I am contemplating a Ruger #1 in something like a .243 or 25-06.

I have seen several articles about mounting scopes and some problems with eye relieft and mounts on a #1. I am looking advice on what you are using on a setup like this.

Thanks

I've just been using the standard Ruger rings with Leupold vari-X II 3x9X scopes. I haven't found them to be a problem so far. Ruger will swap the standard rings for offset rings from what I've heard, but I haven't seen the need so far.
I have a #1A in .243 that is a pretty neat shooter. My shooting partner has a #1B in 25-06 that is phenomenal. My .243 is a .75" to 1.0" rifle with selected handloads, but his does .50" with factory ammo. His handloads are even smaller. What really hurts is I had first dibs on the rifle and turned it down.
Paul B.

How do you find the 1A vs. the longer standard model? Sometimes shorter guns are a little harder to hold steady to me.

Thanks

I have had a No.1 light sporter in 06 going on 25 plus years I stettled on a 3x9 Burris compact years back. A nice scope for a light rifle.

I have a #1B in .25-06 with a Leupold VariX 111 3.5-10 in standard rings, could not be happier, I also have a .458 Win Mag rechambered to .458 Lott with a Leupold 4 X compact in offset rings and ideally I could use another 1/2" of eye relief.
I plan on putting a Leupold in 1-4 X 20mm or a 1.5-5 X 20mm, because it doesn't have the bell on the front I will be able to move it reward that half inch and solve the problem. I don't want to alter the stock length which has the right dimensions.

[/IMG]

My .243 with Tasco 6-24 Mil-dot.Ranging hogs with the mil-dot is easy.

quote:

Originally posted by hikerbum:
How do you find the 1A vs. the longer standard model? Sometimes shorter guns are a little harder to hold steady to me.

Thanks

Well, I haven't had a problem in that regard. Even the #1A is not really an ultra lightweight rifle. My personal preference is for the #1S which Ruger so wisely (?) discontinued. Looks like the #1A with a 26" barrel. You'll just have to pick one up and see how it feels to you.
Paul B.

I have modified a Weaver#57 for a rear base and a #47 for a front base. This moves the rear ring back 0.900" and the front ring is fitted to the best location for the scope.

The rear base makes use of the two Ruger rear screw holes and the recoil stud.

It makes fitting the scope to your prefered head position very easy.The rear ring sits on the receiver.

The Weaver bases can use a multible variaty of rings to suit your scope. It also gets rid of a 1/2 LBS of useless weight.

My #1 is a .458 Win Mag, and I use a 4X shotgun scope on it. Perfect eye relief with standard rings.

(BTW - this went on after getting hit by a 3X9 that now lives on a .22! That was a very bloody painful way to learn to make sure the eye relief is l-o-n-g on a big rife!)

Zermel, what rifle do the weaver bases originally belong on? Can you describe the modifications needed a little more? Thanks, Bob

I have a Ruger #1 V (Varminter) in 25-06. It has the 24" bull barrel and I put a Zeiss Conquest scope on it. I shot my first ever one hole 5-shot 200 yard group the other day with my handloads (100 grain Nosler Ballistic tip over a full case of Hodgdon Retumbo with CCI 200 primers) The gun is heavy and not something you would want to carry around all day but it is highly accurate. The advice to get the extended rings from Ruger is good advice. I didn't and I have to lean into the gun pretty good to get the appropriate sight picture through the scope. Not a big deal but it could be better. There is not a lot of felt recoil either due to the heft of the gun. There is no problem seeing the bullet impact through the scope when you touch one off.