long eye relief scope for Ruger #1

dewiseman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
101
Location
Olympia Washington
I picked up a ruger #1, put on an older Leupold VX111 but i'm not getting enough eye relief. I have been looking for a scope with eye relief greater than 4in. Only thing I have found so far that seems to work is the Leupold VX7. Anybody have other suggestions for longer eye relief? Thanks
 
That's a tall order for any scope you'd want to use at long range. Have you considered a Moulds base to reposition the scope farther back?
 
What is the chambering of your Ruger? Do you really need more eye relif or just have the scope set further from your eye? A different base could be a solution as Jon A suggested. How does the rifle fit you otherwise? For large people increasing the length of pull can be a solution. Adding a spacer behind the existing recoil pad or a thicker but stiffer pad may do the job. Another solution is to add a muzzle brake if you don't have one. That can greaty reduce the eye relief requirement. How effective it is depends on the cartirdge, barrel length, and rifle weight.

There is a downside to using a longer eye relief scope than necessary for hunting. Increasing the eye relief will reduce the field of view unless the diameter of the eypiece is increased in the same proportion. THe weight of the lenses in a scope goes up the cube of their diameter, so that's not desirable. The area of field you see for for a given magnification and eyepiece dimaeter must decrease by inverse square of the eye relief. On a scope that is already high magnificatiion chosing a longer eye relief can seriously increase the time it takes to acquire the target. You have to decide if that's a problem for the terrain and kind of game you hunt. Scout scopes or pistol scopes are available with eye relief from 6 to 24", but at more than about 4X magnification the field is so small that target acquision becomes rediculous.

Leupold scopes have long eye relief compared to many other manufacurers and it's enough for most shooters and most practical hunting rifles. Leupold scopes don't give "picture window" views. Leupold is smart enough to know that their rifle scopes are rifle scopes and not spotting scopes. Recoil wil be painful on just about any rifle if 4" of eye relief isn't enough. It could be you aren't adequately controlling the recoil with your hold, or allowing your body and head to move with the recoil. I have several rifles which recoil more than four inches, particularly a 26 lb 50 BMG carbine, but my body and head roll back with the rifle and 4" eye relief is plenty.
 
I actually need the scope set closer to my eye. The scope mounts foreward onto the barrel with these guns. With most of the scopes i've tried I have to move my head forward on the gun to get a good sight picture, and I wasn't aware of a way to mount the scope further back. What is the Mould mount that you mentioned? Is it a type of rail? Thanks guys for your help. I am planning on rebarreling to 280AI so that might give me some other options. What would you suggest. The current barrel has a raised rib to mount to, similar to the rib on a shotgun. I can leave that off on the new barrel. (switch to some kind of non-ruger mount, but it still will sit on the barrel ) { just found a picture of the moulds base, that looks like that would work }
 
Last edited:
Here: BROWNELLS : MOULDS : RUGER® #1 SCOPE BASES - World's Largest Supplier of Firearm Accessories, Gun Parts and Gunsmithing Tools

Here's a before/after on my Dad's 338 RUM:

RugerNo1MouldsBase.JPG


As you can see, with a higher set of rings he could move the scope back another 2" easily if needed.
 
I know this is an old post. But I happened across it.

Nikon Omega on Ruger #1 - 24hourcampfire

This links shows pictures of a Nikon Omega 3-9x on a #1. This is an excellent scope for the #1. It has 5 inches of eye relief. That eye relief is constant at 5 inches from 3x to 9x. That gives plenty of room on larger calibers, and also works with the rather forward position scopes have mounted to the #1.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top