One squaring the Scope Put a level on a table then put the scope cap on the table then put the level on the cap. Try, laying the level on a table and lift one end and look at the gap under the level when you’re between the lines. A little off makes inch into feet and yards.
@huntwithairguns yeah, I corrected myself right afterwards. The 7.62x39 is the AK-47 round, which has a lot lower velocity than the .308/7.62x51. Also, just for kicks, there's also a 7.62x54 round. It's used in russian rifles like the dragunov.
I recently purchased the M77 in .17 HMR caliber and purchased a Vortex 30mm tube diameter scope to mount. This video instructs you to use two different height mounts which in my case with a 4x16x44 calls for a number 5 ring and a number 6 ring using the higher ring in the rear. I spent $40 on a number 6 ring and when I installed it with the number 5 ring it put the scope in an extreme front end downward slope to the front and the scope tube was not held cradled in the mounting rings as they should be. I switched the higher ring to the front and that just reversed the problem by tipping the scope way too high on the front end. The mounting surface on the receiver appears to be level (front and rear where rings mount appear to be at the same height) so why would you use two different height rings?Jerry Dixon - Iowa
Since the top of the receiver may not be parallel to the bore, you might need different height rings for front and rear. It's not a new thing. Even basic scopes now can be purchased with ridiculously large front objective lenses, thus the need for the odd pair of rings.
Ttaller ring is supposed to be toward the muzzle and the short ring to the shooter on older model Rugers . The new Rugers use same size rings at the muzzle end and at the shooter end.
I have a 42mm objective lens but maxed out the elevation knob on the scope. Is it possible to reverse the rings so the taller ring is closer to muzzle(and shorter closer to the shooter). Or is it recommended that I get the next size up of rings?
doing what you ask would tilt the scope upward...not useful. you need the taller mount at the rear because that part of the rifle is lower than the forward location, keeping the scope parallel to the bore.
Can you suggest where I can find 1 medium#4 and 1high #5 ring for our riffle ..we have the exact rifle. Ruger M77 and am having trouble locating these rings for our 1" scope. Its been confusing. Thank you
It would be nice if anyone had rings in stock. All I can find are the ones no one wants in a finish no one wants. Ended up having to order a weigatinny rail and use picatinny rings.
I have a Ruger m77 Rem Mag, which I am trying to mount a Zeiss scope. I notice that the distance between the rings is longer than than the scope tube, so it does not fit. I am wondering what options are available? The distance is 4.5 inches between the center of the front and back mounts/ring. Do you you know where I can find a proper mounting rail or rings? The rings that came are dove tail style and will not fit the unique M77 mounts, since they are rounded and built into the receiver.
Those rings are not for sale. I bought them from his personal collection and now they're mine, all mine...the whole set. Have 'em on display in my vault. What a conversation starter!
I just picked up my brand new Ruger 77/22 and right out of the box one of the bolts were completely froze tight in the st st scope ring, I will be calling Ruger first thing in the morning and see what they say about my $875. lemmon, I mean rifle lol lol.
ABSOLUTELY!! my rings do NOT match up and with out a ton of lapping bind the scope tube badly after which the purchase on the tube is questionable I actually hate the system and would prefer a Weaver or Picatinny rail or simply a round receiver top drilled and tapped for matching round bottom rings. That and many of the other flaws on the M77 MkII is why mine has sat unused for many many years as my biggest regret in firearm purchases.
@@keatonjorgensen8793 I don't sell my firearms, I made that mistake once as well. One of these days I'll have the time and inclination to sort the scope mount out or install sights or maybe both.
@shouldidoit you'll have a hard time finding a civilian-model rifle that's chambered to 7.62x39. The civilian "equivalent" is the .308 win. It's practically the same round. Only difference is the amount of pressure inside the brass when it fires, and the actual thickness of the brass. Military 7.62x39 brass is thicker. But the actual ballistics is almost identical. I wouldn't recommend using a 7.62x39 round in a .308 chamber, though. You can do it, but I wouldn't personally.
