Ruger No.1 ring question

Mr.Rigpig

Mr.Rigpig

CGN frequent flyer
Super GunNutz
Rating - 100%
141   0   0
Location
SE Sask
Question for the Ruger experts,

On a No.1-H I intend to mount a leupold VX3 1.5-5x20 scope and I was unsure of what rings to order. Can I get away with low rings? Or do I have to go with a medium height? Also, my understanding is that ruger rings are all the same but with the No.1 you use two rings that are identical instead of different heights?
Thanks,
 
You can use two #3's with the VX-3 1.5-5x20mm, but the rear ring will be right behind the center turret... I dislike having that much scope tube exending behind the rear ring, a accidental drop or even a bump can bend the tube... I prefer the #4 in the front position and the #4BO (offset) in the rear position... that is the set-up and scope that I have on my No.1-H 405 Win.
 
P.S - yes... the M77 rifles require two different consecutive ring heights, ie. 3/4, 4/5, 5/6... the 77/22, 77/44, No.1's use the same ring height front and rear.
 
I am now in possession of a No 1 in 300wm - an eye relief problem without stock work, my rings are high and on one set have the extension, still too far away from the scope even with a t-shirt, never mind clothing for a late October hunt. I would trade for a 338 wm and go ahead and make it fit, right now don,t want to mess up this rifle for someone else ... any one with suggestions - my scope choice is a fixed power L - 6 M8 - Thanks
 
I believe the M8 6X was made in two tube lengths as was the VX-3 1.75-6X32mm. If you have the short tube, you may need a 4BO ring on the front and rear to shift the mount locations back 3/4"...
 
I used extended no. 4's with a vx3 2.5-8x36 on a No1 S. The S had iron sights and I had to remove the rear sight to accommodate the scope but the fit is much better than with the no5's that came with the rifle.
 
For most people, the front extension ring is not necessary with "Most" VX-3 scopes (the short tube 1.75-6x32mm being the exception). If you have the scope mounted so that the rim of the ocular bell is directly over the ridge on the safety switch (in the static location), you should be pretty close to proper eye relief. Also, if you use a standard ring (not offset) in the front position with the VX-3 2.5-8X36mm scope the objective bell pretty much dictates the location, as the front edge of the front ring ends up right at the juncture of the bell swell... with the standard ring up front it is not necessary to remove the rear sight, only to fold it down, if you shift the scope rearward with an offset ring the objective bell will contact the sight.

Also, you do not "NEED" the 4BO in the rear position, if you don't mind having a lot of tube cantilevered over the rear ring... but as I said earlier, I prefer the added strength of using the 4BO (Offset) in the rear position.

See pics below, of No.1-A .303 Brit with VX-3 2.5-8X36mm and No.1-H .405 Win with VX-3 1.5-5x20mm;
 
Last edited:
Dowson said:
I am now in possession of a No 1 in 300wm - an eye relief problem without stock work, my rings are high and on one set have the extension, still too far away from the scope even with a t-shirt, never mind clothing for a late October hunt. I would trade for a 338 wm and go ahead and make it fit, right now don,t want to mess up this rifle for someone else ... any one with suggestions - my scope choice is a fixed power L - 6 M8 - Thanks
Click to expand...

That's a good package for that area...I wouldn't go to a 338. I used to live at The 50 (Jefferson Rd and Spokin Lake) years ago. If the 6x doesn't want to work then consider changing the scope. That rifle is just about perfect for there and it would be a shame to get rid or it or alter it.
 
hoytcanon said:
For most people, the front extension ring is not necessary with "Most" VX-3 scopes (the short tube 1.75-6x32mm being the exception). If you have the scope mounted so that the rim of the ocular bell is directly over the ridge on the safety switch (in the static location), you should be pretty close to proper eye relief. Also, if you use a standard ring (not offset) in the front position with the VX-3 2.5-8X36mm scope the objective bell pretty much dictates the location, as the front edge of the front ring ends up right at the juncture of the bell swell... with the standard ring up front it is not necessary to remove the rear sight, only to fold it down, if you shift the scope rearward with an offset ring the ocular bell will contact the sight.

Also, you do not "NEED" the 4BO in the rear position, if you don't mind having a lot of tube cantilevered over the rear ring.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.. thanks!
 
Do they not make a #3 offset ring? Would that not be better with the 1.5-5 scope? Or do you use a #4 set to keep the hold on all the rifles the same? I like the idea of the offset ring in the back though.
 
Mr.Rigpig said:
Do they not make a #3 offset ring? Would that not be better with the 1.5-5 scope? Or do you use a #4 set to keep the hold on all the rifles the same? I like the idea of the offset ring in the back though.
Click to expand...

Ruger only makes the offset rings in the #4 height... I would use a 3BO with the 1.5-5x20mm if they made it... but I prefer the ring back to having the scope slightly lower, as it lines up perfectly with a comfortable cheekweld at the #4 height anyway.
 
Last edited:
It’s funny that Ruger makes offset rings (acknowledging the mounting issues of the #1) but never made a rib that put the rings where they should have been - roughly 3/4” back. I guess they make more money selling offsets....
 
double gun said:
It’s funny that Ruger makes offset rings (acknowledging the mounting issues of the #1) but never made a rib that put the rings where they should have been - roughly 3/4” back. I guess they make more money selling offsets....
Click to expand...

Just being stubborn in not acknowledging Old Bill's little design flaw... in reality, it is a small issue with an otherwise wonderful design.
 
double gun said:
I’m talking a proper rib not rings
Click to expand...

It would be a beefy unit as it would have to fit over the receiver... coupled with the #3 rings it would likely be fine with most scopes... you just found a product with a significant market... go for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom