My Ruger #3 came with a tasco scope and as it is mounted I have to "crane" my neck forward to get a full field of view and the scope is as far back as the mounts will let it go, so...
I think it is called "eye relief", but I am not sure, but which brand or what specifications should I look for so that I don't have to stick my neck so far forward so get the total picture?
I was thinking a good 2-7X30 or 3-9X40 scope, with a price range for $150-$450.
Also, I have a #1 with no scope but would like suggestions for it as well. I imagine it will have the same "issues"-its a 257 roberts with a 26 inch barrel.
It's gonna cost you a few bucks to fix your problem and changing scopes won't do it. Contact Ruger and order a couple of sets of the extebnded rings. This will allow you to move the scope back where it should be. Considering that so many people have this problem with Ruger's scope rings, I often wonder why they don't just use that type ring as a matter of course. If your rings were new, I think they'd do an exchange, but I don't know how they'd handle it in your case. Wouldn't hurt to ask though. For your .257, I'd get a good 3x9 and go with that. That's what I have on mine. Paul B.
Posts: 2814 | Location: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: 11 May 2001
Picking a scope with the right spacing and configuration should help. For example, my Weaver and Lepold scopes fit in the ring spacing in such a way that the ocular lens is about 1 1/4" further forward than my Burris scope. That means the Burris is more comfortable to shoot, although I still wish I could get it further back (about 1/2" or so).
Extended rings are no good for me, because the objective lens bell is almost touching the quarter rib as it is, I can't move it any further back without going almost 1/2" higher. I really think the sight options of #1's are the weakest points of the gun, I wish one of these enterprising smith's out there would develop an option for us, haven't seen it yet.
Posts: 281 | Location: Utah | Registered: 24 April 2002
I agree that extension rings will help solve your problem, as will a scope with more eye relief than the Trashco! Whatever you do, get rid of that thing that's on it now before it costs you a nice trophy!! Get spec sheets from all the scope manufacurers you can, and check the eye relief ratings on the ones you're interested in. You can find this info on their web pages. I have found that the Leupold compacts have pretty long eye relief. For example, I just measured the eye relief on the Leupold Compact M8 4X fixed power I have on my No. 1 .45/70, and it is 4.5".
Like I posted before, my Leupold has more eye relief than my Burris, but because of the placement of the turrets and length of the tube, I can get the Burris a lot close to my eye. The Leopold is about 1 1/4 inches in front of where the Burris sits, and only has an extra 1/4 inch of eye relief. This means the Burris works better. Might want to try a few scopes to make sure. I tried the Zeiss Conquest, and it was the worst configuration of the entire lot, putting it about an inch ahead of the Leopold!
Posts: 281 | Location: Utah | Registered: 24 April 2002
In the "good old days", scope had a lot more eye relief it seems than they do now. I have a really old Weaver K-4, the type with the removable turrets and the crosshair that will not stay centered if I have to make a lot of adjustments. The front glass has opalized and the view id as dark as a coal mine at midnight now. But I put it in a set of Ruger standard rings and mounted it on a rifle. My wife measured the distance from the eyepiece to the front of my glases, and the result was 4.75". Sliding that scope back and forth, I could have gotten away with from 4" to a bit over 5". My question then is is this. Why in hell can't they make one like that today? I'm going to senfd that one to El Paso and see if they can repair or replace that front lens Paul B.
Posts: 2814 | Location: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: 11 May 2001
I've got a #1 with a Leupold VariX III (6.5x20) in 218 Bee. Eye relief can be a pain in the ass, but with this scope it's no problem for me. A scope with similar configuration should work for you. Or, just bite the bullet and buy a used one. You can't go wrong with a Leupold.
Posts: 8169 | Location: humboldt | Registered: 10 April 2002
Quote: In the "good old days", scope had a lot more eye relief it seems than they do now. I have a really old Weaver K-4, the type with the removable turrets and the crosshair that will not stay centered if I have to make a lot of adjustments. The front glass has opalized and the view id as dark as a coal mine at midnight now. But I put it in a set of Ruger standard rings and mounted it on a rifle. My wife measured the distance from the eyepiece to the front of my glases, and the result was 4.75". Sliding that scope back and forth, I could have gotten away with from 4" to a bit over 5".
My question then is is this. Why in hell can't they make one like that today?
I'm going to senfd that one to El Paso and see if they can repair or replace that front lens
Paul B.
In addition, old scopes often had more "unencumbered" tube length which permitted one to slide it back and forth more to obtain an optimum placement in relation to your eye. The more contraptions they build into them, the worse they get! Those with battery compartments as part of a greatly enlarged adjustment turret system, and those with those humongous, 5-pound Kraut ocular lens housings, are among the worst! Once again, it is likely your best solution lies with extended rings, rather than a different scope.
(Paul: They can, and do, still make a very few scopes similar to that K4 today. But since everyone seems to want a scope that varies between 1.5X and 100X, and has an astronomical observatory-size objective lens, it just isn't good business to make very many common-sense scopes these days!
