Ruger # 1 .270

[Rosco-Pico]

Good morning!
Recently acquired my dads Ruger # 1, he bought it in the late 70's/early 80's. It's a beautiful gun but was too heavy for him to lug due to a bad back. So it's basically been a safe queen since the mid 80's.

There isn't any rings on it and it's got the quarter rib. I'm looking to put a set of rings on it and a Vortex HS 6-24x50. I'm not familiar with this mounting system and Ruger only sells solo rings for this application, because they my differ to correctly level scope/barrel clearance?? Any help with a correct set-up would be greatly appreciated.

Everyone is currently closed (call) and I'm chomping at the bit. I figured I'd ask you guys--on top of it. I remember oogling over this rifle as a kid. I have never shot it. Kinda anxious to scope it and start load development. Thanks and Happy New Years!

 

[eastbank]

you may be better served with a 2.5x8 or a 3.5x10 scope, my choice would be leupold, but there are many good scopes to choose from. if its for hunting a 50mm objective may not be needed and you will be able to use medium or low rings. i have six ruger # 1,s, and find a set of extention rings make mounting the scope easier for the right eye relief. eastbank.

 

[Coltdriver]

With a one inch tube and a 50 mm objective you will need the high rings. I am assuming you have a one inch tube on the scope. You will probably find yourself mounting the scope further back. Just doing the math I think you would likely need high rings on a 30mm tube too. I don't think the mediums would work with a 30mm tube.

I have owned about 8 #1's. I have an RSI in 30 06 now (that I converted from a .243 so not original but came out great). I have a Leupold with a 40mm objective on medium rings. Mine has fold down sights and they just clear the scope, less than a millimeter.

If you can find them I recommend the offset rings that let you bring the scope back an inch or so. Alternatively regular Ruger Rings will work just fine, but you will probably mount the scope back, not centered on the rings, with the regular rings. At least that is what I have found.

The fabulous thing about #1's is you can safely find a very fast load. It may take some experimenting with powders but Ruger #1's are very strong.

 

[eastbank]

here,s five of my ruger # 1,s, my extra .223 is on loan to a friend hunting yote,s. eastbank.

 

[pert near]

....and find a set of extention rings make mounting the scope easier for the right eye relief.

....If you can find them I recommend the offset rings that let you bring the scope back an inch or so.

Since the scope on Ruger #1's mount on the barrel rib, with a normal pair of rings & using a normal eye-relief scope, the shooter has to crawl the stock a little to get a full field view. One offset ring to the rear remedies that problem.

 

[Rosco-Pico]

Awesome! Thanks for the information. My first rifle, still have, 65 model 70 .30-06 with a very old bushnell sportview 3x9. It's still on there and have taken several black tail and muleys with it.

Went into the Air Force and retired, didn't hunt much during those years. Upon my retirement I bought myself a LMT MWS .308 (AR) and popped a Vortex HST on it, hence the mention. Great shooter, sub-MOA with hand loads.

I stepped up to a NF 5-20x56 SHV on my 25-06. Whole lot of scope--New Mexico. Both of them are a world apart from the old sportview I grew up with.

As eastbank and a few others mentioned, this is just for hunting. I'm thinking a 44 objective with 30mm tube might be better than the 50. I'll also look for the extended ring. Thanks again!

 

[Rosco-Pico]

here,s five of my ruger # 1,s, my extra .223 is on loan to a friend hunting yote,s. eastbank.

Man! Super nice collection!

 

[Rosco-Pico]

Here she is, can't wait to get it out to the range.

 

[Sniper66]

I have a Ruger #1 .204 that came with standard Ruger rings. A caution with the 50mm objective bell. I happened to have a Leupold 4-12X 50mm scope so gave it to my gunsmith to mount. The rings were not high enough so he milled the mount down a bit and re-blued it. You cannot tell it was ever milled and it looks perfect. Otherwise, I would have had to buys some taller rings. The wood on my #1 is beautiful...prettiest gun I own.

 

[243winxb]

http://shopruger.com/ Use the search engine to find the correct rings.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

Ditto on the offset rings for the #1. I have my uncles 270 #1 from the 70's and it still has the leupold with standard rings like he had it and you have to crawl up on the stock to get the correct eye relief. On my other #1 I have a burris scope mounted on it with offset turret so the scope sets farther back. I don't know if anyone still makes those scopes or not.

 

[Skeet 25]

I have one of the first stainless ruger number ones made, purchased it in 2001. It is very heavy but what a shooter. Make sure the forearm screw is tight for accuracy. I have a 3 1/2 x 10 x 50 mm leupold scope with ruger rings.

 

[Hookeye]

That rifle was designed when scopes had longer tubes.
My RSI won't fit a new style 2-7X Leupold w reg rings.
Couldn't find an older style at decent price so slapped an old longer tube M8 4X.
Even then I ran an offset ring at the rear location (one is horrible enough, two is just ugly as sin).
My turrey assembly indeed is back where a normal ring would have interference. I could even slide it back a bit further.
Back in the day pops and I ran 1B's w regular Leupold 3-9X VX2 and 3.5-10X VX3..........reg medium rings, 40mm fronts.
Varmint rigs, shot prone.....some stock crawl was no big deal (natural).

 

[Hookeye]

.270 in a #1..........for hunting I'd run a 3-9 or 3.5-10X.
If you are going to just punch paper, play with a zillion powder/bullet combos and try diff triggers/ mods...........yeah a high mag scope might make sense.
If hunting and paper, not more than 4-12X, and AO.
I like 12X for paper at 100 yds. Could go more, but 12X seems just right for me.
Hunting? Most of my rigs wear 2-7X.
Dual offset rings you can run the new style Leupold.
One at the rear, you'll need the old style.
Number 1's are pretty, as such one IMHO needs to not jack em up with less than good looking scope/mounting.
That to me means Leupold, or an old Burris. Burris had their turret assemblies more fwd on some models. Indeed they looked too far fwd on other rifles
But that long back end actually helped when some were put on a #1.
Vortex makes nice stuff, but IMHO............there's a reason so many custom #1's wear Leupold.
On a #1.............they look correct.

Add: if your #1 is a B model, run the 3-9/3.5-10X.
If it's an A model..................2-7X (if hunting rig).

 

[Hookeye]

I don't think Burris offers their signature rings for Rugers anymore (plastic insert).
They used to.
Mediums might be a little taller than reg medium, due to insert. That is the way they are on the Zee rings.
Don't know about their Ruger ring............couldn't find any.
I run signature Zee on everything else, no scratches on my Leupolds