Ruger #1 V hole spacing

Yup, need to know first to last hole spacing.
See if this custom bbl'd #3 has same.
If so can order an EGW #1V base.

Its wearing the blocky 2 pc Redfield, so I could go Weaver 2 pc or even factory.
Neither of those gets the rear ring over the receiver any (the Redfield does).
However, the R bases are ugly as sin.

Idea is to get the EGW, establish where I want the rings, and then machine off the other.

Thanks in advance if somebody can measure a 1V.

Im thinking of a laminate #1 stock set on this rifle too, and maybe just texture paint over it.
Look like a synth and be cheaper. So yeah, throw 400 bucks and a few hrs into a rifle of unknown ability LOL.

Weather has sucked, not like I'm gonna go out and do other stuff.

If EGWs drawings are correct, the front base used on this #3 is not standard spacing.
There was a shim under the rear one as well

Who knows what bases were used? Have to clean off epoxy and see if a # is on em. Have the R on the sides. But maybe were even " gunsmith blanks ".

Bases say "R3" and looking at other web pics, they are for a #3.
Think custom bbl taper different and why the rear has a shim (front sat too tall).

Ruger says their bases for a 1V fit a #3.
EGW 1 pc base for the 1V has a diagram w hole spacing, that is different than what the #3 is.

So........the drawing is wrong, or there's been a change on #1 or #3 hole spacing at some point.

Am back to needing 1V hole spacing, per base......should I want to run Ruger rings/bases.

I could run Ruger 1V bases and just use 3 screws ( one in the front base ). Have to epoxy it though.

Weaver chart shows 85 for rear on #3 or 1V.
But 86 for front on #3 and 89 for #1.

Off to shop to look at Weaver bases....after i dig out driveway

The V type bbl taper of the McGowen made the Redfield R3 front base sit higher. As the bottom is contoured for more taper.
Fatter, it sat up a little. Hence the shim at the rear base.

I could just get the EGW 1V base and have new holes added.