Ruger Scope Mounts Buggering My SRH Frame

I like everything about the SRH scope mounts except for the fact they are chewing up the frame of my pistol on the right hand side. This is the side the threaded bolt clamps to the frame. The left side of the frame opposite the side pictured is fine.



It's to the point it's raising metal up on top as well:



Has anyone else encountered this? It appears the bolt portion of the scope mount arrangement wasn't made to fully engage the frame cut out, but rides very high in the cut, and when mounting torque is applied it digs in to the soft (or what appears to be soft anyway) steel of the top strap.

Any recommendations for scope mount alternatives to the supplied Ruger mounts? My scope is the Bushnell Elite (very excellent scope, btw).

Thanks in advance.

What are you tightening the screws with, an impact gun???

The 454 generates significant recoil so I understand why you'd want them good and tight. That sure doesn't look right to me, especially the rear one. Perhaps try a set from an aftermarket manufacturer.

Oly

You want them tight but not tight enough to deform the frame. I tighten mine as far as I can but only using a quarter between two fingers.

Much appreciate the input folks.

When I first mounted this SRH with the Ruger rings, they would loosen under the recoil of 300 grain bullets at 1500 fps after about 2 cylinders.

So I tightened them up a bit more, and they would still loosen, eventually to the point I could wiggle the scope side to side. I could not keep these mounts tight without resorting to Loctite 271. That held them. The degree of torque applied to the ring mounting nut was no greater than the torque I applied to hold the scope clamping rings themselves ("snug").

I see what's causing it, and it's essentially the way Ruger engineered the "bolt" clamping side of the rings. They just don't descend to the depth and profile of the frame cut out. On the opposite side of the rings (the side the nut resides on), the profile of the rings conforms more precisely to the cut in the frame, and it is mar free as a result.

No biggie. I will gently lighten and smooth these indentations (one of the many wonders of an all stainless pistol) and try the Weigand Casull mount next.

The Weigand permits use of the Weaver type mounts and you get a much greater degree of adjustability with it's platform type mounting arrangement.

olyinaz, you are right, the recoil of the loads I shot this morning were significant, and anyone that has mounted a 1" tube on a SRH and subjected it to full charge ammo will see the effects of that recoil force on the tube housing when they dismount it later. You need a really heavy duty scope to hold up to those forces.

Are you sure that you are getting the crescents of the ring properly indexed to the slot? By those marks it looks to me like things may not be lining up correctly. My SRH 480 has never done that even with near Linebaugh loads.

s4s4u said:

Are you sure that you are getting the crescents of the ring properly indexed to the slot? By those marks it looks to me like things may not be lining up correctly. My SRH 480 has never done that even with near Linebaugh loads.

Click to expand...

Yes, the mounts are positioned to sit flat on the frame top strap and then just snugged into the mounting cut outs with just enough torque sufficient to securely hold them to the frame.

Take a look at this pic. This is the rear scope mount ring. The red arrow points to the part of the "bolt" that is digging into the frame:



You can see how much lower the right side is, meaning closer to the flat of the scope ring that contacts the pistol top strap, compared to the left side.

The opposite side (on left of mount in pic) is more suited to fill the top strap frame cut. You can see how the right side is much closer to the top of the pistol frame and is really only gripping a small part of the frame cut.

Are these the original rings that shipped from the factory with the revolver?

JLarsson said:

Are these the original rings that shipped from the factory with the revolver?

Click to expand...

They sure don't look like mine.

JLarsson said:

Are these the original rings that shipped from the factory with the revolver?

Click to expand...

Yes, they were.

Here's another angle of the rear mount:



You can see the lug that lays on the left side of frame (#1 in pic) is much lower, and more fully contacts the full cut out of the frame.

The right side (#2 in pic) is significantly higher in the cut, and is only biting the top most portion of the frame cut out.

They still don't look like mine. Are you the original owner of this gun?

s4s4u said:

They still don't look like mine. Are you the original owner of this gun?

Click to expand...

Yes, original owner, purchased brand new at Bass Pro with box, rings and all paperwork.

I have looked at these rings since first mounting them, wondering why they designed them the way they did.

They have been impossible to keep tight without thread lock. I don't recall reading anyone else on the web having this issue (not that it hasn't happened, just in my experience).

Maybe I have some anomalous version of the Ruger rings?

Occasionally they get a bad set of rings. I had one that was too big for my scope but not big enough for 30mm. I told them I was headed out on a hunt and they got them too me quick. Great service. Any one can have an issue but not everyone jumps to, to get it taken care of.

I'm thinking there may be something wrong with your rings, the way they're machined.

CraigC said:

I'm thinking there may be something wrong with your rings, the way they're machined.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm wondering. All the other SRH owners with no issues makes me wonder if that's what happened with this case.

We put the new 6 Series 30mm Matchdot II on my brothers 44. We ordered a Weigand Combat Scope Base for the 480 Ruger SRH. The 480 version has a recoil shelf and requires removal of the rear sight. It also has a screw that goes in the rear sight screw hole.
This is much more solid than the Ruger Rings.
Just another option.

Bob

This is much more solid than the Ruger Rings.

Click to expand...

That is debate-able.

That's what the rings on my ~6yr old 454 SRH look like, and my 3month old Toklat SRH, and my 18yr old M77MkII look like. Leups are a bit better design in my book, and even though it's taller, I like the weigand pic rail mounts with the angled screws best of all. It does add another "link in the chain," but I like the way it mounts the best.

s4s4u said:

This is much more solid than the Ruger Rings.

Click to expand...

That is debate-able.

Click to expand...

Highly debatable......and I like to keep my irons.

That ring in the picture looks defective to me. I would return it to Ruger for a replacement.