Ruger No. 1 question, re extension rings

[mannyrock]

Dear Guys,
 
  I have been looking at these rifles in the 1A configuration, and reading that people routinely have problems mounting a scope because of insufficient eye relief, using the rings that are supplied.  I have also heard that Ruger makes extension rings for the rifle, and will swap them out with you if you haven't opened the package with the standard rings.
 
  Here is my question.  If the standard rings are a recognized routine problem with the rifle, then why doesn't Ruger just supply extension rings with every rifle instead of the standard ones?  Or, why doesn't everybody just automatically switch to the extenion rings?
 
   Is there some problem or disadvantage to using the Ruger extension rings, that forces people to look for other solutions (like a different scope)?
 
Thanks, Mannyrock

[PowPow]

They will swap unused rings, graciously.
I have not needed extensions.
FWIW, I am using Ruger low rings (2B) on my RSI with a 33mm bell, which has a similar top to a 1A.

[Frank46]

The ruger extension rings will only allow you about 5/8" of extra rearward mounting. Brownells I think sells a picatinny rail mounting system that allows you even more rearward movement. I put a conetrol base set and horizontal split ring system on my #1 and unfortunately its too high. Cannot get a good cheek weld as I think the ruger stock is really designed for iron sights. So I'm taking a second look at the picatinny rail system and burris z rings with the inserts. You do have to remove the quarter rib to install the picatinny and conetrol systems. Frank

[fatercat]

cut the stock. problem solved

[Wayne123]

  Here is my question.  If the standard rings are a recognized routine problem with the rifle, then why doesn't Ruger just supply extension rings with every rifle instead of the standard ones?  Or, why doesn't everybody just automatically switch to the extenion rings?
 

Because not all shooters and scopes are designed the same.  I have a 1B with a 40mm Conquest that is fine with the standard rings.  I have a buddy that has a 1B with a 50mm Leupy that needs extension rings.

[Flynmoose]

I had to go with the extension rings on my 1V. The 1B and 1S are OK with the scopes I put on them.
FM

[Dalgo]

I, too, have a 1-B with a Conquest 3-9X40 on the standard rings. Doesn't need the extension rings. Another scope on it might. If you have any doubts, switch the rings. The extended rings don't extend so far back as to create a problem with a scope that has more eye relief. If you go with the shorter eye relief Leupies or Swaros (both scopes in the same magnification range) then you more than likely will need the extended rings. Those scopes are lighter than the conquest, and a bit more compact - a bonus on the 1-A and RSI.

[Tom W.]

My 1B's have the extention rings, The 30/06 A.I. has the double extended rings, while the 7mm Rem Mag has the single extension. Both have Leupold scopes, but the 7mm is a variable, while the A.I. is a fixed 6x.
The standard rings just weren't satisfactory.

[drdougrx]

Bought 2 sets of Leupold ext rings for the #1.  Used the extension ring from each set. The #1 and 10/22, 77/22 use front and rear rings that are the same height.

[Frank46]

I just checked the brownells site. They do sell a picatinny setup for the #1, unfortunately they are out of stock. Frank