Greetings,

I understand there exist extension rings that some favor for mounting scopes on No.1 rifles. I'd be grateful for comments on people's experience with these and photos on rifles, if possible.

Many thanks in advance!

They work just fine and you can buy them from Brownells. Never needed them on anything but a 375 H&H RSM as the scope was short OAL and the action a true Magnum length.

Never needed any on any of my #1s at all. Perhaps if you have a different style of mounting a rifle or a scope with critical eye relief they might come into play.
They are butt ugly !

Top one is 7x57 with Lupy 2-7



300 H&H w 6x36 Lupy

I don't have photos, the rifle is long gone. I used a set of Burris extension rings on an No. 1 I had. It had a Zeiss 6x scope on it that just was too short in the tube to come back far enough to get a good sight picture. The extension was just on the front ring and let me move the scope about 1/2" further back. The Burris rings were well made and I used them for a few years on that rifle with no problems.

Ruger makes extension rings but another option is to just choose a long scope with lots of eye relief. For example, a 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest will fit perfectly in Leupold 'lows' without the need for extension rings.

+1......What PB said.

Here is one (Leupold 4-12) with Ruger extension rings. 7MM STW


Here are 2 with Ruger low rings. Top is 3-9 Zeiss, bottom is Zeiss 4X. Both 257 Roberts

Great, thanks very much folks!

I guess some folks don't mind crawling their stock to get a good sight picture. The big gripe I have always had with the Ruger 1A and RSI is how far forward the scope mounts sit. With a Leupold VX-II 2-7x33 (known for its long eye relief) I had to crawl the stock on anything above 3X with the scope mounted in standard rings. Offset rings are ugly, but the way to go in my opinion.

Stock crawling is not a technique but a function of how you are built. A short guy with a narrow chest and short neck might need extension rings. For the typical guy, the regular rings work just fine. Just happens that almost any factory dimensions, rifle or shotgun come "readily to eye" for me.
The position of turrets and distance between ocular and objective bells also play a part. I have a nice German 1" Zeiss (long before Conquests) that has long bells and won't work on a #1 with standard rings.

The constant 4" eye relief on the Zeiss 3-9X40 helps.

Compare the distance from the end of the buttstock to the ocular bell of the scope (as far back as you can mount it) on a Ruger 1A to any bolt action or lever action rifle. You will see that the Ruger requires you to mount the scope much further forward. I am not the only one with this complaint about scoping a 1A. Also, I am 6'5" with at least an average length neck.

Okay lets look

Ruger #1 Leupold 6X



Savage 99 Leupold 2.5-8



Note the relation of the trigger to the rear of the ocular lens and that on the #1 the scope is almost as far back as it will go, whereas on the 99, as far forward. Matching the scope to the rifle is not that difficult since almost all manufacturers provide all the data needed.

As I said the only issue I ever had was putting a Trijicon 1.2-4 on a 375 H&H RSM as the scope itself is short. Had I used a K2.5, the offset ring would not have been needed.

-when you look at the rear overhang of almost all the scope pics here it is too much on a #1 as far as strength and causes issues with the front ring on the objective bell sometimes needing offset also
-best solution is a Bushnel 6500 1.25-8 with 6" eye relief anyone with a set of low 30 mm Ruger #1 compatible rings I can swap some 1" offset rear rings reg. front or just buy

Rear overhang ? What is that ? You saying that a 6X Leupold can't be mounted as it is on the #1 ? Balderdash ! Unless you make a habit of dropping your rifle on the ocular lens ! As long as the front ring isn't hitting the objective bell, it's another non-event.
A far more common problem is too tight rear rings messing up the variable feature of scopes by impeding or blocking the sliding guts from working.
Unless you cannot match a scope to the rifle it is going on, there is no reason for extension rings.



This is the way it was done in the 30s. A 257 Roy and an 06'. Sure looks strange to us modern folks, but both rifles will shoot 1" or better groups.

IMHO ..... trying to make something of nothing.