Need to increase the ring height a bit on my #1. Currently using a set of what I think are standard height (.307") 1" Ruger rings, & was considering a set of medium Ruger's.

I have noticed that Leupold makes rings for the #1, & am wondering if any forum members have had the opportunity to make a comparison.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

I have only used Ruger rings on mine, can't help there, but I did want to say "nice looking rifle" is it a 45/70?

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I have only used Ruger rings on mine, can't help there, but I did want to say "nice looking rifle" is it a 45/70?

Well thanks for the kind words. Bought her sight unseen from a gent in Atlanta. It is a 45-70, & although lacking in the Fancy Wood Dept., it'll put 'em all under 3/4" at 100 - w/ the right load. Details on request.

Basically, I'd like to move the scope back 1" for optimum off hand eye relief at 7X. The current rings will allow that, but I figure an extra 1/8" of height would help out w/ faster reloads in the field - w/ out screwing up the profile.

Biggest gripe w/ the Ruger rings, is the straight blade cap screws.

GCF
While your wood may not look "fancy" it does look good.
My 45/70 No1 also shoots like a "Sniper Rifle".
My No1 shoots great with 56 grains of IMR 3031 and 400 gr Speer, 350 Hornady Rn, Sierra or Remington 300 gr HP.
It is one of my favorite rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
....My No1 shoots great with 56 grains of IMR 3031 and 400 gr Speer, 350 Hornady Rn, Sierra or Remington 300 gr HP....

Interesting - the same powder charge under multiple bullet weights. I've noticed a lot of people report the same thing (standard powder charge / multiple bullets) w/ big bore revolvers, as well. Maybe I need to to go back to the bench, for some load re-evaluation....

When I was working up loads, mine seemed to do best w/ a 405 Cast Performance over 48.0 3031, & a 300 HrndyJHP over 53.0 3031. My current pussey cat / tons of fun plinker load, is a Rem 300JHP over 36.5 IMR 4198.

It's almost like there is no really "poor" load for these rifles.... ;=]

I have used some of the Burris rings on my 45/70 #1 in a medium height though highs are available. I think I posted pictures of it on a thread about the Nikon Omega scope.

The Omega is a good choice for the #1 because of the 5 inch constant eye relief.

Okay here is the thread with pictures. The Burris rings use Torx to hold themselves into place.
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=490104674#490104674

gcf
Those different bullets do not hit in the same place, there is a 9 inch difference between the 300 and the 400 gr bullets at 100 yards. The change is vertical. However all the bullets shoot very accurate with that load.

quote:

Originally posted by Esldude:
I have used some of the Burris rings on my 45/70 #1 in a medium height though highs are available....

The Omega is a good choice for the #1 because of the 5 inch constant eye relief.

Thanks for the info - nice rig! For the record, do I understand correctly that the rings pictured are medium height Burris?

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
....there is a 9 inch difference between the 300 and the 400 gr bullets at 100 yards.....

Figured as much.

Is that a compressed load? If not, got to be pretty close...

My 45/70 No1 has a little longer leade than guns currently made. I can seat out my bullets.
A friend bought a newer one adn we could not even seat the 350 Hornady RN to the cannalure.

Newer loading manuals reflect this with rteduced charges.
If I use a drop tube I can get 54 grains of IMR 3031 into a case and seat it and crimp in the cannalure for my brothers Marlin Guide gun.
That is a pain, so we reduced the charge to 53 grains, as we load quite a few of them.

gcf,

Yes, those are medium height rings. The original rings from Ruger with that rifle were low rings.

The Burris part number is 420107 on those rings.
http://www.burrisoptics.com/rings.html This page has info on them.

Heights on Ruger rings are bit different than others. Height in inches:

Low Med High
0.41 0.535 0.66

GCF: Take a look in the Brownells catalog. They sell replacement screws for the rings that are socket style.

quote:

Originally posted by LJS:
GCF: Take a look in the Brownells catalog. They sell replacement screws for the rings that are socket style.

Will do. Thanks for the heads up!

Are they from Ruger or a aftermarket provider?

I used Burris adapter bases and Burris Signature Zee rings on my 375 H&H. Works great!!

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
I have only used Ruger rings on mine, can't help there, but I did want to say "nice looking rifle" is it a 45/70?

I have used the Leupold rings on mine, also a .45/70. But I can't say that they are any higher than Ruger Mediums. I do believe Ruger makes a set of "HIGH" rings also, and perhaps these would be high enough.

The Ruger in .45/70 is an excellent candidate for a scope with LOOOOONG eye relief!!

Well gents, ordered up a set of medium height (didn't want to over do it) Ruger rings, & a 12 pack of allen head screws, P/N 080-574-464 (hope they work) from Brownells.

Input from all is appreciated. For the record, how many of you guys that use the Ruger rings, have found it necessary to lap 'em?

Thanks again!

Ruger medium rings & socket head screws arrived today from Brownells. Interestingly, it appears that Ruger is now supplying their rings w/ torx screws & wrench, ala Leupold. Works for me.

Guess my old standard height rings get treated to a new set of socket head cap screws. Who'd guessed it... ;=]

I'm using a set of Warne QD rings on a #1H .405 Winchester with a Tasco Titan 1.5-6x42mm. This is a 30mm tube scope and the bell easily clears the barrel/rib with just the medium rings.

Was so please with them I have bought two more sets for other rifles.

Bob

ps...you are not alone in the "eyerelief issue". Most of the people I know end up using the Ruger high extention rings so as to be able to move the ocular end of the scope back to where you don't have to crawl the stock to get a full field of view in the scope. I've found that Leupolds and #1s are not a great combination because the distance from the turret and the end of the ocular bell is too short for correct mounting on the #1.

That is why I tried the Tasco Titan. If you notice the scope is very long from the turret to the end of the ocular bell. That and the eye relief is very generous making it a good combination. You might also look at some of the Burris scopes as they have some models that are longer in the rear than the front.

Bob