Now that I found a Ruger No. 3, does anyone here know if the Weaver bases for it (#85 and #86) require any gunsmithing. I read the Weaver catalog and it has a note that "fitting and/or drilling and tapping may be needed".
The particular No. 3 I own is a late model (1984) and has two sets of two holes each on the top centerline of the barrel. Two are about an inch apart just ahead of the receiver and two are just behind the open sight.
Posts: 212 | Location: Omaha, NE | Registered: 22 August 2003
I have a #3 in 45-70 and the eaver bases were a straight screw on. They have held up well for 30 yrs under some punishing loads. Seems I duplicated the heavy loads John Wooters used in a #1 for an Africa hunt. I'm not sure which end of it is worse to be on.
Posts: 730 | Location: New Mexico USA | Registered: 02 July 2004
MADISON. I find that very strange, I had a set of Weaver rings and bases on a light weight 300Wby MV for 25 years used up two barrels these ring never moved or slid. You should use a 2 part epoxy in the bottom part of the rings. I have used many Weaver rings on all sorts of rifles non has ever given any trouble. I always lap the bottom halves. Fred M.
Posts: 465 | Location: Canada | Registered: 25 December 2002
Quote: I can not tell you about the bases but......
I had a Ruger #3 in 45.70. I put a set of Weaver Rings on a scope. Even with Loc-Tite, The rings could not be tightened enough to keep the scope in place on the 45-70.
I would be curious to know what the scope was. On my Ruger No. 1 in .45/70, try as I might, only Leupold scopes would survive shooting full-charge loads in that bear! (REcoil energy = 55 ft/lb.) The scopes did not move, but the scopes' innards did!!
I have heard a lot of complaints about Weaver rings not holding scopes well. In all such instances I have personally investigated, what was happening was that the rings were collapsing a weak (read "thin") aluminum scope tube. The rings were not the culprit, the scope WAS! I'd bet that you could mount a steel-tube Weaver in Weaver mounts, and the rings would hold them. The problem with the sateel-tube Weavers was that the mount would hold the steel tube OK, but things would happen inside the scope that messed up the reticle or adustment mechanism.
However, there are a LOT of copies of Weaver bases and Weaver rings out there, and some of them are definitely substandard. The design is not at fault, but the execution is.
I'm not sure which end of it is worse to be on. 
