Putting Optics on a Ruger No. 1

[HowieG]

Any of you Ruger No. 1 guys out there willing to share your inventive solutions to putting optics on Ruger No. 1 rifles. I swear, I think that thing was invented to torture people while they tried to come up with the ideal solution. I have a No. 1 Tropical. I am tall and like a 14" LOP, which I achieved perfectly with a 1" Limbsaver pad that also solves the sore shoulder issue.

Currently, I am using offset rings and a Leupold 1-4x20. With the scope slid all the way back, the eye relief is good, but I don't like the way it looks.

Any of you guys have a better way? And, I don't want to remove the quarter rib because I like the iron sight for backup.

View attachment 1031543

 

[Fyrstyk]

Try a intermediate eye relief scope so you can push the scope forward toward the muzzle.

 

[.38 Special]

I really like the Ruger mounting system. At 6' 2" I prefer a 14" LOP, but I still have never found that I need the ocular further back than about even with the rear of the trigger guard. I wonder if you shoot with a more European style "head up" position, as opposed to the American "head forward" style.

 

[rbernie]

Try a intermediate eye relief scope so you can push the scope forward toward the muzzle.

That's what I did - a 1.5-4X28 Leupold.

You can occasionally find an old-style optic that's long enough and/or has enough eye relief (4+ inches) to mount conventionally, but that gets harder every day as scopes get shorter and fatter.

 

[Tentwing]

I ran across the same problem with my Ruger #1. Burris, Leupold, and Vortexx al make a great 2-7 long eye relief scope, but wanted something that would stretch out just a little further do to my bad eyes. Nikon used to make 3 x 9 x40 for muzzle loaders that had a full 5 inches of eye relief when set on 9 power. ( I’m certain that other manufacturers make a similar scope) I been very happy with RUGER #1 setup and my 3x9 x40.

Hope some of this helps,…………… Tentwing

 

[HowieG]

I really like the Ruger mounting system. At 6' 2" I prefer a 14" LOP, but I still have never found that I need the ocular further back than about even with the rear of the trigger guard. I wonder if you shoot with a more European style "head up" position, as opposed to the American "head forward" style.

We may be the approximately the same height and like the same length of pull, but I bet that is about all the similarity there is.

As far as the Ruger mounting system goes, back in 1973, I thought it was the bomb, but now with short tube scopes, I much prefer a rail and some Zee Rings.

 

[HowieG]

Here is the issue as I see it. Browning put their rear mount point on the receiver ring of the 1885. Ruger put theirs on the barrel. Ruger mounts are too far forward to be handy. You can get the right scope mounted up so it works but it flat looks awkward to me and won't even work if you don't have a scope with enough eye relief. My 1885, even though the scope is positioned essentially the same as on the #1, looks perfectly natural. A well balanced system. Well, except for the scopes hanging over the falling blocks, which makes loading a bit awkward. Not a problem, unless the rifle is made for dangerous game, like the #1 Tropical is.

View attachment 1031655

 

[HowieG]

Anyway, I gather I haven't missed anything really new and trick for sighting a No. 1. I am looking into installing a Burris FastFire on the No. 1. That will declutter it AND clear up the obstruction to rapid reloads. I don't think it will be a handicap as the max distance for this rifle is 200 yards.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

One of mine has an offset turret Burris scope but I'm not sure if they make scopes like that anymore.

 

[HowieG]

One of mine has an offset turret Burris scope but I'm not sure if they make scopes like that anymore.

Yeah, that seems to be the common statement from us all anymore. "They used to make longer tubes in the old days" or some version there of. The old days being the 1990's. Scopes certainly weren't that great back in the 60's. I use one of the Weavers as a display piece now. On the other hand, I would have ten Leupold VX-2 scopes if I could afford the steep price on the used market and I would use them. Love those things.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

On the other hand, I would have ten Leupold VX-2 scopes if I could afford the steep price on the used market and I would use them. Love those things.

I have a few, actually taking the 3x9 vari X II off of my deuce now because I just want more magnification to see what the gun will really do. They still get the job done but clarity is nothing like the new scopes.

 

[CraigC]

I don't think there is a better solution than what you have right now. I think a scout scope will just swing it just as far in the other direction.

 

[LoonWulf]

The burris timberlines might work for you, my 4.5-14 has something like 5+" of eye relief, not sure about the others.....down side is they are all discontinued.
The bushnell legend ultrahd 1.5-5x32 i had also runs about 5-5.5" but its also discontinued.

 

[rbernie]

The Leupold scout supports as little as 5 inches of eye relief, and works very well in this application if you can find happiness with the low magnification.

 

[Rexster]

I just found this:

 

[HowieG]

I have a few, actually taking the 3x9 vari X II off of my deuce now because I just want more magnification to see what the gun will really do. They still get the job done but clarity is nothing like the new scopes.

Well, the VX is later than the Vari X (I have a couple of those too, and they are fine) and has updated optics. I see very little difference in clarity between my VX scopes and my Bushnell Elite Tactical, or any other later scope I have.

 

[HowieG]

The burris timberlines might work for you, my 4.5-14 has something like 5+" of eye relief, not sure about the others.....down side is they are all discontinued.
The bushnell legend ultrahd 1.5-5x32 i had also runs about 5-5.5" but its also discontinued.

I have zero problems with discontinued scopes other than finding them. Usually Ebay has a good supply.

 

[HowieG]

The burris timberlines might work for you, my 4.5-14 has something like 5+" of eye relief, not sure about the others.....down side is they are all discontinued.
The bushnell legend ultrahd 1.5-5x32 i had also runs about 5-5.5" but its also discontinued.

Actually, the Bushnell is a 1.75-5x32mm and the eye relief is listed at 4.5 inches. Still, that's pretty good.

 

[LoonWulf]

Huh, thought it was longer than that

 

[.45Coltguy]

I like the video link that Rexxster put up. Damn good idea.
I have an older Leupold VX II 3-9x40 on my Ruger No.1B with Ruger extension rings and it works fine. But, I like that VX Freedom idea. Thanks for putting that up.

 

[HowieG]

I like the video link that Rexxster put up. Damn good idea.
I have an older Leupold VX II 3-9x40 on my Ruger No.1B with Ruger extension rings and it works fine. But, I like that VX Freedom idea. Thanks for putting that up.

Yeah, the scope in the vid looks interesting. Leupold actually lists it as a 1.5-4X28mm IER Scout with an eye relief of 6 inches. Note that there is very little room on the tube for the front ring. You sure aren't going to adjust that one much.

 

[lightman]

I have a Leupold 1.5-5 VX111 on my #1 mounted in Ruger rings. My #1 is a 45-70 so that low power scope is about right.

I've had challenges making scopes fit on our Ruger 77-22's.

 

[HowieG]

I have a Leupold 1.5-5 VX111 on my #1 mounted in Ruger rings. My #1 is a 45-70 so that low power scope is about right.

I've had challenges making scopes fit on our Ruger 77-22's.

That's why the Savage Model 14 I just picked up immediately got a Picatinny rail installed. I just didn't feel like struggling with it.

 

[HowieG]

I guess we can thank the AR crowd for the trend towards short fat scopes. It kind of leaves the old classic rifles out in the cold though.