Old (steel tube) Weaver K4. Just clears rib w/ low rings. Many scopes will not fit because of the large ring spacing, the exception, of course, being those w/o a front bell (Weaver K2.5, Leupold 1.5 VX3 & M8 2.5X, etc.) Offset rings will help but I like the scope as low as possible and offsets are hard to find in low rings.

I have a Leupold 1.75-6x mounted on my .416, it fits perfectly, the front ring is right at the bell of the scope, the back one just in front of the power selector. Mine's new only about 100 shots through it, but I don't foresee any problems.

About all the scope the 416 can utilize is a 4x and less is better....I use a 1x4 Leupold varible on mine and I have an old 3X for a second scope...I don't want a bell, I want a 20mm objective on a DGR and as little sticking out the front ring as I can get within reason...

Ray,

Out of curiosity why do you want the end of the scope not to protrude out of the front ring?

And on a Leupold say 1.5-5 or 1-4 will it hurt the scope if the "Golden Ring" is covered up by the front ring?

But that is the whole problem with the 1.75-6E scope. You have absolutely no adjustment fore and aft on the scope. Being the short necked peckerwood that I am, when I put my 1.75-6E scope on I had a lousy sight picture and needed the scope to come rearward quite a bit, and that wasn't going to happen without offset rings, which Warne does not make. And the standard 1.75-6 scope, forgetaboutit. It wouldn't go on at all without extension rings. I agree that if you have a long neck and with the 1.75-6E scope locked in position you can actually use it, it is a great scope, but I like to have a little bit of room for getting the perfect sight picture so that dictated the 1.5-5x, which gives you all the adjustment you might need. I also liked the extra half inch of eye relief and the extra 19 feet of FOV the 1.5-5x offered over the 1.75-6xE.

I'm suprised the 1.75-6x gives a problem to anyone as I'm a solid 5'9" and 170 pounds, don't have much neck either. For me it is perfect at lower power, at 6x I almost have to move forward 1/2 in. to get the full view. I kind of like it that way on a .416. It probably comes down to more of a difference in how we mount the rifle. Of course there is no room to fudge, I was damn glad to see that mine worked as it was.

RWS2

That is why I added within reason, as you never want to clamp down on the lens, It should protrude about an inch...My reason for this is every year I see rifles lose their zero because of a blow or some kind or another to the front end of the scope and the larger the bell the more likely it will move the zero from a fall or bump or just from bouncing around in a Safari car...

I have found over the years that the stright 20 mm objective lens scopes are not nearly as prone to this problem and function above all else in scopes, rifles and horses, dogs and wimmen is where my priorties lie.

Thanks Ray!
I knew there had to be a reason you liked the 20mms.
That then settles it as soon as I get Christmas outta the way I will opt for a 1.5-5x20 Leupod not sure though if i'll go with the Vari X III or NEW VX III flavor.

On my .416 Rigby I mounted a Burris 1.75X-5X-32mm Safari. Nice long eye relief and as clear and sharp as you could want. Lawdog

Are those that have the Warne QD's satisfied with them? When you take the scope off can you still wee down the quarter rib fine or are the mounts to high?

I use a 1-4x, and for DG I would suspect that would be fine, but for plainsgame this year I felt it limited me. I know, I know, I should be able to use 4x from here to 300+yds... bottom line is though at that distance with 4x, I'm shooting a general area on an animal and not a very specific spot. I'd feel a lot better with a 3-9 on the .416 then the 1-4x for plains game, but since the distance between the rings limits me, I'm going to just leave my .416 as is and get a winchester in 375 to mount a 3-9 on.

I thought the Warne was simply a Ruger mount with a thumb screw??? You should not have any problems mounting a 3X-9X scope on a Ruger M77 MkII Magnum, as long as, the objective lense is kept at or below 44mm.

Scott

My Lott wears a VeriX-III 1.5 X 5 in Warne QD rings. Not many scopes will mount on the RSM long actions with Warne rings. And of those that do you get darn little eye relief adjustment range due to the way the Warnes are designed.

The stock Ruger mounts give a lot more options for adjusetment but are more hassle when you want to remove/remount the scope. I've tried taking the scope off the rilfe(s) (leaving the rings on the scope of course) and the scope has always returned to zero for me.

You milage may vary ;-)

I must agree with LawDog as I have the same scope on several Rugers when I had a Leupold break on me when shooting my 375 Rum and promptly replaced it with a Burris and it's still working to my satisfaction. By the way, all my scopes on the Rugers are on QD's.

There are no "mounts" on the Ruger; they are built in. When you take the scope off, there is nothing left behind to get in the way of the irons that wasn't there before you put the scope on. Also, they do return to zero just like they say they will. I have them on the .375 H&H, .416 Rigby and the .458 Win and they have never failed me yet. Now, if you are going to use your .416 for nothing but non-dangerous game, then a wide FOV is not all that important and you could use a higher powered scope (On my No. 1 .416 Rigby I do use a VXIII 2.5-7x). Still though, with mine set all the way up to 5x, shooting 300 yards at a 3 inch bullseye is not a problem at all, and any game you are going to be shooting at has a lot larger vital zone than three inches, unless you are using your .416 on p-dogs. If using the fine duplex reticle, then figure the intersection covers 1" per 100 yards. It is not going to cover enough game to worry about. If using the heavy duplex, which I have on a 700 .50 ML and do not particularly care for, then you do cover a lot more of the animal at distance, but of course, it is easier to pick up quickly at close range.

Thanks ScottS, I didn't know if Warne had some hoaky base that mounted to the ruger base and then the QD's attached to it or they just attached to the existing ruger mounts.

I do believe that that any scope with a bell will not fit the RSM. At least I haven't found one that would.

GMaxson,

If you read my first post I stated what scopes I have had on my 1991 M77 MkII Magnum aka RSM rifle. All have had bells.

Scope number one:
Leupold VarXIII 4.5X-14X 40mm (lasted 25 full house loads rebuilt and then 35 or 40 full house loads)

Scope number two:
Burris 3X-9X 38mm (lasted about 150 full house loads replaced as optics were severely damaged)

Scope number three:
Zeiss Conquest 3X-9X 40mm. Has survived several hundred full house loads fired without any issues. Has the best eye relief as well, and the zero doesn't change with the magnification!

I use Ruger high mounts. I have modified these by removing the stock nut and replaced it with a thumb nut. To my knowledge this is exactly what Warne uses, at least that is the method of locking used on my CZ QD Warne rings.

By the way, there is about .25" clearance between the scope bell and the quarter rib with the Zeiss scope. I can also slide the scope fore and aft in the rings for about 1 inch.
So, to me anyway, there is plenty of clearance and/or adjustability. FWIW, my rifle has a LOP of 14.25", which is 0.75" longer than a stock rifle.

The short of it is, you can easily mount a belled scope on a Ruger M77 MkII RSM rifle using high mounts and objective lense diameters equal to / or less than 44 mm.

Scott

I thought someone posted not to long ago that they called Leopold and could not find a belled scope that would fit a RSM? I don't know how your getting them to fit, since all belled scopes that I looked at had a tube that was to short to fit the rings.

I'll have to check out my 4.5x14 tube length tonight and compare it to the RSM

GMaxson,
Maybe Leupold has shortened their scopes in the last 10 years, I don't know, but back in '92 the Leupold VarXIII 4.5X-14X 40mm I had taken off of my 300 Weatehrby magnum fit just fine. Personally, I wouldn't waste my time with a Leupold scope anyway, they are too fragile.

Scott

ScottS,
Just curious what caliber is your RSM?

rws2,

My rifle is a 416 Rigby. I will post some pics on Monday morning. I cannot post them until I get into the office, as my home computer's 3.5" is bad and the camera I am using uses a 3.5" diskette. I took pics of the Zeiss scope mounted on the rifle, and I believe I have an old pic showing the Burris. The Burris was a fullfield or fullfield II, cannot remember for sure, but it only cost something like $180 - $200 back in '96. That cheapo scope was vastly more robust than the Leupold. So, since the validity of my statements has been called into question, I figured the pics would dispose of the doubt.

I use the higher power scopes, as this rifle was bought to hunt elk after my 300 Weatherby failed me (long story I shalt bore anyone with the details). I used 325 Barnes X bullets, but now use the Speer 350 Mag tip. Muzzle velocities were/are 2830 fps with the Barnes and now 2760 fps with the Mag tip.

Scott

Thanks! I got a new RSM in 375 H&H and was just curious.As I see it there are several Leupolds that will fit a RSM according to Leupolds Website! Those are the in Vari X III 1.5-5,1.75-6 and 3.5-10x40 without extention rings.

My concern was what calibre you were beating scopes apart with.

I need no photographic proof but would enjoy seeing your rifle none the less.

rws2,

The pics weren't necessarily for you. I have discovered that I do not have any showing the old Burris scope, oh well. The Zeiss Conquest will handle you 375 fine. I suspect the Leupolds will as well. There is a world of difference, recoil wise, between the ol' 375 and Rigby's 416. Besides, Leupold will fix it as many times as you want to send it back. I know, been there done that.



I just cannot bring myself to recommend Leupold. I have broken everyone I ever owned, save one, their zeroes wander with the magnification, etc, etc. I also don't think they are very clear, at least not for their price tag. But if you like them, thats great by me.



Scott

I don't know how anybody can claim that Leupolds are fragile. I have a Leupold on a .458 and it has been there for over 15 years and about 800-1000 rounds. I have another on the No.1 .416 Rigby and it has been there for about 500 rounds. The .416 Rigby 77 has had a Leupy for about another 300 rounds. The No. 1 .375 H&H, 250 rounds; the .50 Alaskan handgun, 300 rounds; the .454 FA handgun, 1300 rounds, .45-70 handgun, 1000 rounds; and another on a .50 BMG for 350 rounds, and I could go on for another dozen and a half scopes. I've never had a problem with any of them, but I am quite anal about mounting them too. Now, anyone can have a bad scope, I know my Burris 1.5-4x on the .454 (before the Leupold) failed in 15 shots, but what soured me most was the lack of customer service Burris offered me, so I won't buy another. But to claim Leupolds are fragile is just plain wrong. If one has two scopes fail on the same rifle and both scopes are of good quality, then I must question if something was done during mounting that may have contributed to the failure. Not casting doubt on your scope mounting ability, but Leupolds are not fragile.

Big Bore,

Perhaps it was just this scope, even though it was ultimately rebuilt by Leupold twice. This scope broke on the Rigby, we are talking about loads however which are somewhat more powerful than your 458 or factory loaded 416 Rigby, it also failed on my McMillan 50 BMG in less than 75 rounds. The mounts, by the way, where the same between the Leupold and the Burris. I purchased new mounts when I bought the Zeiss. Don't get me wrong, the Burris was not a good scope by any stretch. It had horrendous optics, the reticle was difficult to see half the time, and when it went the lenses, not sure which ones as I did not open up the scope, were broken.



Maybe the threshold for this particular Leupold scope was 5000 lb-ft of muzzle energy. Of course in those days both the Rigby and the BMG wore muzzle brakes, so maybe that had something to do with it. I can tell you are a Leupold fan, and I have no intentions of picking a fight, so I suggest we drop this before it gets out of hand.



Afterall if the Leupolds make you happy, I am glad. By all means, don't let my opinion upset you. I like my Zeiss glass, but you like your Leupold, as long as, we are both happy in our choices I see no issue.



If you don't mind my asking, where in Indiana do you shoot your 50 BMG? I had a difficult time finding a suitable locale to shoot mine at when I lived in Indiana. Ultimately, I sold it to a co-worker <wish I still had it since they are now worth more than twice what I paid back then>.



Scott

I use a B&L(Bushnell) Elite 4200 1.5-6X36 on my Ruger .416Rigby. It's been on there since new and lived through over 400 full power rounds, so far.

Scotts,
I figure a 4x scope will handle any hunting situation that comes about..I can see any animal well enough to take a shot at it up to a 1000 yards or so and don't have to deal with mirage or whatever....Americans are brainwashed into bigger is better and scopes are a good example, and thats seldom the case IMO...

A 416 is a 300 yard gun at best IMO, maybe 400 for some, and a 4X is plenty for that long range shooting of big game...the longest shot I have ever attempted with a 416 is a Buffalo I killed instantly at 225 to 250 yards, scope was set on 2X at the time of the shot..

I like my guns thin, sleek, trim and they get the same treatment in scopes...

Thats why to answer your question, but I don't even suggest that someone follow suit based on my choices..everyone should use what suits them and learn the hard way, I learned it all the hard way, and that way it sticks with you.

Ray
Just to reinforce for others what you alluded to earlier - do not clamp the front ring over the objective lens region of a Leupold 1.5-5 or 1-4x - I have sent my 1.5-5x back twice and had the lens replaced - Leupold now have a standard flyer that they returned with the scope to this effect. This means that one has to allow at least an inch to protrude beyond the ring. I have to say that this has never been a problem with my S&B 1.25-4x - I guess because the tube is so thick, but one pays for it in weight.