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?