Ruger rings or pic rail

[Encore4me]

Ordered a new Ruger Hawkeye and I see it comes with the pic rail and not the rings they use to come with. Is one better than the other? I think I want the rings, who makes good rings to fit the Ruger dovetail slots?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[huntsman22]

The rail is more versatile, but if you feel the need for rings, it's Warne, or bust......

 

[huntsman22]

A hawkeye predator w/rail in a guide stock...

 

[5811]

who makes good rings to fit the Ruger dovetail slots?

Nobody really, that's why the rail is better. I tried warne split rings and they were a disaster. Leupolds only have one screw per side on the caps which doesn't seem all that robust. Ruger factory rings are the lessor of the evils but the rail is king.

 

[Docholiday664]

I took the 20moa rail off of mine and used Ruger SS rings. When you take the rail off, there will be 4 open holes in the top of the reciever that you will probably want to plug.

 

[Encore4me]

The rail is more versatile, but if you feel the need for rings, it's Warne, or bust......

It’s not a need, I just think the rings look better. What height are yours?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Encore4me]

Nobody really, that's why the rail is better. I tried warne split rings and they were a disaster. Leupolds only have one screw per side on the caps which doesn't seem all that robust. Ruger factory rings are the lessor of the evils but the rail is king.

Disaster in what way?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TaperPin]

I love Ruger rings - simple, durable steel, never fails. However, they don’t repeat very well if the scope is taken off and replaced. I’ve never understood what about the design just doesn’t clamp down consistently, but they don’t even when carefully torqued the same. Maybe it’s the small surface area where all the clamping force is applied. Pic rails repeat better if you swap scopes often.

 

[sierracharlie338]

I actually prefer the Leupold rings that mount directly to the Ruger receiver. I had fitment issues with the Ruger rings scratching some of my scopes despite Ruger sending me a couple replacement sets.

 

[rickyw]

I hear Alaska arms LLC makes quick release ruger rings that are repeatable when taken off

 

[5811]

Disaster in what way?

I refreshed by M77 with a new Bartlein 7PRC barrel and a new Nightforce scope. My factory rings were 1" so I went on a journey to find new rings. I thought the Warne rings looked robust so I order some.

The scope goes in with the rings, and when I tightened everything to spec, I thought I was good. Multiple range visits and 60+ rounds of 7PRC later, I was beyond frustrated with how my rifle was shooting.

Of course I checked all the fasteners multiple times and everything was tight. I cant remember how I noticed, but I felt a little movement in the front of the scope, side to side. Just a bit. So I removed everything and check the rings without a scope and sure enough, the front one wasnt getting a bite before the clamp maxed. The rear one did, barely. I think when I initially mounted it that everything felt tight because the rear held but after some shooting, it loosened up.

When I reached out to Warne about it, they just kinda said, "yeah, some Rugers have that issue where the rings dont clamp. You can try our QD rings, they seem to clamp better."

So it was an expensive and time wasting mistake to even try them. The vertical split ring is such a bad design, but I didnt know better at the time.

So the rings, 60+ rounds of factory 7prc (when it was new and expensive) and maybe 10% of my new barrel later, I put a rail on and havent looked back.

Ill never buy Warne again, and split rings are just about the worst design ever made.

 

[Steve300xcw]

I like the leupolds .

 

[RockAndSage]

These guys have a pretty good reputation up in Alaska, which probably has the densest concentration of hard-use big-bore M77s/Hawkeyes of any state: https://alaskaarmsllc.com/collections/ruger-scope-rings/

Something I try to do with mounting any scope, is to minimize the number of interacting surfaces. The reason is that every surface will be slightly off-true and imperfectly mated, and the more of those you have, the more tolerance-stacking and distortion you have off of true. That causes your rings to be misaligned - the fewer of those interacting surfaces, the less the rings tend to be misaligned off true and centered.

Why this matters is that the more off-centered those rings are to each other, the more distortion you put into your scope tube - which causes everything from damaged tube walls to hot-spots that wear into the metal to zeroing problems to damaged internals, depending on how severe the misalignment is. You get around this by lapping the rings after they're all mounted up, before you put the scope in them. Lighter weight scopes tend to have thinner tube walls and can be more prone to these effects.

Picatinnys have their place, but if you can do a direct mount it will often be better. I do have both. If you end up going with a picatinny, best practices are to bed the rail to the receiver, properly degrease all the fasteners and the holes they go into, use threadlocker/paint/clear nail polish to secure them, and then lap the rings up to true their alignment. Far more people have problems with their scopes and accuracy, and the overall durability of their setup, than they realize by not doing these steps.