Ruger Precision Rifle (Page 5 of 90)
|
Originally Posted By alemonkey:
I'm wondering what the throat will be like on the .243. If they're really aiming for serious long range shooters I wonder if they'll have it short enough that you can touch the lands with mag length rounds. Probably not, though, because someone would end up jamming a bullet hard into the lands and create excessive pressure. not necessarily i was able to hit the lands in a factory remington 700 243 with 105s at mag length |
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Your T5A has a drop comb, so you can adjust your cheekpiece substantially lower in relation to the scope than you can on the Ruger. Look at this diagram: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg Note the distance between the red lines on both rifles. While both your T5A and the Ruger have adjustable cheekpieces, the Ruger's can't go nearly as low as the the T5A's. That's the critical difference between a drop comb and straight line stock, and why you need higher rings on the Ruger than on your .300WM -- even if both rifles have adjustable cheekpieces. Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By delirious1:
Maybe I'm missing something. I shoot a T5a on my 300 win mag. Adjustable cheek. What I have works fine. How is this different. It also has an adjustable cheek. Your T5A has a drop comb, so you can adjust your cheekpiece substantially lower in relation to the scope than you can on the Ruger. Look at this diagram: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg Note the distance between the red lines on both rifles. While both your T5A and the Ruger have adjustable cheekpieces, the Ruger's can't go nearly as low as the the T5A's. That's the critical difference between a drop comb and straight line stock, and why you need higher rings on the Ruger than on your .300WM -- even if both rifles have adjustable cheekpieces. I appreciate the explanation. I didn't look close enough at my T5a to realize. |
|
Originally Posted By ziarifleman: You'll want at least a 1.3" tall ring. Originally Posted By ziarifleman: Originally Posted By postban: What rings for a 6-24x50 Vortex PST FFP? Regular high 1.26" or extra High like a 1/3 co-witness Or what rings are these? http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RPR-1-9Ts2Yamz73j83.jpg You'll want at least a 1.3" tall ring. |
A fine is a tax for doing wrong, a tax is a fine for doing well.
Proud Member Team Ranstad
Proud Member Team Ranstad
|
I have been thinking the same thing. 15" on the .308 model. Also been thinking about an ALG EMR V2 M-LOK.
Originally Posted By DFA1:
Would like to see how a Diamondhead Rail looks on this... http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Stag-3T-new.jpg |
| This is looking very nice. I've accumulated a couple things for a full blown custom 260 bolt gun and was about to buy a big horn action. But for the price of the action I can have a whole rifle and get shooting. And for my intended targets I'm thinking the 243 shooting some 105's would be the ticket. I'm looking forward to peoples range reports. |
|
Originally Posted By backbencher:
If you cant your rifle by 5 degrees, the closer the scope is to the bore centerline, the less the cant will make a difference. Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By RePp: Have you ever plugged ring height into a ballistic calculator and seen how much it matters? Also can you explain the cant reasoning? I always just used a bubble on my scope. If you cant your rifle by 5 degrees, the closer the scope is to the bore centerline, the less the cant will make a difference. Exactly. |
|
Originally Posted By RePp:
Have you ever plugged ring height into a ballistic calculator and seen how much it matters? Also can you explain the cant reasoning? I always just used a bubble on my scope. Originally Posted By RePp:
Originally Posted By MS556:
On the scope height issue, it will be a matter of personal experimentation. I still believe in "as low over the bore" as you can get, if you can get a good cheek weld with your stock. It affects trajectory and reduces the effect of cant. Given that it is designed to work with AR stock height, albeit with an adjustable cheek piece, it will not exactly correspond to the classic "measure the objective OD" mounting and go only as high as needed to clear that bell. That might work, but might not. Be prepared to try several different heights. Another factor is iron sights. While I doubt many of these rifles will have back up irons, some might. Then you do have to do the "AR' mounting method. Heck I have a 6-24x50 Burris scope with a long tube and a 4" sunshade. I had to raise that up to the LaRue 1.93 to get the sunshade to clear the folded front, sight! So, if you do plan to put anything on the top of that Samson rail (need not be a folded sight) keep its presence in mind if you are using a long scope with sunshade. I find it exciting that we are having these discussions about scope mounting options. That means that Ruger has finally done something worth our attention! Have you ever plugged ring height into a ballistic calculator and seen how much it matters? Also can you explain the cant reasoning? I always just used a bubble on my scope. Yes, I have. For a flat shooting 6mm that I have, it is between 9 and 10 inches at 1,000 yards. For lower BC and velocity, worse. Cant effect is magnified by distance above bore and distance to target. Another poster has explained. Use of bubbles is not as precise as we might hope. Valuable, yes, but not precise. |
|
Look at these prices! (both out of stock)
http://www.centerfireguns.com/ruger-precision-6-5-crd-10r-18005.html?source=slickguns $917.75 http://www.hinterlandoutfitters.com/ruger-precision-rifle-18005-creedmoor-chrome-moly-bolt-action-ruger-folding-stock-trigger-black-finish-mags-p-50107.html $948.75 (if I can't post this, please delete it) |
|
Originally Posted By badclam:
Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. Nice work. |
|
Originally Posted By badclam:
... I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. Originally Posted By badclam:
... I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. That fucking sucks!!! Originally Posted By badclam:I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of.
Thanks for the ring measurements and pics! |
The path to true knowledge is paved with wasted money. - copyright postban forever
NRA LIFE MEMBER
NRA LIFE MEMBER
|
Originally Posted By badclam: Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. This raises the thought that to get the scope lower if desired, one approach would be to whack the top of the forward rail off, and use a California silly stock, like this example from Exile Machine: 
|
Thanks to HammerHammer for the Team Membership.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher:
This raises the thought that to get the scope lower if desired, one approach would be to whack the top of the forward rail off, and use a California silly stock, like this example from Exile Machine: http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By badclam: Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. This raises the thought that to get the scope lower if desired, one approach would be to whack the top of the forward rail off, and use a California silly stock, like this example from Exile Machine: http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG what the hell is that?! 
|
|
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Just got the call from the local shop, My 6.5CM will be in this Friday... $999.00 is TOO GOOD to pass up. Now for a glass decision and rings. That sure is. Please run some factory 140 A-Max through it and let us know how it does after you get about 20 rounds through it 
ETA: If this barrel is truly easy change, I wonder if any barrel manufacturers would offer stainless match quality....somebody like Criterion? |
What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
|
Originally Posted By alpha0815:
That sure is. Please run some factory 140 A-Max through it and let us know how it does after you get about 20 rounds through it
ETA: If this barrel is truly easy change, I wonder if any barrel manufacturers would offer stainless match quality....somebody like Criterion? Originally Posted By alpha0815:
Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt:
Just got the call from the local shop, My 6.5CM will be in this Friday... $999.00 is TOO GOOD to pass up. Now for a glass decision and rings. That sure is. Please run some factory 140 A-Max through it and let us know how it does after you get about 20 rounds through it
ETA: If this barrel is truly easy change, I wonder if any barrel manufacturers would offer stainless match quality....somebody like Criterion? I'm strictly a hand load kind of guy... if I run across some factory ammo that's NOT too expensive, I'll consider it. |
Signal-0 Productions Firearms Training check it out at Signal-0.com
|
Originally Posted By delirious1:
what the hell is that?! Originally Posted By delirious1:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By badclam: Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. This raises the thought that to get the scope lower if desired, one approach would be to whack the top of the forward rail off, and use a California silly stock, like this example from Exile Machine: http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG what the hell is that?! A NY SAFE act compliant AR - and one way to get your glass as low over the bbl as possible on the Ruger Precision rifle. |
Thanks to HammerHammer for the Team Membership.
Hopefully someday.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher:
A NY SAFE act compliant AR - and one way to get your glass as low over the bbl as possible on the Ruger Precision rifle. Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By delirious1:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
Originally Posted By badclam: Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. This raises the thought that to get the scope lower if desired, one approach would be to whack the top of the forward rail off, and use a California silly stock, like this example from Exile Machine: http://www.exilemachine.net/images/TYPE_I_NYS.JPG what the hell is that?! A NY SAFE act compliant AR - and one way to get your glass as low over the bbl as possible on the Ruger Precision rifle. I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. |
|
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. 'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: 
|
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. 'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg That's not height over the bore, that's height compared to the comb. |
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. 'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg hey, those are Noveske panels on the rail in the upper photo. Didn't know they fit the samson. |
|
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
That's not height over the bore, that's height compared to the comb. Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. 'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg That's not height over the bore, that's height compared to the comb. Yeah, but height over comb trumps height over bore because you have to get your face behind the scope. Any inline chassis setup will have the same issue: you have to accept a larger height over bore measurement than with a drop comb setup. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Yes!! With most bolt action rifles that have some rise,(comb) to them, I use a 40mm to 44mm objective and drop it as low as possible to get the center of the scope and center of the bore as close as possible. Because on this rifle, the barrel and stock tube are straight and there is no rise, like an AR, I went with a large for me 50mm objective and still had to leave about 3/8 an inch space under it to be high enough to comfortably be able to see through it. I think I pushed it a little lower than some other people would like as it is. I tried it out on my floor and it is a great height for shooting prone for me. Yeah, but height over comb trumps height over bore because you have to get your face behind the scope. Any inline chassis setup will have the same issue: you have to accept a larger height over bore measurement than with a drop comb setup. Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
Originally Posted By vmpglenn:
Originally Posted By CowboyWubWub:
I don't see how the stock will affect height over bore of the glass. A simpler solution would be to use handguards without top rails. Varmint tubes, ALG handguards, and I think a few others would work. 'Cause you gotta get your face behind the scope somehow. Note how close the scope rail is to the stock's comb on each of the rifles below: http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/misc/stocks.jpg That's not height over the bore, that's height compared to the comb. Yes!! With most bolt action rifles that have some rise,(comb) to them, I use a 40mm to 44mm objective and drop it as low as possible to get the center of the scope and center of the bore as close as possible. Because on this rifle, the barrel and stock tube are straight and there is no rise, like an AR, I went with a large for me 50mm objective and still had to leave about 3/8 an inch space under it to be high enough to comfortably be able to see through it. I think I pushed it a little lower than some other people would like as it is. I tried it out on my floor and it is a great height for shooting prone for me. Yeah, but height over comb trumps height over bore because you have to get your face behind the scope. Any inline chassis setup will have the same issue: you have to accept a larger height over bore measurement than with a drop comb setup. |
|
Originally Posted By alpha0815: That sure is. Please run some factory 140 A-Max through it and let us know how it does after you get about 20 rounds through it ETA: If this barrel is truly easy change, I wonder if any barrel manufacturers would offer stainless match quality....somebody like Criterion? Originally Posted By alpha0815: Originally Posted By Bowhntr6pt: Just got the call from the local shop, My 6.5CM will be in this Friday... $999.00 is TOO GOOD to pass up. Now for a glass decision and rings. That sure is. Please run some factory 140 A-Max through it and let us know how it does after you get about 20 rounds through it ETA: If this barrel is truly easy change, I wonder if any barrel manufacturers would offer stainless match quality....somebody like Criterion? |
A fine is a tax for doing wrong, a tax is a fine for doing well.
Proud Member Team Ranstad
Proud Member Team Ranstad
|
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
I was thinking along those lines too, a folding MOE Rifle stock and a 16" barrel would be tits. Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By RePp:
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By Bearcat24:
I sent an email to ruger asking if they will do custom orders such as different barrel lengths. Will see what they say but doubt they will for awhile anyways. Not going to happen unless you're a distributor. They are touting easy to change barrels so you can just swap afterwards. Would be awesome to get a 16 inch barrel and throw some short hand guards on it have a nice compact rifle you could stick in a pack. I was thinking along those lines too, a folding MOE Rifle stock and a 16" barrel would be tits. Send it to ADCO and get whatever you want. A 12" 308 sounds fun. |
|
Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
From what I understand, any AR15 rail will work. We'll see for sure once guys start getting them in their hands though. Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
Originally Posted By an_hero: I wonder if a Knight's URX4 would bolt up to an RPR? From what I understand, any AR15 rail will work. We'll see for sure once guys start getting them in their hands though. Anything that will install on a standard AR15 bbl nut, or can be installed in place of a standard bbl nut, will work. However, there may be a gap btwn the top rails, depending on how the new rail installs. |
Thanks to HammerHammer for the Team Membership.
|
Originally Posted By postban: I would like to see a similarly configured 22LR trainer by Ruger, match the 6.5CM one I have coming. A suitably modified .22" LR bolt conversion might fit, and could perhaps feed from a modified Colt 901 LE .223" magwell. Might be easier to cast the lower a la Boris' Fruity Ghost, and convert it to AR mags & an AR FCS. And you'd need a custom bbl. |
Thanks to HammerHammer for the Team Membership.
|
Originally Posted By DFA1:
Why would the Magpul PRS not go well with this? A PRS would work fine with this rifle. You'd lose the factory stock's ability to slide the cheekpiece forward and aft, though. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: A suitably modified .22" LR bolt conversion might fit, and could perhaps feed from a modified Colt 901 LE .223" magwell. Might be easier to cast the lower a la Boris' Fruity Ghost, and convert it to AR mags & an AR FCS. And you'd need a custom bbl. Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By postban: I would like to see a similarly configured 22LR trainer by Ruger, match the 6.5CM one I have coming. A suitably modified .22" LR bolt conversion might fit, and could perhaps feed from a modified Colt 901 LE .223" magwell. Might be easier to cast the lower a la Boris' Fruity Ghost, and convert it to AR mags & an AR FCS. And you'd need a custom bbl. |
|
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
I think they will work pretty well together. Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By DFA1:
Why would the Magpul PRS not go well with this? I think they will work pretty well together. It will get some weight in the back of the gun too, they're kinda nose heavy. |
"Dragons is so stupid."
|
Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Just picked up my 243. Initial impressions are good. Action isn't as nice as my SAC, but feels good. Trigger came set at 2.3lbs I'm kind of leaning towards ths 243 for some reason, how's the length and weight of the rifle? Could a guy pack it for a couple miles? |
|
Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
I'm kind of leaning towards ths 243 for some reason, how's the length and weight of the rifle? Could a guy pack it for a couple miles? Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
Originally Posted By TeeRex:
Just picked up my 243. Initial impressions are good. Action isn't as nice as my SAC, but feels good. Trigger came set at 2.3lbs I'm kind of leaning towards ths 243 for some reason, how's the length and weight of the rifle? Could a guy pack it for a couple miles? It's a heavy rifle, but not awful. I guess it depends on what you're willing to hump. |
"Dragons is so stupid."
|
Originally Posted By ziarifleman: It's a heavy rifle, but not awful. I guess it depends on what you're willing to hump. Originally Posted By ziarifleman: Originally Posted By BoxofRox: Originally Posted By TeeRex: Just picked up my 243. Initial impressions are good. Action isn't as nice as my SAC, but feels good. Trigger came set at 2.3lbs I'm kind of leaning towards ths 243 for some reason, how's the length and weight of the rifle? Could a guy pack it for a couple miles? It's a heavy rifle, but not awful. I guess it depends on what you're willing to hump. |
A fine is a tax for doing wrong, a tax is a fine for doing well.
Proud Member Team Ranstad
Proud Member Team Ranstad
|
Originally Posted By CFII:
Is there anything wrong with the factory stock? It looks nicely adjustable. Nope, nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it would be cool to use the Ruger stock on a side-charging AR-type rifle like the LWRCi REPR. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
Send it to ADCO and get whatever you want. A 12" 308 sounds fun. Originally Posted By BoxofRox:
Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
Originally Posted By RePp:
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE:
Originally Posted By Bearcat24:
I sent an email to ruger asking if they will do custom orders such as different barrel lengths. Will see what they say but doubt they will for awhile anyways. Not going to happen unless you're a distributor. They are touting easy to change barrels so you can just swap afterwards. Would be awesome to get a 16 inch barrel and throw some short hand guards on it have a nice compact rifle you could stick in a pack. I was thinking along those lines too, a folding MOE Rifle stock and a 16" barrel would be tits. Send it to ADCO and get whatever you want. A 12" 308 sounds fun. I have a 10.5 inch 308 semi. Yes, its a fucking blast to shoot! |
|
Originally Posted By badclam:
Okay. So I set this Ruger Precision Rifle, in .308 , up with a Vortex 4x16x50mm PST scope. I used Burris Xtreme Tactical Rings, High, 30mm. They measure exactly 1" from the bottom of the scope to the bottom of the rail. I think this is about as low as you would want to go because of the inline stock. I did the barrel break in,(let's not debate that), and sighted it in at 100 yards with Lithuanian NATO 7.62x51 ammo. I didn't have a bench because someone stole mine off my own property, so I was forced to shoot off the back of my Quad for a semi steady platform. I have posted two groups, the last two I shot. The first group group a little over MOA with the NATO ammo. The second with Hornady 168 grain match that was well under MOA. I can't wait to get some time off and set up a proper bench and see what this set up is capable of. <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20094_zpsj6vakjct.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20094_zpsj6vakjct.jpg</a> <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20095_zpslguetlyb.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20095_zpslguetlyb.jpg</a> <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20099_zpsbj9l0nwu.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20099_zpsbj9l0nwu.jpg</a> <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20105_zpsdiwbfvx2.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20105_zpsdiwbfvx2.jpg</a> <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20112_zpsfilg8glr.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20112_zpsfilg8glr.jpg</a> <a href="http://s557.photobucket.com/user/walking058dogs/media/july%20111_zpsm6iogyku.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss12/walking058dogs/july%20111_zpsm6iogyku.jpg</a> How on earth do you see through the scope with the scope that far forward? Or did you just fully extend the stock? |