scope recommendation Ruger #1

[ellsworth]

My Ruger #1 in 45-70 will arrive this Wednesday.  Looking for a scope recommendation.  I would like to keep it under $250.00 and have heard very good things about Sightron.  I will be shooting at the range ( not hunting) and at ranges up to 300 yards and handloading.  Thanks for your input!!

[Cement Man]

I have a #1 in .45-70 and it wears a Sightron SII 4X32 compact.  It replaced a Leupold 2.5X20 compact scope.  Both of these scopes have very generous eye relief, but even so, required extension rings to optimize the view because there is only so much you can move a compact scope back and forth.  I had another #1 (RSI) that wore a 1.75X5X20 Burris Fullfield - also with extension rings and it worked out really nicely as well.

I like a petite scope on the smaller/shorter #1s, and a low/med power fixed scope is more than adequate for my uses with the .45-70 cartridge.  Bigger, longer scopes may give you more latitude on eye relief adjustment with the standard rings but I really think they offset the balance and beauty of a #1, unless it is a #1 varmint model or the like.

Both the Sightron and the Leupold have very good FOV, optics, and durability.  Both have excellent warantees.

added:  BTW there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Leupold, it's a great scope. I have two of the 2.5X20s.  I just like the Sightron 4X32 better and I do play "musical chairs" with scopes & guns.

[Silvertp]

In my eyes the Ruger #1 45/70 is at its best with a relatively low power variable or fixed power and low rings to keep the scope close to the bore.  The caliber is not what I consider a "long range" round so I don't feel a need for lots of magnification for centering small targets at long range.

A couple of things to consider.
-you need enough tube length that the rings will attach without interfering with the eye pieces.
- If you "load up" a #1 in 45/70 it can have pretty fair recoil, so you'll want plenty of eye relief.  I usually mount my scopes as far forward as possible while still getting a full view.
- The rear sight is pretty tall (although it folds) so make sure you've got clearance.

Ive got a Leupold V III in a 1.5 x 5 on my 45/70, however my selection was totally for hunting.  This scope meets all my criteria for eye relief, attachment and rear sight clearance, plus provides balance,  quick handling and quick target acquisition.   It has adequate magnification for cloverleaf type groups at 100 yds, and working up reloads, but is not adequate for precision 300 yard shooting.  In my mind this scope and rifle were made for each other.

That said, if you really want to reach the guns potential for grouping at 300 yards you would need more magnification.  With my "mature" peepers  I need closer to 15 power to really see and hold on target at that longer range.

[Cement Man]

I would agree with Silvertp - that Leupold VXIII 1.5X5X20 is a great choice as well.  The VXIII's are on sale now as they are clearing them out for an upgraded model, so it's a good buying opportunity.  It won't be under $250 though. 

[Fred M]

Here is my solution. Leo 1.5-5, Weaver bases, Burris Signature with plastic inserts. Plenty of lee-way, and perfect eye relieve. Ruger #3 with #1 wood cal 375Win. I also have a 25-06 #1 with the same system.

[Cement Man]

Ellsworth,
I did not read your post carefully enough and missed the point of shooting at the range as opposed to hunting.  I use mine for hunting - hence my choice of lower power scopes.  For 300 yard range work it would be a different story for sure.  I have 5 Sightron SII's - the 4X32, a 3X9X42, a 3X9AO rimfire scope, and two 6X42s.  I've had no problems, like them very much.  I assume your #1 has the Ruger integral mounts and rings?

[Gerry N.]

In 1968 my brand new bride gave me a brand new #1 in .308 Win. for our first Christmas together. I put a Bushnell Banner 4x32 scope wth a post and cross hair reticle on it and over the years that combination helped me harvest 27 deer.   A  few months ago I got to feeling guilty about a cheapo scope on that nice rifle so I sprung for a Weaver K4.   Definitely a step up.  Better, clearer image and much less distortion.  Another thing is the proportions of the scope balance better on the rifle and looks better.  I'll most likely leave this scope on it for the rest of my life.   By the way, I still have the same bride.  She's a keeper too.

Gerry N.

[drdougrx]

Great post...I have a #1 sporter in 45/70.  I find the receiver bridge kinda long and find that I couldn't get the proper eye relief with most scopes.  I did three things and I'm more than satisfied.  I put a limbsaver pad on the stock which made it a bit longer.  I bought a leupold scout scope 2.5x which requires 9" of eye releif.  I installed extension rings to get the eye relief.  I handles like a shot gun, I get a clear scope picture and I am very happy with it! (It's the gun in my avatar)

Good Luck!

[Hank08]

I have a Leupold 3X on my 45/70 but if someone was  going to just shoot it from a bench at longer ranges any good quality scope would be OK but to look good keep it small like a 2x7 Leupold would  look good.  I say good quality because I've had the crosshairs ripped out of a scope by a 45/70 and that was a Weaver 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 steel tubed scope.
H08

[offhand35]

I found that the eye relief for the vintage Burris 2 3/4x20 scope that I wanted to mount was too short to allow me to use the std rings that came with my No. 1 stainless in 405 Win.  Ruger did an even exchange with me for a set of the double offset rings.  I did not take the original rings out of the bubble pack.  Much better,  it still has the classic look [except for the stainless finish, but the price brand new was just right.....!] and it still leaves plenty of room so the scope does not bite my eyebrow during full house recoil! 
The low power scope is plenty for big game out to 200yds,  comes the eye very quickly, and just looks like it belongs on a No. 1!

[img width= height=]http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/p10100521.jpg[/img]