I recently acquired two Ruger #1 rifles. One is a RSI in 7x57 and the other is a 1A light sporter in 30-06. Both are gorgeous rifles, and I have wanted one for a long time. I was fortunate enough to get two for a super deal. I had an older Leupold VarX-III 1.5-5x20 lying around and mounted it on the RSI.

At the 1.5 power setting the eye relief is perfect. At 2x it is ok, and it gets progressively worse after that. I cannot even crawl the stock enough to use it at 5X. Now this scope has the most eye relief of any scope I have, and it is a far back in the rings as it can go. I have not even tried a scope on the 30-06 yet.

My question is this. If I buy a set of the extended rings from Leupold or Burris, will I be able to use them with the Leupold 1.5x5? I am afraid the scope will be too short to move it back very much without the objective disappearing into the front ring, or not even reaching it.

Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. As is, the rifles are essentially useless to me. With only 1.5x magnification capability, I might as well just use my 35 or 45/70. I cannot take advantage of the extra range from the 7x57 or 06.

Thanks

TBB,

That is the biggest problem with the No: 1's. As much as I love them, scope options are limited. I solved this problem by buying the offset rings made by Ruger especially for the #1. They are available from Brownell's for apx. $35-$40. I think they work better than anything else.

Grasshopper

Thanks for info Grasshopper. I think I will give them a try. Do both of the Ruger rings have extensions? I noticed that only one of the Leupold rings is extended.

TBB,

I think they only come with one extended. (The rear one) You can buy two sets and use both extendd rings, if you like. But I don't believe it's necessary. It usually moves the scope back about 1/2 inch. That's about all you need to relieve the problem.

Grasshopper

Actually Ruger makes two different sets of offset rings. One set is as you stated - a regular ring and an offset one. They other set has both rings extended.

See their website under Accessories:

90140 S100RMO MEDIUM 1" Single Offset Rings Blued Steel $ 63.55
90141 S100RMOO MEDIUM 1" Double Offset Rings Blued Steel $ 63.55


Be warned - these things are HEAVY. I bought the S100RMO single offset rings and they weigh 4 ounces each - that's 1/2 pound just for scope mounts.

I've checked and Leupold does not make offset rings for Rugers, at least not #1's. Don't know about Burris but I don't believe they make an offset set either.

Leupod does make low rings for the #1 and I would recommend them over the Ruger product if you can find a scope to fit.

I went through this exact same scenario with my 1A in 7X57 - use the Search feature above and look for "Pretty Woman" or "7X57" with my handle and this will find several posts addressing the topic of scopes that fit the #1 with proper eye relief.

Again, be aware that there just plain ain't that many scopes that fit #1's with open sights and provide proper eye relief. They are out there, just not that many of them.

Thanks for info guys. I knew someone would know.

Man, what bummer. Talk about your serious design flaws. I still have the supposed finicky diet requirements of the #1 to deal with as well. I am beginning to wonder if this #1 venture is worth the trouble. I already have several Marlin leveractions that are just as short, are lighter and come to the shoulder just as fast. It is too bad. The #1 is a great looking rifle in any configuration.

Thanks again for your help.

Well if ya want to part with them #1's lets talk....

I'll take them off your hands as well. I have used one offset as well as 2 offset rings, Ugly but they work. I think a 2.5-8 x 36mm is about the best scope choice for the #1. I have a couple with 40mm objective's on them but I think they are too large for the rifle. I have a 6.5-20 x 40mm on my 17PPC right now and had to go with high rings to clear the barrel.

Michael

TnBigBore,

I'd love to see pics of that RSI. I'm in need of another one (like a hole in my head), and if the wood is close to the one that I currently have, we need to talk.

Burris makes a Ruger to Weaver Style adapter that will allow you to move the scope back - if you need to you can add offset ring to that also.

This is the best solution I've found so far, a Christmas (Oops! Holiday) present for one of my Dad's No. 1's:



That's a before, after then a shot of the Moulds bases (available from Brownell's). Those are PRW low rings which did have a "square peg round hole" issue and took some grinding to fit but there are many other Weaver-style rings that wouldn't (my Badgers fit the base fine).

The scope is a 1" 3.5-10X40 (currently back at Leupold due to yet another bent main tube). As you can see, it could be mounted much farther back with some meduim rings (or some grinding on the front of the base) but that's enough eye relief for him and it's so much nicer to get the scope down closer to the rifle than it was (which I don't think is possible with the Burris adapter).

It's not cheap, but I believe that's the best way to solve the No. 1 scope mount problems. You can put the scope where you want it, it's much stronger than any sort of offset rings and you can place the rings such that they support the tube in a manor which may keep you from bending scopes.

Hope that helps some people.

Nice pics, JonA. Man, you weren't kidding about the Moulds bases being "not cheap." I just checked Brownell's and they are $125! I would prefer they be 1-piece and made of aluminum. Lighter and more stable. I would also like to see Ruger make the #1A with a titanium receiver, but that's another issue. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Live well

I do not have this problem with my Ruger #1s, I use a Burris Compact 3-9x42 Scope, plenty of eye relief and as you can see from the photo below I still have about 1" of travel that I could move the scope back further... .

Burris has changed the model name on my scope to their Short Mag Scope Series... check them out at this link.
Burris Short Mag Scopes

--Ken

Interesting, Ken. That scope looks like the whole erector assembly is moved pretty far forward compared with other scopes. A scope like that should fit most No. 1's better than most.