I have a new ruger rsm in 416 Rigby and I tried to put a Trijicon Accupoint 3x9x40 but the rings are too far apart, same with a leupold. What is requred to put a scope on it? I am useing the rings that came with it,

Joe Savikataaq Jr

You can get extension rings for a Ruger.

Thank You surestrike I will check with ruger.

Or you could sell it and buy a CZ.
If go that route, I'll buy that piece of junk RSM.

Or you could consider using a different scope.

For reference, below are my Browning BBR 416 Taylor with a Luepold 1-4x, and my Ruger RSM in 470 Mbogo with a Leupold 3x.

Burris makes an extension ring/base for the Ruger. It sets up to use weaver style rings which could be qd as well. I use one on my Ruger in .458 Lott and it works very well. I tried the Ruger extension rings and they still wouldn't fit the scope I wanted to use. The part number from Burris is #410990

I had a similar problem with a Dakota and ended up getting a straight tube scope.

You can try putting one of the rings on backwards. That should put one closer.

465H&H

You might also take a look at the scope that Michael uses, the Nikon African to see if it long enough.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
You can try putting one of the rings on backwards. That should put one closer.

465H&H

You cannot do that with Ruger rings, they are directionally specific to the integral bases they go on.

I think the offset Ruger rings might be higher than the standard ring height.
Better to get something like a Leupold 1.5-5X ... Or Nikon as Dave suggested.
Straight-tubed 1.5-5X is what I have on Ol' Purple my .416 Rigby RSM.
Those RSM's can be very accurate, and that is enough scope to put 3 shots into 0.140 MOA at 100 yards.

Ol'Purple in my hand:



First 3 shots with this bullet from Ol'Purple, before the scope was zeroed dead-on at 115 yards
(the berm builder on the bulldozer was drunk, later moved the berm to 100 yards):



Start with North Fork 370-grain SP, CP or FP and 105 grains of H4831 and work your way up with bullet weights until you try all 370-410-grainers, then pick the most accurate one.
Same powder charge for all.
The lighter ones will be +2500 fps.
The heavier ones will be just over 2400 fps.

I think you guys are missing the point. He is trying to mount a Trijicon with the battery-less illuminated reticle!! A Leupold it isn't. I doubt I'll ever purchase a scope other than Trijicon now that I've used one. Whatever is necessary to do with the rings to mount it will be worth the trouble. The Trijicon is just a nice feature since you never have to worry about changing the battery. YMMV however!

BTW, Surestrike answered the problem. You'll just need an extended ring for the front mount. Easy to find for a Ruger.

Thank You all for the suggestions. I am goint to stick with my trijicon, and have ordered a off set ring from ruger.
Pagosawingnut, thank you I'll check burris out.

Todd Williams, you got that right I'm not puting anything else on that gun,but a trijicon.

Pagosawingnut,
With those burris base, can you still use the iron sights when the scope is off if using QD mounts?

Trijicon makes a straight 30mm tube 1-4x. Really a nice scope.

Yes, Joe you can. I tried the extended front ring from Leupold for the Ruger and still couldn't get the clearance I needed for the Scope I mounted. The Burris seem to do the trick and I can use any QD weaver type ring I want.

Nope it can't be done ...... ahhhhh I think this may be an RSM with a 1.2-4 Trijicon on it in RUGER rings.........

I called Talley and asked if they have QD rings that can go on a weaver mount,and they said they dont make them. What other QD rings can mount on a weaver mount?

Thank You

Joe savikataaq Jr

Leupold QRW

Yep,
QRW on this burris base on the Ruger RSM as pagosawingnut suggested, if you must have the Trijicon.
Get the Low QRW rings from Leupold.
I have busted more Talley rings than Leupold QRW rings.

quote:

Originally posted by Joe Savikataaq Jr:
I called Talley and asked if they have QD rings that can go on a weaver mount,and they said they dont make them. What other QD rings can mount on a weaver mount?

Thank You

Joe savikataaq Jr

Warne

I do not think you will find Warne Extension Rings for the Ruger integral base, so back to same problem.
Warne QD rings (for Weaver cross slot) will fit on the Burris base for the Ruger RSM/M77.

At least you can find the Ruger Extension Rings if you look for them.
I decided the Burris base with low QRW rings was agreeable.
But the slightly higher mounting of the scope with Ruger Extension Rings is going to be more rugged, as there is no added detachable base between the integral base and the rings.

Well said and, as you can see on my 375 RSM, the rings are not high at all. Were they any lower you could not get the covers on.
You put Ruger rings on the Ruger dovetail and torque it correctly, it a'int going nowhere.
All these lightweight and QD rings will fail sooner or later. Been at this for 5+ decades and seen many come and go. If you don't have a Ruger, the next best (ask Finn) are Weaver steel bases and Weaver steel rings. Ugly as a Ma Deuce and work as well.

It is humorous to see all the issues caused by Ruger's crummy attempt at integral scope mount bases. They stink on the bolt guns and they are worse of the #1. Not only that but the rings as is are really bad about marking up scope tubes.
Not a very secure or flexible system.

I sent a rifle back to Ruger because it was terribly inaccurate. I asked them to test it to verify the problem was cured before they sent it back to me. They re-barreled the rifle but dinged up the crummy scope mounting dovetails in the process of testing it.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Ruger's crummy attempt at integral scope mount bases. Not a very secure or flexible system.

Well I think its more than an attempt, they've been doing it for about 40 years so it really is more than an attempt and as for its security? I've never seen one shift, come off, or pop loose in a fall. It is the most ridgid scope mounting system I've seen in awhile. Slick and clean looking and very functional.
As for flexibility? I think if the OP just buys the extension base thats pretty flexible, hard for any company to make a onesize fits all when it comes to scope mounting.
Ruger re barreling your rifle has nothing to do with the rings and mounting system (??) and if they buggered it up shame on you for not sending it back.
Some people are never happy.

quote:

Originally posted by Snellstrom:

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Ruger's crummy attempt at integral scope mount bases. Not a very secure or flexible system.

Well I think its more than an attempt, they've been doing it for about 40 years so it really is more than an attempt and as for its security? I've never seen one shift, come off, or pop loose in a fall. It is the most ridgid scope mounting system I've seen in awhile. Slick and clean looking and very functional.
As for flexibility? I think if the OP just buys the extension base thats pretty flexible, hard for any company to make a onesize fits all when it comes to scope mounting.
Ruger re barreling your rifle has nothing to do with the rings and mounting system (??) and if they buggered it up shame on you for not sending it back.
Some people are never happy.

Yea, I have to say that I've been very happy with the Ruger scope mounting system as well. I've had and still do have a few M-77's and No. 1s and have not had issues with the mounting system on any of them. Likewise, I've not had one shift, come off, or pop loose either and all have been quite acceptable as far as accuracy is concerned.

For some odd reason all the "experts" are on love with the butt ugly talley rings that have no windage adjustment.
The Ruger system works just fine on both the No 1s and 77s and has since it came out.
Anyone who can't install a scope that fits the ring spacing w/o damaging the scope had better stick with plastic knives.
The ruger system is very rugged, better looking than Talleys and less expensive.

Now if you don't have Ruger and want the best rings you can go with S&K or Conetrol as they are by far the best looking, have rock solid windage adjustment in both bases, never mar a scope as they are self aligning and the scope never moves.

Of course in the dozens of No1s and 77s I own/owned, I never had one that needed to be rebarreled either. In fact I never had one that will/would not shoot 1 MOA or less if properly fitted to the stick and fed (as with any rifle) ammo it liked. If course nobody would ever send a rifle back to Ruger for work with the rings on it........ would they ? As for damaging the base dovetails, that is amazing and removing and installing a barrel in any Ruger has nothing whatsoever to do with the scope dovetails on either rifle ...... unless you change your barrels with a pipe wrench.

Sorry that old 4759 has a puffy for Ruger and I'll be the first to say that the tang safe 77, the red pad No 1 and RSM were better guns than anything they make today BUT the scope mounting system is one thing they have not screwed up.

Of course you have to actually OWN a number of Rugers to comment on them.........

Completely agree with the last 2 posts.

My experience with Rugers generally is to use Warne Rings. I recently took a RSM .458 Lott to Mozambique. As I worked up loads and hunted locally using Warne QD rings, I found them tedious to re-attach. I spent the bucks to have NECG install EAW mounts. EAW makes one that uses the Ruger factory provision for the rear attachment. Not cheap, but wonderfully easy and fast to use. My scope is a Leupold VXR 1.25x4. Ring spacing has not been an issue, although NECG used an offset front ring. Took two buffalo and a sable with 500 grain A-Frames at 2,250 fps.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
You can try putting one of the rings on backwards. That should put one closer.

465H&H

You cannot do that with Ruger rings, they are directionally specific to the integral bases they go on.

I think the offset Ruger rings might be higher than the standard ring height.
Better to get something like a Leupold 1.5-5X ... Or Nikon as Dave suggested.
Straight-tubed 1.5-5X is what I have on Ol' Purple my .416 Rigby RSM.
Those RSM's can be very accurate, and that is enough scope to put 3 shots into 0.140 MOA at 100 yards.

Ol'Purple in my hand:



First 3 shots with this bullet from Ol'Purple, before the scope was zeroed dead-on at 115 yards
(the berm builder on the bulldozer was drunk, later moved the berm to 100 yards):



Start with North Fork 370-grain SP, CP or FP and 105 grains of H4831 and work your way up with bullet weights until you try all 370-410-grainers, then pick the most accurate one.
Same powder charge for all.
The lighter ones will be +2500 fps.
The heavier ones will be just over 2400 fps.

Rip, there's something wrong with that gun. You ain't nowhere near the center on that target!

rnovi,
Ain't you the comedian!
I went to the range with 8 different bullets loaded 3 shots each with 105 grains of H4831, and the rifle bore-sighted.

They all printed on paper from the fat-barreled .416 Rigby RSM. The GSC printed best.
Load development was complete.
So I adjusted the scope (POI) 8 clicks right and 4 clicks down, went home and loaded a bunch of GSC, cleaned rifle, and fouled it again the next day.

Checked zero next day at the range. Got it right on dead zero at that range, with just a few shots, left the rifle fouled, ready to pack.

In Botswana a couple of weeks later, PH penciled a 1-inch dot on an envelope and used a thorn to stick that envelope to an umbrella thorn tree trunk.
Paced off 100 steps, and checked zero. I hit the dot with first shot.

I did not fire another shot with that rifle until the one that went through the buffalo's humerus and heart and out the other side.

I was using standard Ruger rings (a 4 and a 5 numbered ring set) on the RSM with a Leupold 1.5X-5X.

They are indeed the best option on a Ruger RSM.

The next set of Ruger extension rings I come across I will nab, so I too can put the shorter-tubed scopes on all my Rugers,
even if they are a little higher in height than the lowest possible standard ring set.

IIRC, the Ruger rings come as low, medium, and high, and are numbered 4, 5, and 6, respectively.

A Ruger No.1 uses 2 rings of the same height: Two 4's, two 5's, or two 6's.

An M77 MKI, MKII, Hawkeye or RSM all use a low on the front and a medium on the rear: A 4 and a 5.
Or a medium on the front and a high on the rear: A 5 and a 6.

Which heights are available as extension ring?
The Ruger rings go on only one way, not reversible.
Are the extension rings offered in both directions?
Or is there only one height and one direction offered on the extension ring?

Also, I never saw or heard of a Warne extension ring for Ruger.
The Warne Ruger ring is bigger, heavier, uglier, vertically split, and weaker than the Ruger-made Ruger rings.

The Burris-made Weaver bases for Ruger guns are not as rugged as the Ruger rings. Burris bases are best used as add-ons to the smaller bores.

Ruger Rings on a Ruger rifle with integral bases are always best.

Just like CZ-made rings on a CZ rifle with integral bases, which may be even better,
since you can torque the huge main mounting bolts of the CZ rings to 65 inch-pounds.

Sako integral bases with Sako rings were a good thing in the beginning. Not so anymore.

Find a used discontinued 3X Leupold, They can be found but they are fairly expensive these days at $200 to $250.. It will work just fine and its also one of the best DG scopes I have used..I have a number of them and never a problem unless you get to the 458 Lott and up, then any scope can be a problem short of the 2.5 Leupold compact. The big bores tend to trash scopes from somewhere between 50 to 300 rounds.