Problems scoping a No. 1

[Razorbacker]

It's chambered in 7x57 Mauser. I chose a Weaver Classic in a fixed 4 power. I bough the rifle used and it came with factory rings. One of the rings is what I will call off set. I've switched positions of the rings. Still i can't get the scope mounted in a rearward enough position for proper eye relief. I'm reading elsewhere that I'll need a second off set ring. What say ye? I've tried switching positions of the rings but either way the eye relief ain't even close.
Is this something i should call Ruger about? This has got to be a common problem.
Thanks

 

[lefty315]

Weird, I have the same rifle with a Leupold 1-4x20 and used the regular rings. Granted its a straight tube off the front but it should still work.

 

[Guy Miner]

It is a common problem.

Little known fact: fixed power scopes usually have an inch or so LESS scope hanging off the ocular end, towards your eye... A variable power scope will have more back there, and will get closer to your eye.

This is real important on a Number One. Go with a variable. Even a low powered variable like Lefty's 1-4x or my 1.5-5x.

It will improve the situation. You might still have to become a bit of a "stock crawler" to use the Number One effectively with a scope

Guy

 

[Guy Miner]

Here's my Number One with the 1.5-5x shoved as far rearward as the rings allow:



Now imagine that scope as a fixed 2.5x (which I tried first, because I really like it) and the 2.5x has a full inch less overhang to the rear... Making the appropriate "eye relief" almost impossible to achieve.

Your "offset" rings will help. They're only avail in "medium" height as I recall.

But do yourself a favor and switch to a variable scope for the number one, with good, long eye-relief.

This is from a guy who dotes on fixed power scopes....

It's a great way to gain another inch of rearward position of that ocular lens.

Guy

 

[FOTIS]

Here is my #1 264 mag with offset ring in rear

 

[Razorbacker]

Here's my Number One with the 1.5-5x shoved as far rearward as the rings allow:



Now imagine that scope as a fixed 2.5x (which I tried first, because I really like it) and the 2.5x has a full inch less overhang to the rear... Making the appropriate "eye relief" almost impossible to achieve.

Your "offset" rings will help. They're only avail in "medium" height as I recall.

But do yourself a favor and switch to a variable scope for the number one, with good, long eye-relief.

This looks like ever other pic I've seen on the net, the ocular end hanging way back there.
I went out to the shop and looked at mine and it looks about like Fotis' set up which is way to short for me. I do have a 1.5x4.5 with no objective bell I could try. But I think I'm gonna call Ruger first. I can't say enough good things about the customer service I've experienced from them over the years.
I appreciate y'all's input and I'll let y'all know how it works out.

Oh and I almost forgot this thing looks like it's got a really long throat. And people are telling me this is common in the No. 1 so I should load 'em long.
Agree?

This is from a guy who dotes on fixed power scopes....

It's a great way to gain another inch of rearward position of that ocular lens.

Guy

 

[Razorbacker]

Well, I called Ruger and got the little gal you get when the tech guy is swamped. $45.00 later and an offset ring is on it's way. If that doesn't work then I reckon I got an extry for when the next poor slob comes on here with a similar problem.

 

[Guy Miner]

Yup. An offset rear ring is the only way left that I could move my scope farther to the rear.

Hope it works for you.

Guy

 

[Razorbacker]

Thanks Guy. I have to say as a real Ruger fan from way back this has been a real buzz kill due to what I consider a design flaw.

 

[Guy Miner]

Ah, I've had four of 'em over the years. The scope-position thing puzzled me at first, but once I realized that only some scopes work well on them, for me anyway, I was okay about it.

It is interesting. Casual observation of the Number One shows off the clean, classic lines, and the shooter has no idea that there may be some difficulty in using a scope mounted on that graceful quarter rib...

Then pop a scope on the rifle, bring it up to eye and ... What the heck? How do I crane my neck & head forward enough to use this thing? What's wrong?

The most common solutions are going to the offset rings and going to a variable power scope, to extend that ocular lens back towards the shooter.

I had to really wrap my head around that, as I usually am one of those guys trying to move my scopes farther forward, on a bolt action or lever action rifle.

I know you've got that great 4x picked out, but if you're still not quite happy with that, pop a variable on there. It makes a difference simply because of the configuration of the scopes.

Guy

 

[sask boy]

I sure hope that new rear ring clears up that problem. Number 1s have always interested me :mrgreen:!

 

[Guy Miner]

They're great rifles. Their configuration imposes somewhat different requirements on a scope & rings to get the proper relief, but the solution is readily avail:

Offset rings

And/or

scope with a longer ocular end

Either of those, or a combo of those, works great at getting the proper eye relief on a Number One.

Ruger was even swapping offset rings for free for a long time, if the standard rings hadn't been used. Don't know if they're still doing that.

Regards, Guy