Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Single Shots Ruger Number One - Scope Ring Question

Friends,

My new Little Cutie, Ruger Number One 1K-A, came with a pair of Ruger stainless Hi rings ... marked "Scope Ring Assy, 1.063 HGT, SA 5K."

I mounted a Leupold 3.5-10X40 and the scope is really, really high. Actually, the scope almost uncomfortably high.



This photo illustrates the situation. WAY too high.

Obviously, I would like to mount the scope as low as possible

In looking at sources on the internet, it Ruger makes the same stainless steel rings in Medium Height (4K-1") and Low Height (3K-1")

In measuring, remeasuring and almost going blind measuring, it would appear that I can just barely get the 3.5-10X40 mounted with LOW rings ... which would be wonderful.

Interestingly, it isn't the front scope bell/barrel clearance that is the closest, it's the bell's clearance with the blued rear and folded-down rear sight.

Am I off base here? Is it posible to mount the 3.5-10 in LOW RINGS? I'd hate to spend the bucks and have the rings just a nano too low, but I'd really like to have the scope as low as is humanly possible.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Blessings,

Steve

PS. Still loving this little critter. What a pretty little rifle!!!

If you move the scope far enough forward so that the objective bell is in front of the scope mounting rib, it may be possible. To get my eye close enough to the eye piece to get a proper view through the scope, I have to have scopes on my #1's all of the way back in the rings. In my experience,if the objective bell is above the scope mount rib, the largest objective diameter you can have mounted without touching the rib, is 36mm and you have to remove the fold down sight to get enough clearance for the 36. And this is with MEDIUM height Ruger rings.

Thanks, RJ,

We have the same condition ... In order to get a proper position of my scope, I had to mount it as far backward as I possibly could. In fact, the rear of the scope's adjustment turret is almost touching (but not quite) the forward edge of the rear scope ring.

Bud's sells both the low and medium stainless rings for $26.75 each, so a pair would cost me $53.50, plus shipping. That's about as decent a price as I've seen.

Low Stainless: http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/50812

Medium Stainless: http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/...13/Ruger+4K+Single+Ring+Medium+Stainless

Thanks for your help,

Steve

I really prefer the Leupold rings but It doesn't look like silver lows are available anywhere right now.

Ruger does sell rear offset rings, which help with clearance of the the turret to the rear ring. Of course that then can create issues at the front.

This #1 is wearing a 3.5-10 Leupold

I have a cool No. 1 AH .25-06. I have a neck injury that makes stock crawling a not comfortable option. I have tried to mount a 3.5-10 AO to no avail. I think a non AO will work for me with the double extension rings (have both on hand, just haven't tried that combo yet.) If that combo doesn't do it, i giess it will go down thw road.

On the other hand, a 3X Leupold works fine on the No. 1 SC .45-70 with ruger low rings. jack

Friend Steve,

Far be it from me to render advice to someone with your knowledge and experience....

But with the Ruger #1's I much prefer the medium or even the high rings. The problem with the low rings, is that it severely restricts the opening for loading and unloading. Now if one is only going to use it at the range, it's likely not an issue. But in the field, It does make a difference.

Good luck with whatever your decision...

GH

Ah yes, I can see how a close and cuddley scope could restrict loading space.

Medium it is.

Thank you.

I've used Leupold low rings on the No. 1 and felt they were too low for the reason Grasshopper stated. I believe they are lower than the Ruger low rings. I'm currently using the same set up as tex n cal showed on four No. 1's (standard front, offset rear) to give a little more clearance around the turret. The offset rings are medium height and this seems to be the best all around configuration for me.

You can gain a little more room up front by either removing the rear sight, or by turning it around so it folds toward the rear. That is how I get a 2-7x33 in low rings.

I now have an older M8-4x in low rings on my #1. The tube is long enough, and the objective bell small enough to negate the clearance problems, and 4x is enough scope for me on my 7x57.

FWIW (and that's not much), you can mount a 36mm very far back using Ruger low rings if you turn the rear sight so if folds to the rear. My camera skills are lacking but you can get the idea:



Not sure that it would work as well with a 40mm but haven't tried it.


Ocular is indeed close, especially if you are left-handed as I am, but usuable.

Good advice, and mirrors my experience. I found a number of years ago that lows sort of bound me up in the loading process, while mediums were much better. I'm certain the mediums would work, but the issue becomes how far back you need the scope (bell/rear sight interference); the turret assembly gets in the way with some scopes as well (I have two #1As that have extension rear rings, like them, but they add a little weight). Nice little rifle you have there.

Here's what mine look like, medium rings, rear extension (scope is an older Leupold M8 4x28):

GF1,

That is the max rearward positioning of a scpe on #1 that I have seen. Note the eye piece goes back past the safety! It sure makes the case for the old-style -- longer -- fixed scopes by Leupold. Perfection -- so, of course, it had to be changed.

1B

Yep...the 1/2 oz or so for the extra length is weight well spent, IMO.

I wish Leupold would at least make a large limited run of Loooooong scopes for us #1 users. The 3x is a step in the right direction but a nice long 4x32 and a long 2.5x8x36 like the old Pentax's with the forward turret, (like I have on my 1A in 30-06) would be awesome. I can't believe that would not be a profitable venture for Leupold. Instead I have to do something like this. and this Nikon Omega has 5" of eye relief. Another option would be for someone to make a rib exactly like the 1A"s have (no higher), that extends back over the receiver ring which would have the rear scope ring mounting cut-outs. Ruger should offer this as an accessory.

Gentlemen,

I just ordered my rings; a 4K and a 4KO. In RugerSpeak, that would be one medium height stainless ring and one medium height stainless offset ring.

That combination will give me enough height for easy loading and it will run my rear ring back, so that there is no conflict with the scope turret.

I ordered from Bud's Sporting Goods and the price seemed pretty good.

Thanks to all for your help

Blessings,

Steve

GF1,

Carolina Precision makes a custom rib that extends backward over the receiver ring. Big $ workmanship. I have one.

1B

Looks like I'm the only one that prefers crawling the stock so I can't get scope eye.

<shrug>

Never been scope'd, not even with a .375 H&H or .458 #1

If DZ has a VX-3 Loopy, they have a rubber eyepiece, anyway - and his .257 has modest recoil, anyway.

Doesn't Ruger exchange ring heights for free?

Yes, call them.

Might only be if the package is still unopened, I've only done so once.

They will only exchange them if they have never been used. Used includes mounting them on the rifle... That is what they told me....

Friends,

I got my rings today and, thanks to all the fabulous advice from this forum, everything fit very well.

I wanted to fit a Leupold 3.5-10X40 on my new 1K-A. After reviewing what would fit and what woundn't, I checked the various vendors. Basically, what was suggested was a stainless offset rear ring (comes in medium only) and a medium ring for the front.

The rings came this UPS. I just got the rifle out, the scope and old rings off and was starting to mess with the new rings when a Catholic lady from our Parish showed up. Yeah, she had an appointment with me for 1:00PM, BUT I was in a gunny frame of mind.

Anyway, the lady, Julie by name, is a hunter and a killer, so the fact that I was messing with a rifle was cool with her.

For many, many years, Julie wrote for Catholic magazines and newspapers and she wants to get started in that enterprise again. The reason she wanted to talk to me was she needed some advice on a piece she recently wrote ... proofing, letter of transmittal, how to present the manuscript and such.

Soooo, we were working on the proposed article and fondling my new Ruger Number One ... kinda both at the same time. In the end, we were talking more about Scripture and Catholic Liturgy and I believe we got her article sorted out perfectly. And I do believe that Julie's Catholic writing career will be well-launched very soon.

After Julie left, I got the offset stainless ring properly mounted and the new medium scope ring up front. Like one of the posters mentioned, I did indeed have to reverse the folding rear open sight, just loosen the screw and tap, tap, tap was all it took.

Reversing the folding open sight allowed me to bring the scope rearward quite a bit more.

At this point in time, the scope is mounted as far rearward as I need ... it is perfect. And the new dropped height simply made all the difference in the world, as far as making the rifle come up to my shoulder and eye naturally.

By using the offset ring, I gained fully .75" in rearward movement. Also the medium rings lowered the scope by a measured .126", basically one-eight of an inch. Those two numbers don't sound like much, but they make ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

Before, the rifle seemed "all vertical," if that makes any sense; it felt top-heavy.

Now, my Lil' Darlin' Ruger Number One Sight Sporter in .257 Roberts comes up to my shoulder perfectly and my shooting eye is perfectly lined up with the scope image.

The new set of rings made all the difference. Thanks to all for helping me out ... I couldn't have done it without you. THANK YOU!!!!

My God Bless Your Day,

Steve

Friend, Steve...

Glad it got all worked out for you. And especially so, to your satisfaction. Sometimes #1's can be a bugger to get set up, but when done properly, they become a sweet handling lil' rifle... (As I'm sure you know, by now...)

GH

Sounds good - I just put a 3.5-10 on my #1A-C, and it worked out okay with two offset rings.

"By using the offset ring, I gained fully .75" in rearward movement. Also the medium rings lowered the scope by a measured .126", basically one-eight of an inch. Those two numbers don't sound like much, but they make ALL THE DIFFERENCE."

Nice! Glad that worked out well, I may go ahead and give the same rings a try on my .375 with a 1.5-5x Leupold. It works good now, but could be positioned a bit better for me.

Any photos of the new setup?

Regards, Guy

Guy,

I just returned from Vigil Holy Mass and Pentecost potluch. My chair is calling me and it's raining like a bugger outside.

I'll take pictures tomorrow.

And YES, it really made one heck of a diff. Not only is the scope dropped nicely, but it is allowed to come back and give me a great position behind the ocular lens.

Tomorrow, my friend.

God Bless,

Steve

Friend Guy,

Here are some photos of the offset ring in the rear and a medium front. Note, the offset ring only comes in medium height, so it takes a medium front to keep the height correct.

I could see where some might see a good reason to use TWO offset rings because my front comes right up to the bell. Happily the scope fits me perfectly where it is, but if I needed more backward motion, I'd have to use two offsets.

The medium rings dropped the scope to a point that the Ruger Number One feels less "vertical," if that makes any sense

God Bless,

Your friend Steve

Thank you.

Steve,

your pictures are near pro and much appeciated. But is that front bell actually free of the quarter rib? I am sure it must be but its hard to tell. If not, wierd things can happen to groups.

Regards.
1B

Friend 1B,

Yep, the scope clears the quarter rib and the reversed folding sight wonderfully.

'Tis said that a photograph is worth one-thousand words. In this case, this one photograph is surely worth five-thousand words. There is loads of clearance, my dear friend.

God Bless,

Steve

Et cum spirit tu tuo.

1B

Our Holy Mass now is an "improved and more correct translation."

We actually say "And with your spirit" three or four times during the Mass (I've not counted). I like it.

The new translation was difficult for some of the old-timers to learn because the Confiteor and the Nicene Creed have been considerably changed. In the end, I believe that having an improved translation of the Latin and Greek is much, much better.

Blessings,

Your friend Steve

Steve,

Now you know why I like the 6x36 Leupolds for the No. 1--and always keep a few of the 4x28 M8's around for the larger chamberings!

However, they don't go nearly as well with the stainless steel....

Interesting, I did not have to do anything with my rear sight to clear a VX-3 3.5x10x40, on my .30-40. It's wearing two rear offset rings, and the rear of the scope is about even with the safety. I'm wondering if there are some subtle differences in the sights, or the rings...

Gotta be.

Johnny Rooms,

Yep, I can see that. Absolutely.

Heck, for the .257 Bob and .25-'06 (and wouldn't a .257 Weatherby be COOL?), I could easily see a Straight-Eight or a Straight Ten. What a perfect antelope rifle and scope combination that would be.

Your long-barreled Light Sporter in .25-'06 is a magnificent rifle. How does yours shoot???

I'm up in the middle of the night with lots of pain ... the Vicodin ain't working right now.

Blessings,

Steve

Steve,

Sorry to hear about your pain. That just sucks.

In answer to your question, my .25-06 shoots VERY well with the right loads. Several big game bullets from 100-120 grain do under an inch, but with 75-grain Hornady V-Maxes it shoots clusters averaging a little under .4! That's at over 3600 fps, too.

Roomy,

That puppy would shoot absolutely FLAT to 500 yards ... then, past that, the bullets would tend to rise just a mite.

Your buddy Steve

ok Steve aint it time to load a few up know


gene

It surely is, my dear friend.

Steve

On one of my Ruger #1s, I milled out an AR15 riser on the bottom to fit the top of a Ruger #1, and then glass bedded them together.

This way I can use Weaver rings, like the other 99% of my guns.

Clark I'm interested in what you did there. Care to explain the process?

It looks as though it mounts in the same position up the barrel as the stock mount, but because of the picatiny/weaver mount can you set the scope further back to the shooter to fix the eye relief problem?

Thanks.

Clark,

An elegant fix!

Another thought is that your design also allows for moving the rail back a bit further yet over the receiver ring. That would allow the use of just about any scope on Ruger #1s.

Too bad Ruger never thought of adding a rail with screws. But then they reserved all their innovative design thinking for the Ruger American.

1B

In 2001 when Tapco went from Gen I to Gen II AR15 riser mounts, I called them up and negotiated a quantity price on Gen I for $9 each.

I knew Gen I were just a big block of anodized Aluminium in the shape of a Weaver rail on top, and I could mill into shapes on the bottom, like for Mosin Nagants.

With the Ruger #1, I had kind of a hard time getting the Ruger Rib off. The screws are in tight. Very well made. It is like a short shoulder bolt.

I knew I only had to mate accurately around near the screw holes, and clearance every where else. Then put epoxy between the mount and receiver.

Since then I have noticed that the very cheap ATI scope mount for Mosin Nagants has contact ribs that act like V block force multipliers.


Who would have expected great design, quality, and usefulness from ATI?

So if I make another Ruger #1 scope mount, I would go for those out rigger contact points.

Senor Timm,

That is an awfully handsome rifle. Congrats.

I just acquired a Ruger 1A --yeah, with the hated AH forearm -- that has a rail mounted neatly to the factory quarter rib. The key point is that the rail extends back over the receiver ring to about 3/8 of an inch past the edge of the falling block!

This device gives an ungodly amount of spacing options for moving the cular end of scopes way back past the safety towards the rise in the cheek piece area. With Warne QR rings, you can detatch the scope and still use the irons -- if you can see them with your old eyes that is.

The guy I got the rifle from on another site, designed this mount, and has a metal working buddy make them.

I can email a pict to someone who volunteers to post it here.

1B

Burris medium height rings. Zeiss 3-9 scope. Works well without any other mods.