Ruger MKII scope rings

Factory Ruger rings work well. I think most major makers produce Ruger rings.

If they still make them, Warne rings are strong and excellent, as are Burris Zee rings.
 
Guess I should have rephrased it a bit. I'm sort of answering my own question but am still wondering what way to go. Ruger recommends a #3(low) and #4(med),then Leupold recommends low rings, when you click on the side bar. What's up with this?
 
Ohhhh gotcha.

I'd go low for sure with a 33mm objective. It should sit nice and low to the bore.

I've had some medium rings that still were a bit high with 40-44mm objectives. Low should work dandy.
 
Sea Buck, In the Ruger factory rings, you would need a #3 and a #4 (lows). You didn't say if the rifle was a long or short action. If it's short, you're good to go. If it is a long action you may run into a little trouble getting the scope mounted far enough back for a good ,comfortable cheek weld without crawling the stock somewhat as you need about 5 3/4 to 6 " of tube length. I was BARELY able to get a 2.5-8X36 to work on my MKII .308, while it would not on my 30-06. If I had insisted on using it on the MKII 30-06, I would have had to go to an aftermarket extended of some brand. Of course, depending on how you like your scope mounted, your mileage may vary.
John
 
The Ruger rings are numbered from 3 to 6. A 3 and a 4 are lows, a 4 and a 5 are meds. a 5 and a 6 are highs. It's pretty conveinent as you only have to buy one ring up or down to go to the next set. I have 2 40mm scopes mounted in the low set (3 and 4) so you wil have plenty of clearance with the 33mm obj.
John
 
You need a low ring on the front, medium on the rear. Really a good system once you understand how it works. If you ever buy a bigger scope and need more clearance you only have to buy 1 ring, a tall. You then place the tall ring on the rear and move the medium to the front. You can also buy extra tall and

Almost all bolt rifles have the rear receiver bridge lower than the front. With those rifles the extra thickness is in the bases which are going to be thicker on the rear so the scope sets level. On Rugers the dovetails for the rings are cut in the receiver. Thus the reason for a slightly taller ring on the rear.
 
OK. I placed a #3 ring forward and a #4 ring rear, placed my scope on it and there is a decidedly tilt to the scope forward. It is not level to the axis of the bore. This is just by eyeball, but it does not look right. I placed a #3 forward and a #3 rear and it looks level. I'm going with the low mounts forward and rear and see how that works out. I have a 13 in length of pull and a short scope...on a long stock this should be interesting! Lot's of neck cranking.. maybe going to a solid pad to remove the 1" recoil pad may help. Recoil is only when you are sighting in.
 
seabuck, something isn't right. I have noticed for years that in the Ruger rings, the scope does look ever so slightly canted down to the front. If the rings you have are actually 3s and 4s they Will work. Two 3s on a MKII will not. If the rings are numbered on the ring itself, as opposed to just on the packaging where a wrong size could be in the wrong container, a 3 and 4 WILL work. A #3 is 1/8th inch lower than a #4. Look at your receiver and you will readily see that the front and rear mounting locations are not level. Only if they were would a 3-3 setup work. Don't let your eyes fool you.
John
 
What caliber is your 77 chambered for?

IIRC, the rimfires, the .17 Hornet, the .22 Hornet, the .357 Mag and the .44 Mag are the only ones that use the same # rings front and rear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top