Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots Leupold or Zeiss for Ruger 1A

I want to scope my 6.5x55 without using extended rings. I'm a big fan of the Conquest 3-9x40, but I am also considering a Leupold FX 6x36 or 6x42. Does anybody have experience running with any of these scopes with standard rings?

I'm using a Leupold 6x36 on my Swede 1A.

Also use the 6x36 on a 1A 7x57 and 1AH 25-06. All in standard rings.

Works fine for me.

The Zeiss 3-9x40 works on my #1 without extension rings, and I generally have problems with most scopes and ER on the #1.

6x36 in Ruger low rings on my 1A 7x57 here.

The 6x36 works great on mine but I had to reverse the rear sight to get it to fit using low rings.


However the 6x36mm Compact requires extended rings. It's about an inch shorter.

I've got a Leupold 6x36 on my 1A .243.Works perfectly.

The 7.5x works with or without extended rings.

I've got a Leupold 3x on my 45-70. Very nice looking. I usually use a standard front and extended rear.

Conquest 3.5x10x44 on my 1-B 300 win mag. I moved the scope about 1/4 off where it is in this pic to keep from banging the adjustment knobs, but the eye relief is still no problem.

I have yet to look through a Leupold that is as clear, bright, and sharp as my Zeiss, but with that said, I just bought my 3rd Leupold this evening. M8 3x for a 1-H 458 Lott.

All depends on where you head/face/eyes end up on the stock when you shoot, but I'm of the opinion that all but the smallest of variables stand a better chance to fit on Ruger #1s than fixed powered scopes. The turrets are farther forward in most cases. I would think of mixing your choices - instead of Leupy fixed or Ziess variable, consider a Leupy variable. They all fit for me without extension rings and something like the 2x7 on a #1-A would be lighter and balance better than the much bigger Ziess glass. My 2 cents.