Eye relief - is there a cost trade off to manufacturers?

[geoff rath]

Agreed; seeing a Dakota Model 10 here in Oz is like finding an elephant at the North Pole. Being of limited means, I stick with Wiliam B's lovely design.

 

[SFRanger7GP]

The wife and I share a rifle at time. I have a Leupold scope on that rifle because of the greater range of eye relief that are in Leupold scopes. This allows us to use the same rifle despite our size differences.

I have used the Leupold scout scope on a Savage Scout rifle in .308, an M14 and a Marlin 45-70. It provides very fast target acquisition and an unrestricted access to the chambers on the M14 and a bolt gun.

Safe shooting

 

[WAB]

For Kevin and I, with our beloved Ruger No1s, there are several aftermarket manufacturers producing ribs/rails that extend back over the action, I have one on a rifle already, and ordered another for the Heavy-barreled 17FB that's being finished. Perhaps an ideal Rockchuck or Squirrel walkabout rifle?

If 6x will meet your needs (hard to imagine needing more on PG inside 400), the Swarovski Z6 EE 1-6x24 solves all of the mounting issues with the No1. I personally do not like the rails or offset rings. To me they detract from the appearance of the rifle. Here is a pic of my No1 in .275 with the Z6 EE.

The other thing to consider is the trigger. This rifle has a Jard trigger set to 2.5#. It is a huge improvement on the factory trigger.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I've built a lot of Ruger #1 customs and indeed you're correct, there are aftermarket rings and mounts to solve the eye relief problem. Although if you need a longer length of pull, the problem comes right back into the forefront. For an out of the box Ruger #1, I say go for it, make it work.

My conclusion on custom single shots is there is a better way forward today. If you want an excellent single shot, better than a #1, for less or equal money than a custom #1, get a Dakota Model 10. They use Talley QD rings, have higher grade of wood, better barrels, etc. Good ones start at under $4000 on the used market and go up to $35,000.

So that's the measure I use. If your budget is <$2000, make it work with a Ruger. If your budget is slightly higher, get a Dakota 10 to avoid the optic pitfalls, putting the money into better fit/finish/barrel/accuracy.

Now you guys are going to string me up, but I prefer the lines of the Ruger No1 to the Dakota Model 10. Now I grant you, it is a beautiful rifle, but it just doesn't have the classic pedigree of the No1.

 

[Laniarius]

Thanks for the insights, everyone. Indeed, it seems that what were once dangerous game scopes have now evolved into low power variable optics (LPVOs) for modern sporting rifles. As rookhawk said, those rifles have practically no recoil and don't need long eye relief (but some of them have a good 4" anyway). They would do the job, but I prefer older styles over the new "tactical LPVOs".

I have a solution that works for my Model 70 Safari in 375 H&H, using a front offset base and Warne QD rings, with scopes as discussed in another post (https://www.africahunting.com/threads/leupold-vx-freedom-will-it-hold-up.60346/post-1048914).

Another way of phrasing my initial question is, why the hell doesn't the Swaro Z3 3-9x36 have 4" or greater eye relief? Would they have to charge more and they don't want to be out competed in that category, or does the market for that kind of scope want 3.75" for some reason? Like others said, why did Swaro drop the EE scopes?

 

[rookhawk]

Now you guys are going to string me up, but I prefer the lines of the Ruger No1 to the Dakota Model 10. Now I grant you, it is a beautiful rifle, but it just doesn't have the classic pedigree of the No1.

Stringing you up we shall! The lines of the #1 are quite good. If you want GREAT lines you really need a Gibbs Farquarson or a WR patent single shot. Just lovely, and Bill Ruger tried to copy them. What I will tell you is that the #1 is a bit rough in that its overbuilt for big cartridges, and the investment casting is somewhat crude. (what do you expect for $1500?)

If you handled a #10 in person @Kevin Peacocke you would definitely see the measurable difference and you would conclude its a superior small bore action. Very dimunitive for use as a .223, or 275 Rigby, or other such caliber. A #10 is not a pleasant gun as a 300HH or 375HH and I wouldn't recommend it for those purposes.

Base model #1 = $1500 MSRP, Base Model #10 = $6000 MSRP. The quality difference is precisely the price difference.

*Note: I'm a Ruger #1 lover, please don't take my assessment to mean disparagement, I like them a great deal.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Stringing you up we shall! The lines of the #1 are quite good. If you want GREAT lines you really need a Gibbs Farquarson or a WR patent single shot. Just lovely, and Bill Ruger tried to copy them. What I will tell you is that the #1 is a bit rough in that its overbuilt for big cartridges, and the investment casting is somewhat crude. (what do you expect for $1500?)

If you handled a #10 in person @Kevin Peacocke you would definitely see the measurable difference and you would conclude its a superior small bore action. Very dimunitive for use as a .223, or 275 Rigby, or other such caliber. A #10 is not a pleasant gun as a 300HH or 375HH and I wouldn't recommend it for those purposes.

Base model #1 = $1500 MSRP, Base Model #10 = $6000 MSRP. The quality difference is precisely the price difference.

*Note: I'm a Ruger #1 lover, please don't take my assessment to mean disparagement, I like them a great deal.

Well I suppose there is only one thing for it Rook, and that is to handle one of those number 10's next year.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Seems some of you have not discovered extended rings? Put just one extended ring in the setup and there is almost no limit to eye relief possibilities.

I don't care for the looks of rails or sem-rails (i.e. one-piece base), but they work. Pretty much eliminates the need for lapping the rings or shimming bases to get things lined up. My rifles have rails because, as far as I've been able to determine, no one makes extended quick detach rings and I want the option to switch to iron sights as need arises.

 

[Laniarius]

Seems some of you have not discovered extended rings? Put just one extended ring in the setup and there is almost no limit to eye relief possibilities.

I don't care for the looks of rails or sem-rails (i.e. one-piece base), but they work. Pretty much eliminates the need for lapping the rings or shimming bases to get things lined up. My rifles have rails because, as far as I've been able to determine, no one makes extended quick detach rings and I want the option to switch to iron sights as need arises.

I have an extended front base on my Model 70 .375. Previously I used Talley one-piece extended rings (for sale if anyone is interested), but I wanted quick detach for this rifle. I am not aware of any QD extended rings. As far as I know, for QD, one just needs extended bases or a rail. I would prefer not to have a rail over the action of my .375, but I agree it's the best option for mounting flexibility.

I should clarify what I'm referring to in my kvetching about eye relief. Getting the eye piece of a scope to the right position with a good mount and cheek weld is one thing. It's another thing to have adequate distance between the eye and the eye piece for a heavier recoiling rifle. I'm sure you're aware of this distinction. I'm just clarifying what I'm talking about. To mitigate the chance of getting scoped, I think the generally accepted guideline is that more than 4" is best. Just under 4" is just barely adequate and that's what I have.

I know someone who was a big fan of Bushnell Elites and he had them on his .375 Ruger and .416 Ruger. Those scopes in 3-9x have a published eye relief of 3.3". My friend was fine with them and I was okay shooting them, but I saw a less experienced shooter get scoped. I'm sure it could easily happen to me in the field as well, e.g., shooting up hill.

 

[Dirtdart]

There are diminishing returns with eye relief. You pay for eye relief with loss in field of view with magnification.

 

[Laniarius]

There are diminishing returns with eye relief. You pay for eye relief with loss in field of view with magnification.

Thanks, interesting. Maybe that's part of why not many scopes are offered in the 4-5" range these days.

 

[ZG47]

Their reputation for accuracy was somewhat iffy...

Din Collings RIP advised me that one (1) out of every five (5) No. 5 Carbines that came through his shop had the flash hider mounted crooked. Then consider the Canadian military assertion that the lightening cuts were in the wrong place, thereby recreating the unequal lug support which caused so many accuracy issues in the Boer / South African war. This is why the Canadians made their own version with different lightening cuts.
The issue can be mitigated by careful fibreglass bedding and also use of lighter bullets designed for the 7.62x39. Keeping game shots under 75 metres is another option.

 

[Red Leg]

Or, you can purchase a Blaser R8. The barrel mount and short action (trigger guard/magazine is below not behind) makes mounting modern shorter 30mm scope bodies much easier. After all, the rifle was created with such scopes in mind. They also are easy to configure for a low mounted scope and the stock and open sight configuration (a bit higher than traditional) means that both line up surprisingly instinctively for a compromise tilted toward scope use. Lastly, for me at least, my 90mm (3.5") relief Leica scopes that ride on most of my R8 barrels work perfectly due to the ergonomics of the rifle regardless of caliber and recoil.

 

[Red Leg]

Din Collings RIP advised me that one (1) out of every five (5) No. 5 Carbines that came through his shop had the flash hider mounted crooked. Then consider the Canadian military assertion that the lightening cuts were in the wrong place, thereby recreating the unequal lug support which caused so many accuracy issues in the Boer / South African war. This is why the Canadians made their own version with different lightening cuts.
The issue can be mitigated by careful fibreglass bedding and also use of lighter bullets designed for the 7.62x39. Keeping game shots under 75 metres is another option.

And five out of five kick like an angry mule with an attitude. Whatever rifle ever developed has a "pad" designed to concentrate recoil force!?!

 

[WAB]

Seems some of you have not discovered extended rings? Put just one extended ring in the setup and there is almost no limit to eye relief possibilities.

I don't care for the looks of rails or sem-rails (i.e. one-piece base), but they work. Pretty much eliminates the need for lapping the rings or shimming bases to get things lined up. My rifles have rails because, as far as I've been able to determine, no one makes extended quick detach rings and I want the option to switch to iron sights as need arises.

Very familiar with them and don’t care for the appearance. Plus, like you, I want QD’s. The system I’ve provided a photo of above is the best solution I’ve seen on a No1. Those are Warne QDs on that rifle.

 

[rookhawk]

Very familiar with them and don’t care for the appearance. Plus, like you, I want QD’s. The system I’ve provided a photo of above is the best solution I’ve seen on a No1. Those are Warne QDs on that rifle.

Warnes were what I used on custom #1 rifles. I'm told Rifles of Alaska or Alaska Arms makes a QD offset ring for the #1 that gets you QD and another 1/2" of eye relief by sweeping the scope further back. You still need a Z6 EE scope unless you're a pygmy though.

Whenever I built custom #1s I'd use standard offset 30mm rings, building levers if necessary, and we'd use low or medium height and an EE scope. That was the best we could do. Offset rings and a greater than 36mm scope and the problem was the exit objective would hit the barrel or rear iron sight long before you'd get the scope back far enough to work with the user's eye relief.

Dakota model 10s never had these issues, even with a 15" LOP rather than a 13.5".

 

[Laniarius]

I think if I ever get a No. 1 I'll try putting a scout scope just in front of the falling block. The eye relief of some models should work out. The scope wouldn't need to be really far forward per Jeff Cooper, just with the eye piece a bit forward of the falling block. This would have the advantage keeping the falling block clear of the scope. I guess the devil would be in the details of how it would look given available mounting options. It looks like this has been discussed a bit on other more general gun forums.

 

[rookhawk]

I think if I ever get a No. 1 I'll try putting a scout scope just in front of the falling block. The eye relief of some models should work out. The scope wouldn't need to be really far forward per Jeff Cooper, just with the eye piece a bit forward of the falling block. This would have the advantage keeping the falling block clear of the scope. I guess the devil would be in the details of how it would look given available mounting options. It looks like this has been discussed a bit on other more general gun forums.

That may not work because the focal objective won't be able to go forward enough as it would bump into the rear ring.

Ruger #1 rifles are very difficult to scope.

A Z6 1-6x24 EE works great, but you're looking at a ~$3000ish scope or $4500ish illuminated. They haven't been made in years so you're searching quite a bit for them.

***Disclaimer: I have one for sale in the classifieds at present, so you can dismiss my comment as self-serving.

 

[Laniarius]

That may not work because the focal objective won't be able to go forward enough as it would bump into the rear ring.

Ruger #1 rifles are very difficult to scope.

A Z6 1-6x24 EE works great, but you're looking at a ~$3000ish scope or $4500ish illuminated. They haven't been made in years so you're searching quite a bit for them.

***Disclaimer: I have one for sale in the classifieds at present, so you can dismiss my comment as self-serving.

The gold standard scope and that's quite a reasonable self-serving suggestion.

 

[WAB]

That may not work because the focal objective won't be able to go forward enough as it would bump into the rear ring.

Ruger #1 rifles are very difficult to scope.

A Z6 1-6x24 EE works great, but you're looking at a ~$3000ish scope or $4500ish illuminated. They haven't been made in years so you're searching quite a bit for them.

***Disclaimer: I have one for sale in the classifieds at present, so you can dismiss my comment as self-serving.

I can’t believe no-one has snapped that scope up. IMO, it is likely the best DG scope ever made, and truly the single best solution on a No1 if 6x is sufficient to your application.