chevyforlife21
Member
the scope that came on my savage .243 doesnt even have a brand on it and it has been able to hi tthe same bullet hole at 100 yards for the last 150 rounds so far and this gun was only 350 bucks with the scope.
scope mounting wow im mad
- Thread starter chevyforlife21
- Start date
- Status
chevyforlife21
Member
btw guys today i went to gander told them it doesnt fit but everythings there and its all good they took it i got a tasco pronghorn 3-9 40 mm and mounted it i chose it cuse of it looked a lot slimmer even the bushnell .22 scope was bulky. so i got the tasco on there and i didnt get to sight it in yet 2maro ill bring it out its clear and has a diamond reticule so i like it plus theres alittle clearence now and i can use it.
Uncle Mike
Member
Well I don't know about a 3-9 being the 'best' for anything... I would assume if the gentleman wanted a 6-24 on his .22 it would be an excellent choice....
I would not file the power ring on a new, or used for that matter, scope...
Taller rings are not the answer...unless your intending on adding a cheek-piece to get your eye up, and in alignment with the center-line of the optic.
I have several 77/22's and all but one wear Weaver 'V' series scopes...never a clearance issue with the bolt handle...and all but that one have large magnification (2-10, 3-12 and a 6-25) scope on them, and yes... all of these 'big' scope have 50mm objectives.
On a bright day...I can watch the bullets trace and splash from 20y or so out to 130y...pretty cool.
I would not file the power ring on a new, or used for that matter, scope...
Taller rings are not the answer...unless your intending on adding a cheek-piece to get your eye up, and in alignment with the center-line of the optic.
I have several 77/22's and all but one wear Weaver 'V' series scopes...never a clearance issue with the bolt handle...and all but that one have large magnification (2-10, 3-12 and a 6-25) scope on them, and yes... all of these 'big' scope have 50mm objectives.
On a bright day...I can watch the bullets trace and splash from 20y or so out to 130y...pretty cool.
Uncle Mike
Member
whoops...double tap...lol
Vern Humphrey
Member
Or a different scope. No sense blackguarding Ruger for their rings if the scope is on the large size for a .22. As one poster has noted:
jimmyraythomason
Member
The topic was to gain clearance for the bolt handle. In order to make the scope in question work,higher scope rings was the only option. An add on cheek piece would be beneficial for eye/scope alignment but by no means critical. Apparently the problem has been solved so it is now a moot point.
jimmyraythomason
Member
So it's okay to tell someone you feel sorry for them because of their choice of optics? Yes that is snobbery. The OP asked for help in mounting his scope not for a critique of his scope.
Last edited:
chevyforlife21
Member
at 50 yards i was shootin at a soda bottle top today after i got that sighted in its acurate
Last edited:
Vern Humphrey
Member
So it's okay to put words in someone's mouth, mischaracterize their posts and "quote" words they never said? Yes that is snobbery.
jimmyraythomason
Member
I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I did not identify who I was referring to. I figured anybody who read all the responses would naturally know which post I was referring to. Post #21 actually says he feels sorry for him. I think from now on I'll just avoid any thread that deals with scopes.
Vern Humphrey
Member
So give us the post where someone said they "feel sorry for the OP because of his choice of optics?"
R.W.Dale
Member
I said it in post #21
and you know what? I still stand by it. I'd feel for the guy because if the feller has never spent more than $50 on a scope then he has no idea what even a merely decent optic is like and has no idea the of the amount of shooting enjoyment he's missed out on and the grief he's caused himself.
A ruger 77/22 isn't a cheap rifle so more could have been dedicated to optics. I'd take a $50 rifle with a $400 optic every time over a $400 rifle with a $50 scope
and NO this is't snobbery. Hell I'm almost in the po house myself. No because if I can't afford to put a decent optic on the rifle I don't buy the rifle! there's decent optics to be had for as little as $75
and you know what? I still stand by it. I'd feel for the guy because if the feller has never spent more than $50 on a scope then he has no idea what even a merely decent optic is like and has no idea the of the amount of shooting enjoyment he's missed out on and the grief he's caused himself.
A ruger 77/22 isn't a cheap rifle so more could have been dedicated to optics. I'd take a $50 rifle with a $400 optic every time over a $400 rifle with a $50 scope
and NO this is't snobbery. Hell I'm almost in the po house myself. No because if I can't afford to put a decent optic on the rifle I don't buy the rifle! there's decent optics to be had for as little as $75
Last edited:
RSVP2RIP
Member
Take the brow beating to private messages. When Brownells said the rings were the same height for the 77/22 they were correct. The rings used in Ruger's 77MKII are differet heights. The rear ring is taller to compensate for the differences in the reciever ring and bridge heights. The 77/22 ring and bridge are the same height so the same size rings would be needed to complete any given scope height. The fatory rings that come with the gun can be returned to ruger and they will exchange them to any height you want for the cost of shipping only. I always wondered why they didn't put this in the manual. Give them a call and they will take care of you. The rings that come with the 77/22 are medium height. Go with high and your bolt handle should clear.
chevyforlife21
Member
thanks but ive got it set up perfect with my tasco , it was just the dumbass bulky bushnell lol. that bein said i love bushnell but it wouldnt work for me
hogshead
Member
Well at least you [jr] didnt tell him he was gonna abuse his scope if he filed on it.lol
- Status
