Conventional scope on Ruger Scout

[scaatylobo]

PLEASE do not tell me to use another rifle [ I might get another in the future ] but I ask anyone who has put a conventional scope [ NOT LIR,as I have that set up ] on a Ruger Scout rifle = PLEASE tell me what you used and how you arrived at that model / power.

I am thinking about a 1.5 - 6 [ or more ] power scope,to be used for deer and hog.

I am enamored of the lower power to use for CLOSE shots,and desire the higher for 100 + yard shots.

Thank any for their input on my ASKED for subject.

 

[Revoliver]

Are you asking what conventional (non scout) scope people are using/have used, how to mount a conventional scope on the Ruger GSR or both?

If either of the latter two:

XS sights makes a full rail attachment for the GSR to mount whatever kind of optics you want.
http://www.xssights.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=993608&CAT=8286

Shop around for a better price though

 

[Art Eatman]

I learned by accident that 3X was plenty good for a one-shot kill on a buck at 350 yards.

I have a variable 2-7 on my .243; works good up close, and quite well for prairie dogs at 300.

All in all it's uncommon to need to shoot beyond 200 yards. IMO, a 1.5-6 is probably as good as anything.

 

[back40]

I had the XS full rail and a 1-4x mounted conventionally. It worked well for me. A friend has a 2-7x on his and it seems that would be the largest I'd go if you like the low end for quick/close shots.

 

[jmr40]

You are on the right track.

A low powered scope mounted conventionally works worlds better than the forward mounted scopes. I like a 1-4X20 scope for this use. On 1X it is much faster to use than irons or dot sights. And 4X is more than enough magnification for shots out to at least 300 yards on deer or other big game. Having the glass is a huge advantage over irons or dots in low light too.

Most people misunderstand the purpose of forward mounted scopes. Even Cooper understood they gave up a lot, but he preferred them only to make it possible to reload using stripper clips. Or as the best option for top ejecting lever actions. If you are not doing either of those there is no reason to handicap yourself with a forward mounted scope.

A conventional 3-9x scope is a better choice for longish shots and a 2-7X is a good compromise. I used to think 2X was low enough, but after using some that go down to 1X the difference is amazing. I wouldn't even use a 1.5X on the low end anymore for close, fast shooting.

 

[LemmyCaution]

If you're going mount the scope with something other than QD rings, the best option is to remove the factory rear sight and use standard Ruger rings on the receiver, like any other M77 model.

If you want the irons for backup, go with the XS rail, as mentioned above, and use low QD Picatinny rings. Make sure you find an optic that will clear the rear sight properly and still give a decent eye relief and an acceptable cheek weld.

 

[scaatylobo]

Thank y'all

I was VERY interested in the replys,and I was looking at what power scope to mount .

I know the Ruger came with rings.

I went to the Buffalo Gun Ctr [ largest and close to home ] and a Nikon Monarch
2.5 - 10 X 50 followed me home = not cheap but it has the BDC reticle that I seem to like.

I doubt that I will use the 10 X,but since I am a bit older,its possible that a LONG shot would entail that power.

Not mounted it yet [ gotta find the rings ] but looking forward to this.

 

[BCRider]

Just this past weekend I used a 2-7 power on my rimfire rifle in a Speed Steel match where quick close in shooting with reasonable accuracy is needed. I'm found the 2x setting was a little high but with a little more practice I don't think it would be a big disadvantage.

Keeping both eyes open for the initial first shot sight picture acquisition seemed to help as well. From there I found that movement between targets was confusing so I quickly learned to stay two eyes open for the first sight picture then close my left for the rest of the string.

So your idea for a 1.5-6 seems like the right direction. On the other hand a 1-4x at 1x for the close in stuff would let you keep both eyes open more naturally. Which is usually the big advantage of red dot sighting systems.

I've got a bit of astigmatism in my right eye. So red dots and the distant target look fuzzy to me unless I'm wearing my long distance prescription glasses. The main benefit of a 1-4x scope is that even at the 1x setting the focus is "adjusted" and the image is sharper for me. This could be a benefit in your case as well.

I've also found from some shooting of 6 inch targets at 200yards with my zoom set to 4x that it is actually enough. It's not the solution for a bench rest competition but it was easy to sight in on the 6 inch target. And if the rifle and shooter is capable it shouldn't be tough to hold a 3 inch or better group at that range from the 4x view. Which strikes me as fine for hunting at anything out to that sort of distance.

Of course some of this is dependent on the sight graticule. A lighted and bold graticule is best for close in reaction shots. But a finer line setup with little or no illumination to avoid glare is better for the fine work at longer distance.

So all in all I'm thinking that it might be best to go with a 1-4x and from there shop for a model with an illuminated graticule but which has a fine enough line structure that when turned well down or even off is fine enough to easily put the cross hairs on a smaller target at 200.

 

[back40]

seems you went a different direction with the 2.5-10x. let us know how it mounts up with the 50mm objective and how you like that power range. i found that even with my 1-4x i still wanted a stock pad for good cheek weld.

 

[hardluk1]

I have a 1.5-6 30mm tube on my AR and a 2.5-10 on a 308 bolt rifle. I like the 2.5-10 fair better Just a longer scope. With good optics a 40mm objective is more than you need to watch game while waiting for legal light. good luck with your monarch but you will be extra high rings.

 

[Revoliver]

As Hardluk1 pointed out, you're going to have to buy taller ruger rings for that 50mm Monarch objectve. Ruger supplies the medium 1" height ones standard with rifles that clears up to 44mm objectives if memory serves.

 

[FSJeeper]

I bought the Gunsite Scout rifle with the intent of mounting a traditional scope on it.

After trying the XS rail and trying a number of combinations, I have settled on the Swarvorski Z6 1 x 6 x 24 Illuminated with conventional scope mount.

This is the best low powered scope I could find and it is a dream at low power with incredible field of view as well as on 6 power which is the most magnification I will ever need with this rifle.

 

[ATCDoktor]

I shoot my Ruger GSR conventionally scoped with a Weaver 3X10X40 Tactical MilDot scope.



On the range I have it run up to 10x for target shooting and while hunting it never exceeds 6x.

It has finger adjustable turrets, its repeatability of adjustment never waivers and for a 300 dollar non side focus scope from Midway I can't complain really.

 

[scaatylobo]

According to the counter man [ whom I have known for a few decades ] at the gun shop,we looked at the GSR with the scope I purchased and it 'looked' gtg.

But I wont know until I take off the LIR and the base,then I will know if there is a problem.

Thanks for the heads up,I do have a cheekpiece/ammo storage pouch on the stock.

that does raise my cheek up a bit,and provides a nice soft cheek piece to take recoil too.

 

[Captains1911]

3-9x50 on mine, using the factory Ruger rings. If I had to do it over I would likely go with a smaller objective and maybe something around 2-7x.

 

[scaatylobo]

Smaller scope ?

You stated that you would go lower power if done again.

Might I inquire why,as I have not started mounting my scope and still have the option of switching.

I can see a use for the 10 X,but not too often.

But your scope shows clearing the barrel,so I have hopes that mine will also.

 

[Captains1911]

You stated that you would go lower power if done again.

Might I inquire why,as I have not started mounting my scope and still have the option of switching.

I can see a use for the 10 X,but not too often.

But your scope shows clearing the barrel,so I have hopes that mine will also.

I just feel like it's more scope for the rifle than I need, I rarely shoot past 300 yards, and usually much closer, and I would like to cut down on the weight some. Although just a minor consideration, I also like to use Butler Creek scope caps and I don't have enough clearance between the large objective and the barrel for one to fit.

As you can see the objective just barely clears the barrel, of course I had to remove the factory forward rail, but I am using the standard rings supplied with the rifle. The scope is a Leupold VX-I 3-9x50, in case you want to check the specs for reference. I am a big fan of the factory rings, they are as solid as it gets IMO, the only downside is you have to remove the rear iron sight.

ETA: Because of this thread I think I'm going to take the scope off tonight and put it up for sale.