Ruger rings

[CheeseBurger]

I just got a Ruger Hawkeye MkII and it came with a scope mounted but the rings are insanely high, I have at least 1/8-3/16 inch clearance between the objective and the barrel. What are the lowest rings I can use with a 40mm objective? With the rings I'm currently using I can't get a proper cheek-weld and as a result I'm getting 5 inch groups.

[32-40win]

Here is the quickest way to tell;

http://www.brownells.com/optics-moun...prod24396.aspx

[catnthehat]

I m assuming that the no1 rings will fit the bolt actions?
Cat

[CheeseBurger]

Looking at that link, these may be Leupold rings. I really don't care either way. Here is a pic to show what I'm dealing with.

[32-40win]

Chart in that link gives you the ring height measurement for low, med & high, check what you have against that. Then you have to figure out what you can get away with, or not, with the next lowest ring. Those may be high ones by the look of them.

[Pathfinder76]

Those are high somethings. Get lows. Leupold lows is what I would be buying.

[CheeseBurger]

Correction - it is not a Hawkeye, just a Mk.II

[CheeseBurger]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

I m assuming that the no1 rings will fit the bolt actions?
Cat

Cat - You and I figured this out in PM's but I thought I would post this in case someone else is looking for answers down the road.

It seems that the rings will fit in that they are the same style but on the bolt actions the front and rear rings are different heights whereas the #1's rings are both the same height.

[sillyak]

You should be able to use Ruger lows, but I have no cheek weld issues with mediums. I have a Mk II, a Hawkeye and a No. 1 and I love the Ruger brand rings.

[TUFFBUFF]

They come stock with 3/4# rings, you could try a 2/3 combo for lows to see if your having a cheek weld problem. Those on there now are leupold, I would guess med as the highs are really high. Med rings on the Rugers have a fair bit of clearance generally.