Got one inbound and understand it replaces the quarter rib on the 1A, the 1 RSI etc. How difficult is it to take the existing rib off. PS. Bought this to go on my 6.5x55 I got a few months ago. Also, does this allow the scope to mount further back over the receiver? PS. If anyone of these has installed I'd love to see a picture. My next quest is to find a set of low or medium rings. My scope will either be a VXIII in 2.5x8, or a new FX2 in a fixed 8 that is inbound. Anyway, appreciate the help as always.
conetrol base for Ruger 1A etc.
- Thread starter vaturkey
- Start date
picketpin
Buckeye
I have the Conetrol base and rings on several #1s. They use the back two rib holes for attachment. The rear of the base is over the reciever ring and the rear ring centers there so you pick up about a total of one inch further back with the rear ring.
The front rig is approximately the same 4" from the front of the receiver ring as the stock rib. So the total spacing of the rings is about an inch further apart and the that inch is in the fact that the rear ring is positioned an inch further to the rear.
The three "A"s that I have the Conetrol base and rings on all wear Leupold 2- 7 -28s with no problem and no need for exstention rings etc. The rings are lows and are only slightly higher than the mount. That positions the front ocular 1/2" over the barrel, so there should be plenty of room for a slightly bigger scope without a problem.
The rib is pretty easy to get off but be sure and use the correct screw driver and if the screws feel tight, put some penetrating oil on them over night and let them soak, The easiest way to get the dowels out of the barrel is to grasp them with a small pair of vice grips (tightly) and then TAP on the vice grips gently with a small hammer and the dowel will pull out. There really is no need for heat or to cut them off if done correctly.
The dowels are a press fit with no adhesive.
Ross
The front rig is approximately the same 4" from the front of the receiver ring as the stock rib. So the total spacing of the rings is about an inch further apart and the that inch is in the fact that the rear ring is positioned an inch further to the rear.
The three "A"s that I have the Conetrol base and rings on all wear Leupold 2- 7 -28s with no problem and no need for exstention rings etc. The rings are lows and are only slightly higher than the mount. That positions the front ocular 1/2" over the barrel, so there should be plenty of room for a slightly bigger scope without a problem.
The rib is pretty easy to get off but be sure and use the correct screw driver and if the screws feel tight, put some penetrating oil on them over night and let them soak, The easiest way to get the dowels out of the barrel is to grasp them with a small pair of vice grips (tightly) and then TAP on the vice grips gently with a small hammer and the dowel will pull out. There really is no need for heat or to cut them off if done correctly.
The dowels are a press fit with no adhesive.
Ross
gewehrfreund
Buckeye
I was going to post a picture of the Conetrol set up on my custom 222, then realized I don't have a picture of it! If I can get a couple taken in the next couple of days, I'll post one. In the meantime, here's one from the internet:
I saw the base you bought on ebay and almost tried to get it myself, but realized there is no 1A, AB, RSI, etc. that I would want to put it on. I would like to find one for a 1B/S though, or maybe even another for a 1V.
Of the scopes you mentioned, I'd go with the 2.5-8X. There should be plently of eye relief even with the Ruger rib, and the size will look a lot better on the small 1A.
LC
I saw the base you bought on ebay and almost tried to get it myself, but realized there is no 1A, AB, RSI, etc. that I would want to put it on. I would like to find one for a 1B/S though, or maybe even another for a 1V.
Of the scopes you mentioned, I'd go with the 2.5-8X. There should be plently of eye relief even with the Ruger rib, and the size will look a lot better on the small 1A.
LC
gewehrfreund said:I was going to post a picture of the Conetrol set up on my custom 222, then realized I don't have a picture of it! If I can get a couple taken in the next couple of days, I'll post one. In the meantime, here's one from the internet:
I saw the base you bought on ebay and almost tried to get it myself, but realized there is no 1A, AB, RSI, etc. that I would want to put it on. I would like to find one for a 1B/S though, or maybe even another for a 1V.
Of the scopes you mentioned, I'd go with the 2.5-8X. There should be plently of eye relief even with the Ruger rib, and the size will look a lot better on the small 1A.
LC
Thanks. Would sure like to see a picture of what they look like on a 1A as well. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.
picketpin
Buckeye
Okay, I'm confused. The ABOVE picture is exactly what the base looks like installed on an "A" or "AB" with the light weight barrel.
If you use the lowest Conetrol rings the bottom of the adjustment boss of the scope is just barely the thickness of one playing card off the base. Pretty hard to get it any lower than that.
LC: If you contact Conetrol they can and will make the base for the "B" and "V" barrel. At least they still did a few years ago.
Ross
If you use the lowest Conetrol rings the bottom of the adjustment boss of the scope is just barely the thickness of one playing card off the base. Pretty hard to get it any lower than that.
LC: If you contact Conetrol they can and will make the base for the "B" and "V" barrel. At least they still did a few years ago.
Ross
gewehrfreund
Buckeye
picketpin said:
Ross - I should have elaborated and said I'd like to find one for the $10 I paid a year or so ago at a small gun show. Then there's the rings....
I'm basically cheap, and getting cheaper by the day. Plus I enjoy the thrill of the hunt at gunshows, gunshops, etc., especially when I can get stuff for next to nothing :oops:
Still it's good to know that Conetrol hasn't abandoned us #1 loonies.
Lance
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
Someone please explain to me why a person would put that double-ugly base on a #1? Other than to move a scope back a tad? Eeek.
Kinda like tryin to make a #1 out of a #3. Sorry Ross! HaHa
Kinda like tryin to make a #1 out of a #3. Sorry Ross! HaHa
picketpin
Buckeye
I've used Buehlers, Conetrols and Redfields over the years. The single biggest advantage that any of them have over the factory rib is the ability to adjust for WINDAGE that you don't get with the factory rib and rings.
Sure you can shim the facvtory rings but it's a pain in the butt and you can't shim it all that far.
I do sort of like the looks projectionless Conetrol rings. The only thing I've ever seen I like better are customs made made by Dale Gentry that use the Conetrol bases with the cone screws and the "ring is simle a flat piece of spring steel that encircles the scope and is then tightened into the Conetrol bases. Absolotley paper thin, light as you could make a ring and no screws etc except those in the base. I have the on one "AB" and a couple of Winchester model 70s
Lance: I know what you are saying. I might use them more at $10 a pop too. ;-)
Ross
Sure you can shim the facvtory rings but it's a pain in the butt and you can't shim it all that far.
I do sort of like the looks projectionless Conetrol rings. The only thing I've ever seen I like better are customs made made by Dale Gentry that use the Conetrol bases with the cone screws and the "ring is simle a flat piece of spring steel that encircles the scope and is then tightened into the Conetrol bases. Absolotley paper thin, light as you could make a ring and no screws etc except those in the base. I have the on one "AB" and a couple of Winchester model 70s
Lance: I know what you are saying. I might use them more at $10 a pop too. ;-)
Ross
roofinspector
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 282
I really do not think that the cantilever type mount is a new thing. Folks have been using Weaver tall stock etc machined up for years. This type mount (cantilever) makes use of the straight cylinder portion of the barrel, which makes it lots easier to make up.
I think one has to get used to the cosmetics/strength of these mounts, everyone has their own requirements for such and function.
Some guys do a visual bore sight before the drill tap of bases, so that windage in the mount itself is a moot point for that particular application.
I think one has to get used to the cosmetics/strength of these mounts, everyone has their own requirements for such and function.
Some guys do a visual bore sight before the drill tap of bases, so that windage in the mount itself is a moot point for that particular application.
gewehrfreund
Buckeye
Like many, I've tried a lot of different aftermarket scope mounting systems. Almost all of them work OK, and some work very well, but I prefer the original quarter rib. I'd probably learn to love a custom fitted Dakota rib, but that's not happening unless I win some sort of contest.
For both looks and function (and guality), it's hard to beat the Buehler and Conetrol bases/rings. I've never tried the S&K or rarer products, but they also have their followers, just as some prefer certain aftermarket triggers over others (I like the Canjars).
I've sold my Moulds weaver-style bases, and while I keep a set of the Burris clamp-on adapters, and a set of the Redfield bases in my parts box just in case, I may never use them.
Lance
For both looks and function (and guality), it's hard to beat the Buehler and Conetrol bases/rings. I've never tried the S&K or rarer products, but they also have their followers, just as some prefer certain aftermarket triggers over others (I like the Canjars).
I've sold my Moulds weaver-style bases, and while I keep a set of the Burris clamp-on adapters, and a set of the Redfield bases in my parts box just in case, I may never use them.
Lance
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
They're still butt ugly!
picketpin
Buckeye
It's that eyes of the beholder thing. I could remark on a couple of yours that you are very proud of that don't trip my trigger, but then they weren't made for me. ;-)
Sure you can bore sight it before it drill the mount holes and it all come out in line. BUT that isn't always where the thing wants to shoot.
I have several that work just fine on a bore scope. The only problem is that that doesn't seem to be where the darmned thing wants to shoot. Add to that the fact that most/may higher magnification scopes don't have a lot of actual windage adjustment even though it has a crap load of 1/8 or 1/116ths clicks.
My "V" in 22PPC bore sights just fine. The only problem is it shoots 6+ inches to the right and the 36X Leupold doesn't have 6 inches of windage in it to adjust.
So redrill the holes for the bases, shim the rings or simply replace the Ruger bases and rings with Redfield bases and rings.
It just depends on what you need to do.
Ross
Sure you can bore sight it before it drill the mount holes and it all come out in line. BUT that isn't always where the thing wants to shoot.
I have several that work just fine on a bore scope. The only problem is that that doesn't seem to be where the darmned thing wants to shoot. Add to that the fact that most/may higher magnification scopes don't have a lot of actual windage adjustment even though it has a crap load of 1/8 or 1/116ths clicks.
My "V" in 22PPC bore sights just fine. The only problem is it shoots 6+ inches to the right and the 36X Leupold doesn't have 6 inches of windage in it to adjust.
So redrill the holes for the bases, shim the rings or simply replace the Ruger bases and rings with Redfield bases and rings.
It just depends on what you need to do.
Ross
DavidMc116
Single-Sixer
COME ON! You know all of mine are trigger trippers! You must like liver!
roofinspector
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 282
Ross, I am afraid I do not own a boresighter of any type. I think you were referring to a bore sighter rather than a borescope. Boresighters can be sensitive to many things about the particular environment it is in, such as height of scope above bore etc. Looking thru the bore has not failed me yet.
I usually use a piece of paper at 25yd or 100yds(whatever I got at the time) and I only look down the bore and align the picture in the bore under the crosshairs. If that does not do it to get it on paper, something is surely amiss...........
If I cannot get the crosshairs on the paper and the paper in the line of visual boresight, then it is time to work on things some, replace scope, fill and redrill the mount holes, etc etc.
I usually use a piece of paper at 25yd or 100yds(whatever I got at the time) and I only look down the bore and align the picture in the bore under the crosshairs. If that does not do it to get it on paper, something is surely amiss...........
If I cannot get the crosshairs on the paper and the paper in the line of visual boresight, then it is time to work on things some, replace scope, fill and redrill the mount holes, etc etc.
picketpin
Buckeye
WINDAGE is almost always the problem with the #1 rib if it is going to have one over the holes drilled slightly off center on a "V". Yes the are LOTS of fixes. Over the years I have foundthat simply replacing the rib with a base that has external course adjustments for windage and the correct rings for the base is the easiest way to get the thing to zero and to sove any windage issues. Refield made a set of replacement bases for the "B" - "S": contour barrel that simply use the existing rib holes for the screws and the base hides the hole from the removal pf the dowels,
That allows the use of Redfield, Leupold, Burris or any other Redfield style ring. As an added advantage there is a far wider range of rings available when compared to factory Ruger rings or Ruger style rings mnade by other manufacturers. They also made a Redfield 2 piecer base to fit the "V" profile barrel. Buehler made a base but that requires Buehler rins. I simply find either one of the three, Redfield, Buehler or Conetrol a much easier solution than messing around with the Ruger factory set up when there are windage issues. Without filling holes or drilling more holes or shimming rings or shimming bases etc.
Do I use them on my non pre fix #1s, no. On the other hand I don't hesitate to use them on shooters, either factory or something I wildcatted.
That allows the use of Redfield, Leupold, Burris or any other Redfield style ring. As an added advantage there is a far wider range of rings available when compared to factory Ruger rings or Ruger style rings mnade by other manufacturers. They also made a Redfield 2 piecer base to fit the "V" profile barrel. Buehler made a base but that requires Buehler rins. I simply find either one of the three, Redfield, Buehler or Conetrol a much easier solution than messing around with the Ruger factory set up when there are windage issues. Without filling holes or drilling more holes or shimming rings or shimming bases etc.
Do I use them on my non pre fix #1s, no. On the other hand I don't hesitate to use them on shooters, either factory or something I wildcatted.
