Ruger (M77 Hawkeye) integral rings - Mixed up matched Top and Base?

[huntinlever]

I mounted an old 3-9X Marlin scope on my new Ruger M77, with its integral receiver mount and front and rear rings. This isn't the final setup as I'm going to be using a Leu 2-7 x 33. It was just to fire-form some new .338 cases to set sizing and expansion plug die for shoulder bump.

This scope is old, but works fine. I borrowed it off my son's Marlin 30-30 as he's now using a Skinner. However, on the Ruger, the elevation adjustment taps out with the scope shooting really low.

I only now noticed the Ruger ring top and base are a matched pair? I know the higher ring goes at rear and the lower up front (I have the factory "medium" setup, with the No. 5 rear and No. 4 front ring), but now I'm wondering if I got the tops and bases mixed up? If that's the case, how do you know which top goes with which base?

I am likely looking for a new base to mount the rings anyway - my existing Leu Freedom 2-7 x 33 1" scope is too short for the existing receiver mount. So will have to look for an after-market adaptation mount or extension rings that will fit the Ruger. But that's another issue.

[Bigslug]

The tops of the rings shouldn't care which ring they're bolted to, and the elevation issues you're experiencing shouldn't be related to them since it's the lower portion of the ring that determines the resting height.

What you need - practically - is a ring setup that lowers the front and raises the rear of the scope. But the truth is how it shoots with the Marlin scope is immaterial since you aren't keeping that optic on the gun anyway.

Given the distance potential of the .338 and length of its action, you might do better to consider the longer tubed 3-9 or 3.5-10x40mm's

[Ithaca Gunner]

Ruger has extension rings, I had to buy one for my M-77 .308 to mount Burris 4-12 Mini on it. In the old days we would simply cut a brass shim for the bottom of the rear base to bump up elevation. Leupold also makes rings for M77's by the pair, Ruger will sell you just the extension ring by itself.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362168983?pid=394051

[huntinlever]

The tops of the rings shouldn't care which ring they're bolted to, and the elevation issues you're experiencing shouldn't be related to them since it's the lower portion of the ring that determines the resting height.

What you need - practically - is a ring setup that lowers the front and raises the rear of the scope. But the truth is how it shoots with the Marlin scope is immaterial since you aren't keeping that optic on the gun anyway.

Given the distance potential of the .338 and length of its action, you might do better to consider the longer tubed 3-9 or 3.5-10x40mm's

Thanks. That's what I thought (don't know why they'd care either?), but then read this in the Ruger manual:

"Each Ruger Telescope Ring is a mated assembly of a top and a base. Do not mix the parts of the two assemblies as they are not interchangeable."

I then googled briefly to find someone had apparently come across it ("Help! M77 ring halves mixed up," https://www.longrangehunting.com/thr...xed-up.149456/), and man it seemed a bit crazy to me - shouldn't be this hard:

Just don't mix the rings up! Mark which is front and back, and make sure you mount them with the same sides facing forward that you had to start with. Once they've been lapped, they've basically become like those high-end rings mentioned above. You'll also want to keep the same upper rings with the same lowers, and facing the right direction.

-Surely what you're saying is correct - do we really have to keep straight which top - and which direction - goes with which base?

On the scope itself you're pointing up something I don't know. I truly don't envision needing past 6X or so, in any terrain I hunt or plan to hunt. 4X is about the max I tend to like, even on the variable scopes (3-9X, and 2-7X) I've had.

Is the max on something like a 1.5-5, 5X, better than the 5X on a scope with a larger range - i.e., better than the 5X on a 3/5 - 10X scope? If not, don't see why a 2-7 x 33 would be preferable to something like that 3.5 - 10X (except maybe price?).

ps: I was eyeing the Leu VX-3HD 2.5-8X 36mm. I also have the 3.5-10X 40mm on my cart, but hard to justify the extra $200 for me, if I don't expect I'd go that high a mag power. But interested to hear what you or others say.

[huntinlever]

Ruger has extension rings, I had to buy one for my M-77 .308 to mount Burris 4-12 Mini on it. In the old days we would simply cut a brass shim for the bottom of the rear base to bump up elevation. Leupold also makes rings for M77's by the pair, Ruger will sell you just the extension ring by itself.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1362168983?pid=394051

Thanks. I've seen the matched pair on sites like Cheaper than Dirt:

https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/leup...317523015.html

-but they list these as "Leupold Extension Rings For Ruger M77 1" High Matte Black." Is this what Ruger calls a "high" set up, with a No. 6 at back and a No. 5 up front, or is it the same height as the M77 factory set, "medium," with No. 5 at rear and No. 4 up front?

[Ithaca Gunner]

Paul, my link came out wrong. Go to the box on the right and choose height and extension or no. You may be better off buying a single front extension from Ruger like I did. SS Medium #90288 $42.95. Just call customer service and they'll get it ordered for you. Mine took about a week to arrive (site said they were moving stock that week and I didn't expect it that soon).

[huntinlever]

Paul, my link came out wrong. Go to the box on the right and choose height and extension or no. You may be better off buying a single front extension from Ruger like I did. SS Medium #90288 $42.95. Just call customer service and they'll get it ordered for you. Mine took about a week to arrive (site said they were moving stock that week and I didn't expect it that soon).

OK, thanks. Looks like Midway might be backordered and I'll need to dig deeper on Ruger itself as I didn't see it. But this one? https://www.amazon.com/4Bo-Offset-Ma...dp/B00162NQAM?

Edit: Sorry, got it. Thanks much!

[Ithaca Gunner]

Made in china, not Ruger, slotted head screws, unfinished look. Your choice, I'd spend a little extra and get Ruger.

[huntinlever]

Made in china, not Ruger, slotted head screws, unfinished look. Your choice, I'd spend a little extra and get Ruger.

Oh, man, hard no. Cancelled. I'd thought this as Ruger from Midway, my mistake. I see you said to call - will do. Thanks again.

- edit: Actually, I had meant Midway - I'd ordered it there, not the Amazon knockoff from China. This one, yes?

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1009092634?pid=742602

[Ithaca Gunner]

Yeah, the one at Midway is okay. Here's a tip, Midway and others use the same manufacturer and UPC numbers as the manufacturer, if you find something at the manufacturers site and want to insure you get the exact same thing from a company like Midway, compare the numbers.

[huntinlever]

Yeah, the one at Midway is okay. Here's a tip, Midway and others use the same manufacturer and UPC numbers as the manufacturer, if you find something at the manufacturers site and want to insure you get the exact same thing from a company like Midway, compare the numbers.

OK great. Thanks, much appreciated.

[Bigslug]

I personally like a low bottom end, but having my eye relief perfect gets more priority - so I tend to let the geometry of the action dictate.

Magnification can be a tricky subject. The wide field of view and steadiness of low is nice, and I like to practice on milk jugs with the 2.5-8 on my Ruger Scout cranked all the way down. That said, I actually took my 175 yard shot off a monopod last fall with it cranked up to about 5x to help with checking legality of antlers within my 200 yard field of fire. Given that I built that .308 and scope combo specifically for the sub-200 yard shooting I've been doing, my gut reaction to a .338 is that those same antler checks may be getting done significantly farther out, and a 4.5-14 may not be out of place.

I'm in the process of doing final load development on a Hawkeye .30-06 with a 3.5-10x40 in Ruger's low rings. Either scope covers a lot of the same range, so it's really just a matter of whether you want to be more optimal for sniper or bayonet charges - but the longer tube will give you more flexibility in where the eyepiece sits.

Extension rings can help, but remember there are both length AND height dimensions to work with. You've got an ocular bell that needs to be kept clear of the receiver as well as the barrel. You may be able to have more adjustment for eye relief AND a lower set of rings with a longer tube.