30mm rings on a 1 inch scope? Is that really a thing?

[redneck]

I'm posting this mostly as a curiosity, we got the rifle together and things seem to work. I found this to be an oddity though.
A buddy of mine won a gun raffle and is the proud owner of a brand new Ruger American in .450 bushmaster. Its the camo stock, tan cerakote model and it came with a scope on it (yeah I never win anything either and I'm jealous too). I have no idea if it was the package deal that ruger sells, or if the raffle organizer put the rifle and scope together, but the scope is a Weaver 3-9x40 with no model designation on it.
The base is a typical weaver style base that I would guess came with the rifle. The rings are 6 screw rings, that appear to be the "6 hole skeleton rings" sold by weaver. They have the hex nut on the base, and 6 torx screws per ring. What is weird, is the rings are super oversize for the scope, and have a separate half moon shaped aluminum block that you put in the ring with the scope... I have never seen this before and can't say that I like the idea.
Is this common practice? Does it work, or is he going to have problems with the scope creeping in the rings?
The shop he picked it up from did the paperwork and told him they bore sighted the scope, and we found that they had it mounted with the rear ring crossbolt out of the groove and everything cranked down crooked. We took it completely apart and started over and it all seems to be in working order now, but I am really curious about this ring set up.

 

[herrwalther]

Sounds like a setup the gun shop put together with a set of rings and scope they had laying around. 1 inch equals 25.4 millimeters so there is a large difference between 1 inch and 30mm rings when you hold them side by side. I would replace either the scope or the rings with the correct size.

 

[LoonWulf]

Weaver tactical rings don't come with the adapters to go from 30mm-1", or at least I don't think they do.
They probably used a set they had on hand.

I've never done it, but it seems like more and more cheap mounts come up with spacers, which if the correct size probably work fine. I don't have an interest in using oversize rings tho.

 

[redneck]

Sounds like a setup the gun shop put together with a set of rings and scope they had laying around. 1 inch equals 25.4 millimeters so there is a large difference between 1 inch and 30mm rings when you hold them side by side. I would replace either the scope or the rings with the correct size.

It is a huge difference, the spacers were thick and the rings seem very clunky. I didn't even know they made such things.

I don't think my buddy is interested in spending any money beyond the raffle ticket and ammo right now so he will probably run with them. I'm pretty sure I'd have to come up with some other rings to be happy. I'm not a gear snob but if nothing else I'd be questioning my equipment every time I had a deer in the crosshairs cause it just seems like a set up that leaves a lot of room for error. We will see how they work though.

 

[wiscoaster]

I bought a used rifle that came with a scope that had 30 mm rings and those plastic spacers to mount a one inch tube scope. It was a rimfire rifle and an inexpensive scope. The setup seemed to work well enough. I eventually put a new scope on it, so the spacers are sitting in one of my parts boxes. IMO they're a jury rig, but I suppose OK for purposes where something better is a waste of money.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Nikon sent them with a 1 piece AR mount. They were aluminum bushings with ridges on either side to hold them in place.
I wasn't too happy. But they are solid.

 

[brasscollector]

I've used and have buddies who used the cheap asian imported rings or 1-piece mounts with the plastic spacers. They held zero on a 223, I can't vouch for anything beyond that.

 

[shoobe01]

Yup, used to be common where there were not the plethora of tube sizes. Some makers would build a really nice 30 mm ring/base and their only appeal to 1" scopes was adapters. May have even started with mil stuff (they like systems, one-size-fits-all things, and keeping old stuff as long as possible so it logically makes sense but I have no proof).

I agree, these days with options, a bit clunky and mostly as implied above: I'd only use the adapters designed for your ring sets for various good mechanical reasons, not to mention tolerance stacking.

 

[BigBL87]

I feel like I've seen quite a few AR scope mounts (particularly the cheaper ones) made that way. Haven't heard terrible things about them, but all things being equal I want to introduce as few moving/fitting parts into the equation as possible so I've avoided them.

That isn't to say the idea doesn't have SOME merit though. Burris Sig Zees are made specifically with inserts (though not to space down from 30mm to 1 inch) and I love those, great for avoiding marring the scope tube and they're solid as a rock.

 

[HB]

Seems questionable.

Anymore, with limited time and funds... its not worth the gas money and ammo to fool with crappy optics and bases. Why spend 4 hours, $10 in fuel, and $30 in ammo to NOT sight in a rifle.

 

[Stevel]

Yeah, I have some SWFA rings that came with the inserts. Never used them though.

 

[jmr40]

I had some 30mm rings on an AR at one time with spacers for a 1" scope. I eventually moved on to something better, but I never had any issues with it and a 1" scope tube.

 

[redneck]

I could see this set up working on a low recoil rifle, but I still have my doubts on a .450. I guess I have doubts about the scope that it came with in the long run as well but that is a different discussion lol. He hasn't done anymore shooting with it but I will try to update this thread over time as he puts it through its paces.