Ruger #1 .338 wm scope

[JJ Kelly]

I had a leupold vxIII 3.5x10x40mm on this gun using double offset
rings to bring the scope back far enough.  Bottom of objective was
just touching quarter rib, looking for a scope with either a smaller
objective but I still need it to have 2" of tube between turret and
objective.  What your choice in scope for Ruger #1 in .338 wm.

[Rangr44]

I had a plain old Leupold 2-7x33 VX-III in standard rings on mine for a few years before I sold the rifle, w/o issues.

JMO, but almost every case of scope/rifle issues lately seem to originate from one of two sources - Either a rifle's being "overscoped" (my term for too large a scope), or a compact scope (which have short tubes) is being used/tried.
Just sayin'.

.

[Darrell Davis]

Within the last few months, I had the scope chioce to make for a #1s in 45/70.

I wanted a lot of eye relief which the 2x7 Leupold provided.

I have it set back as far as the objective bell and quarter rib allow and with lower power setting have full view.

In the higher settings will will be limited to mostly bench testing, this is no issue.

Over the years, and with a nice number of #1 Ruger owned - wish I still had them all!!!!! - I have never needed anything other then the standard, as issued, RUGER rings.

Keep em coming!

CDOC

[mcwoodduck]

What about a Weaver 3-9X38.
I was a big Leupold fan till I started to play with the Weavers.
I can not tell a difference in the two scopes as far as clear. between my Leupold Var X II and the Weaver 9V.
Only the 9V costs about 80% of the leupold.  the smaller front bell will have you off the 1/4 rib.

[Rustyinfla]

  I looked long and hard before I put a Leupold on my #1. The problem with #1's in general is that unless you have the off set scope mounts from Ruger you need to have a scope with a lot of eye relief. Some times even that's not enough. I was able to use a 4X12 Leupold with the standard rings on mine.
  If you check the optics section of Cabelas catalog online they list eye relief for all the scopes they sell.

[Darrell Davis]

On #1s before my current 1s - 45/70, I had a 4x12 Redfield on a 7mm mag  with standard RUGER rings.  Then another in 300win. mag had a Leupold 3.5x10 again with the standard rings.

All worked well in that configeration.

Only one - think it was a .223 - which ever gave problems was a fixed power Weaver 10x which just didn't allow for close in targets to be seen clearly.

Replaced that Weaver with a Leupold fixed power, again in the 10x range and no problem with eather scope position or being able to see both near and far targets very clearly.  This was back 30 + or so years ago.

My son still has the 300 with the 3.5x10 and is able to use all powers with full field of view.

Keep em coming!

CDOC
 

[JJ Kelly]

Thanks for your input.
I was thinking of a Leupold VXII in 2x7x33,
in the offset rings I give up 1/4" compared
to the VXII 3x9x40; either one works but I
do need those offset rings to get the scope back.

[drdougrx]

Used off set rings on my #1s.  I bought 2 sets of leupi offset rings and used the offset ring in each set to increase my options for eye relief.  I have a Leupi scout scope on my 45/70 and will mount a 2x7 on the #1 in 35 whalen when I get it (soon I hope).

[fatercat]

JJ KELLY, i have the same problem.  simple fix-- have a good smith cut the stock to fit you. then get the scope of your choice. regards, richard

[coop2564]

I'm using a Nikon Omega 3x9 40mm on my 30-06 standard rings work with its 5" eye relief.