Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupold 2.5X

Got enough length to fit a Ruger #1 A w regular rings?

Pics?

The scope mount spacing is short on the standard #1 mounts. If you are asking about the Leupold 2.5-8x36, you should be ok, if ER works for you. That all depends on how you pull the rifle into your shoulder and where you rest your cheek though. The scope mounting length of the tube on that particular scope is right at 5.1", which will easily fit the Ruger #1. If you are asking about a 2.5x20, you should still be fine.

Newer Leupold 2-7X and 2.5-8X don't work for me unless using an offset ring front AND back.
I'll tolerate the look of one offset ring at the back.


Pulled the 3.5-10X w one rear offset off my B and it'll fit without removing the folding leaf rear sight on the A.
But it's too much scope for that rig IMHO. Plus that scope kinda scuffed up.

This A is minty so think a new scope is in order LOL

I don't have a Leupold 2.5x. But with my two fixed Leupolds (3x20 Big Bore & 6x42), I think I could get them to work with regular rings. In both cases, the turrets would be bumped up against the back ring since I tend to like my scopes pretty far back. I don't know if it's my eyesight or wearing glasses, but I really need some generous eye relief on my Ruger #1 scopes to not have to stretch forward unnaturally. Having said that, on both my fixed scopes, I used an offset ring in the back not because I absolutely needed it. I used it just to move the mounting point a bit further back on the tube out of personal preference. If you look at the 3x20 on the RSI below, you can see that a fixed ring in the back would probably move the scope a few millimeters forward. My 6x42 on my .303 British 1A looks similar.



Because I feel some scopes that other hunters might use wouldn't work as well for me, I got into the habit of drafting small cardboard cutouts of scopes I was interested in based on the schematic from the vendor's website. I would then hold them up to #1's & 1885's that had a scope that I did like so I could judge how well they would fit. Some scopes look good statistically on paper because of their long eye relief but when mounted, they are too far forward for my taste. On my .303 British below I have the Leupold 6x42 with a rear offset ring. I laid the FX-II 2.5x20 template on top of it with the turrets lined up as if the back ring was straight. As you can see, the rear of the 2.5x is much further forward. However, it does have a lot of eye relief. Unfortunately for me, it was still about 12mm / .5" too little. I could have slid it back more with that offset ring in place but then the front ring would have been gripping the very end. I passed on this particular model. The adjustment range was a bit tight for me.



But I would like to emphasize that I don't think I'm average. It would not surprise me if other shooters are able to use this particular scope fine. If I was getting a small Leupold with standard rings, I personally would favor the VX-5 HD 1-5x24 because the template indicates I would get plenty of range of adjustment with it. YMMV

A FX-II 2.5 worked well on a 1S .45/70. It’s got 4.9” of ER IIRC. I used Leupold rings because the previous owner didn’t have the factory ones.

I too think more space w an offset at rear looks better (on the scope).
Thanks for the comparison overlay. Just what i was wanting to see.

Rifle came with reg high rings.
Will order meds.

The 2.5 worked fine for me in regular rings on a RSI No. 1