if there were any glaring shortcomings:



The basic idea was to mark the Eye Relief on the rear of the scope template and then hold it up to the Swarovski and see how it fit. If the scope I was testing had shorter eye relief but extended further back because it was physically longer, then often it was an acceptable option. If it had identical or better eye relief but had to be mounted too far forward to avoid hitting a mount, then it was flagged as only acceptable on a bolt action. As you can see in the photo, the two scopes in the middle extend back to noticeably different distances when their turrets are lined up. They have similar eye relief but the smaller Leupold is much less flexible in its mounting. So far this system has been kind of fun to play "what if" and it wasn't any problem to sit in front of the tv with a football game on & do a bit of drafting with my old board & t-square I used in college. It was cheaper than buying a lot of scopes & crossing my fingers.

A few scopes that I looked at over the last few years that showed promise are listed below. Some of them may have gone out of production since I drafted them:

Leica Magnus 1.5-10x42
Leica AmpPlus 3-18x44i
Leupold VX-5 2.5-10x42
Maven 2.5-15x44
Meopta MeoStar R2 1-6x24 RD
Meopta MeoStar R2 1.7-10x42 RD
Meopta MeoPro 3.5-10x44
Schmidt & Bender Zenith 1.5-6x42
Schmidt & Bender Klassik 3-12x42 (*)
Swarovski z5 2.4-12x50 (*)
Swarovski z5 3.5-18x44
Swarovski z6 1.7-10x42 (*)

This list is not by any means comprehensive nor is it a recommendation since I don't know what your intended usage is. The three scopes with a (*) after them are the ones I have mounted & been pleased with the results (YMMV). This list just has a few models that appeared to have some leeway to accommodate its fitting on a sometimes challenging rifle design.

On my Martini, I had two choices it seemed to me. Mount a low power scope which naturally has a long eye relief or a EER 4x. It’s a 223 and I’d actually liked to have a 6x. I settled on the EER 4x.
On my 6mm Ruger #1 I had no issue with eye relief, I mounted a Leupold FX 6x.
On my H&R 22 LR I mounted a scope I had laying around, a 1x-3x Weaver.

I’m not fond of EER scopes. But for a PD shooter like my Martini I think that it will be fine.

On my .303 British Ruger #1, I have a Leupold straight mount on the front & an offset mount on the rear for my FX-3 6x42 just to move the rear clamp a little farther away from the turret. I probably could have gotten it to work with a pair of normal mounts but I've been pleased with this setup.

Neck doesnt stretch like it uswd to so an ext ring makes it comfy.

Those are some excellent/creative solutions to mounting scopes on different single shot rifles. In my case I came up with my own version to get what I wanted/needed. I have a CVA V2 Scout Takedown in 444 Marlin. This rifle has a 25" barrel with muzzle brake, which makes this rifle slightly muzzle heavy (and which I prefer). I quickly figured out that this rifle was very accurate. So, I modified my optics and optics mounting to take full advantage. I got Murphy Precision to make a SS single pic rail that extended back to where the barrel opens, which I epoxied to the barrel (it ain't gonna move). Then, I put a S&B 8x56 scope on it . This seems crazy given the short to moderate distances that the 444 is designed for but I am up there in age and my eyesight is not that good anymore. The scope's long length coupled with the long barrel compliments each other and the rifle's balance is still very good (at least for me). This has become my main deer/hog rifle for most of the areas where I hunt.

The leupold VX 111 2.5-8 ×36 has enough eye relief for several Ruger#1 that I have.

I mounted a 1.5 - 4x20mm in Ruger low rings on my #1 450/400 3".

But to get a solid cheek weld with my eye aligned properly with the crosshair I had to add a thick leather buttstock cover.

I wish Ruger would make 30mm Extended rings

I put a 6" straight section on the barrel in front of the receicer and used Remington 541 scope bases, with a long target scope that is a 4x12 or 4x16 Japanese made on my 222R English Walnut Cadet that I built for S&Gs. The fore end clears the receiver and is glass bedded using 222R brass bases as escutions.

My CVA Scout 444 Marlin has a 3-9x50 VX-II. My CVA Scout 45-70 has a Freedom 3-9x50.

Simple solution is the older long tube scope. For most applications you'll never see the difference.

I have never had an issue using Leopold scopes on Ruger #1's or a Winchester High Wall. I' will be getting my first Dakota M10 soon and it has Tally rings with a Leopold VariX II 4x12 I don't expect any issues.

I agonized over the scope for my last No.1 and ended up with a VX-3i 3.5-10, which worked out well without extended rings.

That one was a 1V .243 with a 7.7” twist that I got from Darrik for $799 if you can believe that nowadays. When I lost access to the local farm I planned using it on and realized I’d have to actually carry it around, I sold it and bought my Fieldcraft. Happy ending!

On my Brno Effect, my only challenge is scope/ring height vs. clearance to operate the release lever. I found that my older Japan-made Bushnell 3500 3-9x40 works ok but is still tight. In order really clear the lever I would need much better eye relief and higher rings--the later not being preferable.

[img]https://www.dropbox.com/s/it70vj15fyrzxls/Brno_Effect_20210111_164949.jpg?dl=0[/img]