I have a Ruger 1 RSI and have thought of trying a compact Leupold 3x9 scope. Is the eye relief good or do you have to strain your neck at the higher power setting ? Thanks

Desertranger,

Ruger #1s are pretty well known for being tricky for eye relief. Those built-in scope mounts are pretty far away compared to most rifles. Here at Leupold, long eye relief is a always an important design goal, but the magnification of a scope will always effect what is possible. I wouldn't go above a 3-9 power range, and would recommend lower like a 2-7 if if fits your application. Lower power scopes will be more forgiving for eye relief. Finally, I would definitely recommend getting extension rings so you can mount the scope as far rearward as possible.

I can't say for sure exactly how this will fit you for eye relief as it will depend on your fit on the firearm, but this would give you the best chance of success. Enjoy!

Be prepared for one or two extension rings.
They're hideous IMHO.
But half as ugly if you use only one.

This. Ruger #1A and RSI have a hideous scope mount setup. It is the reason that I no longer own either. Eye relief is OK with a Leupold 2-7 set at 2 or 3X, but major stock crawl required at higher power settings. Extension rings are required to remedy the situation, but ruin the lines of the rifle.

I used one extension ring even when using an older M8 4x
On an RSI.

Ran a Vari XII 3-9x AO full size on a B. Reg rings.

I read the Leupold response more than once. They seem to place the responsibility for eye relief on Ruger, a company that only builds firearms not scopes. Leupold makes scopes which are supposedly designed and manufactured for commonly made firearms.
As a former V.P. Of Marketing of a Fortune 500 company, I have some unsolicited advice for Leopold, build your products to be compatible with rifles and don’t expect rifle manufacturers to build their products to be compatible with your scopes.

I owned a No. 1 RSI for many years and had a Leupold M8 4X mounted on it. I thought the combo was perfect. Maybe I'm just built differently than most.





Dang it, wish this discussion hadn't come up to remind me of the mental deficiency that caused me to sell that rifle!

My experience is exactly like Hook's except that my 1A .243 had the M8. I have long arms, long hands, and a long neck (what my gunsmith calls an "ape hanger" body....). How that effects fit, I'm not too sure, but I know most factory stocks are too short for me, and all my rifles have recoil pads, even the .243, which doesn't recoil.

The only scope that I've ever returned was a Leupold 2-7 compact. The size was great, but it was going on a whitetail woods rifle and the tiny exit pupil behind that scope made an extremely accurate cheek weld necessary to get the entire fov. A very forgiving Vari-X lll 1.5-5 with a huge exit pupil replaced it. Most people never consider the exit pupil size, but when game appears and leaves just as quickly from different directions, you don't want to be moving your head around on the stock to get the full scope field.

Leupold 2-7 or 6x36 or Nikon Omega are the modern scopes I found to work without extension rings; a lot depends on your physique. I'm sure there are others.

The Leupy 3-9 Compact was said to be difficult to use so I never tried one.

My personal favorite is the 6x36, but it appears Leupold is trying to kill the fixed powers since they only offer them with the TOTALLY WORTHLESS Wide Duplex.

I have a 1.5 -5 on my RSI and it works great with regular rings.

Bad combination.

Optics Planet has the #1 extended rings at a good price. I just bought a pair for my Ruger 1A.

Bruce

I seem to need to mount scopes further back than most folks and on No. 1's have settled on low power variables like 1-4's and 1.5-5's with a straight tube. I use one offset ring on the rear mount and this combo works well for me...

Thanks to all who contributed. I gave up on the compact 3x9 but have installed an older 3x that has adequate eye relief without the installation of extensioned rings.

I moved the scope back a little bit more after the season.
About 6 ft tall, reg stuff (Rem 870/1100 and 700) fits me well.
Not fat either.
Still thought the M8 as pictured a little bit of a stretch with coat.
Do have a screwed up neck so a little stretch off and on hurts me.
Best to set up with no strain.

Leupold has published dimensions on their scopes, but I can't find that page in their newest catalog. Maybe call them? Mount your rings, determine where your eye will be behind the rear ring, and see which scopes will fit.

I'm surprised no one mentioned the Leupold 2.5-8. One of the best scopes made by Leupold. Don't have experience mounting one on a Ruger but always have at least one on hand and it does yeoman's work on a number of rifles/applications.

Yup, 2.5-8X is a nice one.
But has same issue as 2-7X.
Need two offset rings or no go.

Tried em both on my RSI.
Older longer tube scopes are the ticket if using reg rings.

Or just get the 1.5-5X,

I dunno if replacing the quarter rib w the EGW base and running Weaver type rings solves the problem,
Have not seen the EGW on a #1 yet.

The slip over one from EABCO.................uglier than 2 offset rings IMHO

Far better than the compact 3x9, but still not all that great on a No.1.