Ruger Scope Mounts Buggering My SRH Frame

Well...they appear to be manufactured as they were intended.

You have the main mount base, a part of which is the lug which grips the left side of the topstrap frame cut out. As such it fully engages the cut out and because the contact surfaces are mated well to each other, mounting pressure is evenly distributed between the two surfaces. The left side of the frame is virtually mar free:



Then on the right hand side of the mount, the element which contacts the top strap frame cut out is part of the cross bolt. It traverses the mount, and tightened with a nut applied to the left side of the mount.

Because that traversing "bolt" (#1 in pic below) is enclosed within the frame of the scope base, it is necessarily higher (closer to the top most part of the frame top strap) and as a result, closer to the top of the frame cut out to which it is supposed to grip.



I think it is just a poorly conceived design. Properly designed, the right side (#3 position in pic) would be evenly mated to the contact surface of the frame and have its clamping forces evenly distributed as the left side does (#2 position in pic), and minimal marring would result.

But at the end of the day, it will hold the scope to the pistol frame. In my case with sufficient torque applied to hold and then with the exposure to the jarring affects of full charge .454, it's going to result in some frame marring.

I have the Weigand on order and will work with that going forward.

I took the scope off my gun and low and behold they do look like that ring. From memory I thought they had a larger crescent, and they should. But my gun doesn't show the marks that your's does, and I've never had it shoot loose with heavy 480's.

Well boys, you taught me something. I have used Ruger rifles and handguns with this system from the time that they first became available until now, and I never noticed the difference in the depth of engagement from one side to the other.....

Now, what I think has happened to the opening poster, is that the buggering up occurred during the first time that the nut loosened up while firing the .454. That gives the rings, with the scope a little movement, allowing the rings to slam into the top strap and buggering it up.

I think that if he cleans up the resulting burrs and re-installs the rings on the gun with a drop of thread locker, he will probably have no further issue in that regard. I would even put some thread locker on the front face of the slot on top of the top strap, just so that the rings have no place to go during recoil. 8)

I think 5of7 mentioning the recoil of the gun jarring the ring against the frame seems to make sense.

Without thread lock, they simply won't stay tight. The first trip to the range they were loose after only a cylinder or two. I didn't even realize it until my groups started to spread and when I checked the mounts they were both loosey goosey. Retightened and a few more cylinders and they were loose again.

If Ruger engineered the threads with a fine pitch rate and incorporated a replaceable self locking nut on the other side I believe that whole issue would be done with.

I appreciate everyone's advice but I do want to try out that Weigand and see how it works. I know I have to remove the rear sight to mount it but that's fine.

Bushnell Elite 2-6X inside a pair of Weaver Quad-locks on the Weigand rail.



This bad boy locks up solidly and positively to the top strap and adds extra support at the rear sight cut out.



Won't be able to get it to the range until sometime early next week. All mount screws snugged up with Loctite 242. I'm not seeing this loosen up or dig into my frame cuts.

Last but not least, the entire rig in my Bianchi cross chest holster rig. Ready for the field.

So took the Weigand mount and Bushnell scope to the range Friday. Shot 50 rounds of 300 grain Hornady XTP mag over 29 grains LilGun (the starting load for that combo).

Didn't like the way the pistol was grouping and wanted to dismount the scope and mount for the next outing and discovered even the Weigand was shifting in the frame cuts.



The spring pins used by the Weigand mount to anchor it in the top strap cut outs were shifting forward under recoil, driving up metal divots and flattening the profile of the spring pins. The rear sight mount set screw had loosened, despite having been degreased and seated with Locktite 242 (blue).

I've come to the conclusion clamp-on type mounts are simply not up to the task of withstanding the G-forces applied by full power, heavy recoiling .454 ammo on this handgun. Probably would work great with something closer to .45 Colt +P though.

No biggie because I do like the more compact profile of the iron sighted pistol, and down the road will still have the scope and mount for the days my eyesight would require it, and probably by then will want to reduce exposure to that level of recoil anyway.