Want to put an Aimpoint on a Ruger rifle.

[Lone_Gunman]

I am looking to place an Aimpoint 9000L or 9000SC on a Ruger M77 rifle. I intend to mount it with 2 rings, in the usual configuration a scope is mounted (ie, not a scout style). The 9000 SC is shorter than the 9000L. The Aimpoint website suggests using the 9000SC for short action rifles. This M77 is 308, so it would be a short action. But why does it matter if I use the 9000L or SC? Why does the length of the scope matter in this situation?

Also, does anyone know what height 30 mm scope rings I will need to mount this scope with?

 

[Kernel]

Talk to Ruger. If you send them your old 1" Ruger rings, they'll send you new 30mm rings for free. I'd ask for high, or extra high, rings. The higher the better. With a scope of that type it's impossible to mount it too high.

 

[FFMedic]

How in the heck is higher better? Aimpoints normally are just barely larger than their maintube so I would think Low would be great. I mounted a Millett red dot on my Ruger PC4 using the lowest Ruger rings avalible.

FFMedic

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I would still like to be able to get a good cheek weld. From looking at the Aimpoint website the objective of the 9000L is 55 mm..

The Ruger website says I need a high front ring and an extra high rear ring for a 52 mm objective. I am thinking with the contour of the barrel I am probably going to be OK with that, but I am surprised I need a high/extra high combo.

 

[jmr40]

Ruger rings are well thought out, but often misunderstood. When you buy a new Ruger 77 they come with 1 high ring and 1 medium. The receiver is lower in the back than the front so you mount the high ring in the back and the medium in front. This gets your scope level and will work with objectives up to around 44mm.

To mount a scope lower you just replace the high ring with a low ring. Move the medium ring to the back and put the low on the front.

To put a larger scope on you need an extra high ring which will go on the back with an high ring on the front.

I'm not familiar with the Aimpoint but most red dot sights are going to be too short to work with the factory ring setups. I do not know who makes them but you can buy a rail that will bolt onto the Ruger receiver that will allow you to use regular Weaver style mounts and will allow you lots of adjustment.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The Aimpoint I am looking at is the 9000L, which is long like a regular scope, and intended to be mounted with 2 rings like a regular scope.

 

[jackdanson]

BTW, the aimpoint 9000 is nice, I have one on in 2x on my FNAR.

Don't know how patient you are but midway puts em on sale sometimes for pretty cheap. I paid 250 for mine.

 

[jlmurphy]

I have an Aimpoint on my Mini 14, you do want it high. The rifle is more like a shotgun with the red dot sight, both eyes open, wide field of view. Used like this, don't buy the 2x.

 

[Kernel]

How in the heck is higher better?

Ever notice military rifles have Eiffel Tower like front sights. If there was an advantage to low sights, wouldn't military rifles have short little nubby sights that hugged the barrel?

They don't, and the reason is a concept called Point Blank Range. PBR is a function of a lot of things. One is the height of the sights over the barrel's bore center line (the other factors are ammunition related).

The greater the distance of the line-of-sight above the center of the bore, the longer the PBR. The longer the PBR, the easier it is to hit what you're aiming at just by holding the sights right on the target.

Any target within the PBR can be hit with no need to "hold over" the sight picture to compensate for range. Point, shoot, and hit the target. Range is blank. Meaning it's unimportant.

Tall sights are a clever way to improve ballistic performance without increasing projectile velocity. It's the closest thing to a free lunch you'll find in firearms design.



Taken to the extreme -- the extra high special scope mounts frequently used in IHMSA completion (above). The design maximizes the benefit of PBR.

 

[FFMedic]

Yes I am aware of the PBR and how it relates to sight height above boreline.

Looking through my collection of "military" rifles only the AR-15s have high sights and that is a result of the stock/buffer design. AR-15 have zero drop at the heel so the sights go up rather than the stock going down.

M14s, M1 carbines, M1 Garands, PTR-91 etc all have sights that are as low to the bore as practicly possible without having to do a major reformat of the sight type. AKs and SKSs have high front sights, but the rears are as low as possible. The fronts are only high because of the gas tube riding atop the bore rather than under it like an M14.

Red dots are great for shooting where the target is either "close", moving, in bad light or a combination of the three. I can only assme the OP does not want to use a bolt action .308 with a red dot to make shots a uber long range. IMO the nominal height of the rings and scope body adds plenty of height to be able to make shots at all the ranges you would shoot a .308 with a red dot with. .308 is about on par with .223 to 300 yards trajectory wise, not like we are talking .45/70 govt. here.

I still say mount it as low as possible because anyone who has ever shot clays or hunted doves or ducks etc. with a shotgun (fast, close, moving target shooting) will tell you they like (if not require) a shotgun that fits and points. Having a good, SOLID cheek weld and a natural feel when you shoulder your M77 is going to allow you to make quick shots in the brush and faster follow up shots if need be. The last thing you want is a rifle that when shouldered naturally, you find yourself staring at the bottom of your scope ring.

As with all internet advice, it's only worth what it cost you and YMMV. Long story short, for a red dot rifle I value fit/cheek weld MUCH more than a longer PBR with more POI change over distance.

FFMedic

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Perhaps I should clarify my goals:

1. I am using a Ruger M77 Hawkeye ultra light rifle with a 20" barrel in 308 win. It isn't exactly a tack driver to begin with, but does OK.

2. My ranges will mostly be 100 yds or less, and extreme range would be 150 yds. I am not sure I would ever take a 150 yd shot where I am hunting.

3. I am hunting in deep woods. Is is never bright light, even in the middle of the day, and most of the time, the lighting is poor and its pretty dark because of tree canopy.

4. I like the red dot idea because I think I will be able to see the dot better in bad light than a scope reticle.

5. I would like to shoot the rifle with a good cheek weld. I don't want a sight thats way up above the bore.

6. I would not plan on using this red dot in the usual way red dots are used. I would likely use it more as a regular scope.


Maybe an Aimpoint isnt the right choice, and I should consider a scope with an illuminated reticle?

 

[Kernel]

I should of said all military rifles designed since, say, 1943. If you think tall sights on military rifles are an accident of design, then dream on. You're not alone, though. Most people don't get it.

The feature became prevalent about the time firearm design moved from the domain of the lone inventors' garage, to the world of scientific method. (The German MP-44 is a good example of an early design with overly tall sights, obviously exaggerated for the benefit of PBR).

Of the dozens, maybe hundreds, of military rifles designed since 1943, still waiting to see the ONE that has a stubby little sight on it. Again, if there was even a teeny tiny benefit to short sights wouldn't all military rifles have them?

(I exclude civilian designs, since the way they look has more to do with marketing, and less to do with performance in the field).

A good cheek weld is important and is easily obtained with the many aftermarket products sold today. Old carpet and duct tape work too (just doesn't look so hot). I like the slip on kit made by Beartooth Products. It's cheap (about $10), looks good (they make'em in black, camo, and brown), and lets you vary the comb height by 1/8" to 1.5".

I have two rifles, a shotgun, and an airgun with this system.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Of the dozens, maybe hundreds, of military rifles designed since 1943, still waiting to see the ONE that has a stubby little sight on it.

How about the FAL? Prototype designed in 1947, general issue in UK by 1950, and has stubby sights.


Can you start another thread about sights on military rifles and let this one be about red dot sights on hunting bolt actions?

 

[Kernel]

The FAL has stubby sights? Not in my book. It's got a big ol' tall Eiffle
Tower front sight on it.

If you want to see a real stubby sight you gotta look at an old Springfield Trapdoor. Now, that was a frickin' nub.

Good thing those old Cival War designers didn't grasp the whole PBR/high sight concept. Casualties were bad enough in that war. Just imagine if they could of hit what they were aiming at!

(disclaimer: not saying the Trapdoor was used in the Civil War)

Sorry about hijacking your thread. Been trying to jack up my post count numbers recently, so I've been rabblin' on senslessly all over the place.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The FAL has stubby sights? Not in my book. It's got a big ol' tall Eiffle

The front site of the Fal looks very similar to that of an M1 Garand. Do you consider that Eiffel tower also?

I am not sure why you think the PBR idea matters much to the military. I do not think the military expects their rifles to be used at the longer ranges seen and expected 50 years ago, and the 5.56 is so flat shooting that PBR exceeds the range that the military expects them to be used

 

[Kernel]

The Garand sight is pretty tall. Gotta be at least an inch over the bore center line. Taller than any civy sight you'll find. Bet the FAL is double that high. Got both in the basement. Should go down and pull them both and measure the sights.

Gotta love that Garand sight. It's not just a sight, it's like a Sight System. All the parts, pieces, dovetails, imagine all the machining steps, heat treats, all detailed to death in endless milspecs, and on, and on. And that's just the front sight. God, I love the way those old military rifles were so over engineered.

PBR is not that big of deal to me. It's just something that firearm designers are aware of and utilize. Smart shooters can take advantage of it, too. There's no reason to fear a high scope ring, or suffer under a delusioln that there is some benifit to having your sights "close to the bore". (How many times do we see that old chestnut on this forum?)

And it's not about long range shooting (in fact' high rise sights are very common on airguns that don't shoot much over 50 ft). It's about hitting any target from arm's reach to 300 meters.