Ruger #1 vs scope


cache prairie
January 26, 2012, 06:04 PM
I put a Pentax scope on a Ruger #1 7 mag. and find that the scope will not slide back toward the eye far enough to get a full field of view in the scope before the bell hits the forward ring. Rings do not allow adjustment for eye relief. Wood is beautiful so will not shorten stock. Can some one please recommend a scope with fairly long eye relief? Thanks for any suggestions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger #1 vs scope" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
January 26, 2012, 06:09 PM
natchez shooters supply

Rio Laxas
January 26, 2012, 06:18 PM
Those bases from Brownells look good. Or you could try Ruger offset rings.

January 26, 2012, 09:05 PM
It may just be the ring and base configuration giving you problems, but, I have vowed never to touch pentax glass ever again. Eye relief was just one of the qualities I didn't care for. However, that was some time back, but since then I've bought only Leupold and have not ever had an eye relief problems, or any other problem for that matter.
I shoot 7mm RM among other high powers, and eye relief is a serious matter when having to cope with that degree of recoil. If you can't get at least 3 1/2" of full image eye relief, you have the wrong optic on your 7 mag. and will probably find yourself with a nasty bruise and cut.

January 26, 2012, 09:56 PM
Just chiming in that Ruger does make an offset pair of scope mounts that will bring the scope back another inch or so.

January 26, 2012, 10:12 PM
Had the same issue with my No. 1. Just used a set of extended rings Burris used to make (maybe still does) and it gave me another 1/2" of set back which, in my case, solved the problem.

January 26, 2012, 10:17 PM
leupold scopes usually have generous eye relief in my experience.

January 26, 2012, 10:30 PM
Try squeezing a round off before you shorten the eye relief. It might save you some money and stitches.

January 26, 2012, 10:40 PM
I love my Ruger No. 1s and never had that problem.

January 27, 2012, 02:19 AM
While most 7mm rem mags are not that harsh I did have one bust my nose with the scope, always get enough eye relief on a magnum.

January 27, 2012, 08:36 AM
I love my Ruger No. 1s and never had that problem. Ruger #1s, like most falling block actions, have scope mounting ring locations that are located pretty far forward on the receiver since there is no rear receiver bridge element as would exist on a bolt gun. That means that getting proper eye relief for an optic can be pretty hard unless the scope body aft of the adjustment turrets is very long (which usually only occurs in those optics offering high magnification ranges) or the scope offers 5+ inches of eye relief. I have also found that I only get proper cheekweld when I use Leupold's lowest rings.

From my experience with Ruger #1s, you have three basic choices:

Use the Ruger extended rings to help push the scope of your choice to the rear (and accept that the rings are probably going to be too high to let you get a decent cheek weld)
Use a scope with a loooong scope body and also wind up mounting the scope in rings that are too high for a proper cheekweld because most high-magnification optics also feature 40+mm objective bells, or
Use the lowest rings available and mount the new variable Leupold FXII 1.5x-4x IER/scout scope.

My solution (for my non-VS rifles) at the moment is the third choice. My intended use is for deer-sized game animals within 250 yards, so a top end of 4x magnification is adequate for my needs.

Given that you're glassing a VS means that you'll probably wind up in either the first or the second camp, using a high-magnification optic and either pairing it with the Ruger offset rings or finding an optic with a really long body. It has been my experience that you'll not find varmintin' optics with 5+" of eye relief. Since you're not likely to be shooting the VS offhand, the loss of cheek weld caused by running the offset rings is probably not a big deal.

January 27, 2012, 08:52 AM
Offset rings.

Had the same problem with my M77. The scope I put on it wouldn't work with the straight Ruger rings. I ended up getting a set of offset Leupold rings from OpticsPlanet. I would have gotten the offset Ruger rings, but I couldn't find any at the time, so I settled for the Leupold.:D

Dr T
January 27, 2012, 11:27 AM
The new Redfield scopes have a long eye relief. If you can find one, a full size, premium fixed power scope may work (I have a Burris Signature 4x with a 40 mm objective on my RSI)

cache prairie
January 27, 2012, 05:23 PM
Thanks for all the replies folks and thanks for taking the time to respond. I have explored all of your suggestions and the result that has given a lot of promise is this: I called Burris and was informed that they had not made those specific rings for about 15 years and they were no longer on inventory. However, the customer service/tech rep. found one set left over and is graciously sending them to me. I am currently using some Burris scopes on other rifles with satisfaction and will continue to look Burris over when purchasing another scope. Really great customer service! Regards, Cache Prairie,

January 27, 2012, 06:33 PM
I have a Ruger #1V in .223 wearing a Nikon Buckmasters 4.5-14X40 AO. The only way I could get it back far enough is with Ruger offset rings. I kind of wish I would have put a Leupold on it. My heavy kickers all have VXII scopes and they have fantastic eye relief.

January 27, 2012, 06:44 PM
I have had the same problem (thought I was the only one). I put on a Burris extended eye relief scope and it works, but it's not my favorite arrangement.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ruger #1 vs scope" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!