Not happy with Ruger!

[Watchman]

So, I bought a Ruger Predator in 6.5 Creedmore.

I went to mount a scope I had taken off another rifle, that had a one piece base with integral rings.
When I did, it wouldn't fit. :?

It seems the factory scope base setup, which Ruger calls a "weaver style" base, does not carry uniform spacing between the grooves, the way that a standard Picatinni rail does. While there are enough grooves to mount individual rings here or there, the spacing is interrupted by the mounting screw positions, which are wider than the standard raised bits between the rail grooves. Then, instead of continuing the grooves as though there were no such obstructions and continuing standard spacing, they didn't.

The results? Not only would my original ring mount that is set up for standard Picatinni spacing not fit, but neither would the Leupold one piece mount that I subsequently bought, hoping IT would fit! :evil:

This can't possibly be an accident. Why design the base that way?? Especially on a long range rifle?

Ok, rant over. But if you are buying a predator, be forewarned... :x

 

[Big Old Boy]

I have three with that rail used by Ruger all have individual rings and work great.

 

[Ohio Mega Bass T/T]

Also remember there's a recall on the Predator.

 

[Watchman]

I have three with that rail used by Ruger all have individual rings and work great.

That's not the point.

Why not continue the spacing consistent with industry standards?
A one piece base/ring setup is stronger and stiffer. It can mean better accuracy.
And, it would allow using the same mount on multiple platforms.
I have a night vision scope that uses an integral mount that absolutely WILL NOT FIT Ruger's base. So much for nighttime coyote work.

Individual rings are cheaper, but that wasn't my primary consideration...

 

[huntsman22]

So get an EGW rail and quitcher whining....

 

[huntsman22]

Especially on a long range rifle?

It's a cheapazz budget rifle. If it was a long range rifle, it would have came with a 20moa(or more) rail, decent stock and mags. And a guy that would want to use a AR cantilever base/ring set up with crappy built-in ring spacing instead of wanting to maximize ring spacing with real rings, is a product of the swap-a-louie scope mentality instead of believing that every rifle should have its own dedicated scope (properly mounted).....

 

[Watchman]

Especially on a long range rifle?

It's a cheapazz budget rifle. If it was a long range rifle, it would have came with a 20moa(or more) rail, decent stock and mags. And a guy that would want to use a AR cantilever base/ring set up with crappy built-in ring spacing instead of wanting to maximize ring spacing with real rings, is a product of the swap-a-louie scope mentality instead of believing that every rifle should have its own dedicated scope (properly mounted).....

Well. I should have said "long range rifle" in quotation marks.
It will likely shoot better than most "tactical experts" here. :lol:

Nevertheless, I primarily bought this gun to use on nighttime coyotes, because you can mount a suppressor on it, and it IS inexpensive, though the results are adequate. Not all night scopes use rings. Mine certainly does not.

Which brings me back to the original point; why not just use standard rail specs? Give the owner more options? Anyone?

 

[huntsman22]

You were led to water......

 

[pisgah]

I have three with that rail used by Ruger all have individual rings and work great.

That's not the point.

Why not continue the spacing consistent with industry standards?

Which industry standard? Weaver, or Picatinny? They are not the same. Weaver accessories will usually fit Picatinny rails, but generally not vice versa.

 

[Watchman]

I would be content with consistent spacing, of either kind.

 

[huntsman22]

If you want your mount to work, spend the $40 bucks and drink from the EGW well. Not only is it picatinny, it is long enough to properly mount a scope, unlike the POS factory rail. But that would give you no reason to whine, other than the extra cost.

 

[Watchman]

If you want your mount to work, spend the $40 bucks and drink from the EGW well. Not only is it picatinny, it is long enough to properly mount a scope, unlike the POS factory rail. But that would give you no reason to whine, other than the extra cost.

That seems to be the proper solution.

But again, ( for those who refuse to see the original point,) WHY did Ruger choose to go with "the POS factory rail" in the first place?

I guess you guys all have unlimited funds. This is a budget rifle. Not a custom.
Ruger could have made the mount more versatile at no additional cost to them. They didn't. That's all.

My OP was intended as a warning to other potential buyers.
I guess it's like they say, price is what you pay, value is what you get....

 

[22/45 Fan]

But again, ( for those who refuse to see the original point,) WHY did Ruger choose to go with "the POS factory rail" in the first place?

I have the same question. I just bought a new 10/22 and it comes with a limited use Weaver rail. Why it didn't come with a more versatile Picatinny rail I don't understand since Ruger sells a replacement Picatinny rail for only $12.

 

[huntsman22]

looks like $12 more buck in rugers pocket....smart marketing?

 

[mike7mm08]

Things like this piss me off too. That said we all must remember the purpose of any company. Which is to make money. You either make money by selling things or cutting costs. I work in manufacturing. I will not even begin to go into the stupid crap I have seen done. But it saves a little bite of money per unit. Or it would be too expensive at some point to admit things were done wrong and redo them correctly. The days of doing things right no matter what are long gone. Now it is meet a price point,keep stock holders happy, then think about keeping the customers happy.

 

[22/45 Fan]

looks like $12 more buck in rugers pocket....smart marketing?

Not really. It costs them to make the Weaver rail too so including the Picatinny rail instead would be an insignifant cost difference.

 

[gunzo]

File a new groove where you need it, or widen an existing groove. Touch up with a black magic marker.

 

[SteelBlue]

I agree with the OP's complaint. It would not have taken much more effort to engineer the rail properly.

 

[pisgah]

Like it or not, Ruger, like all companies, designs its products for a certain market. The American line is directed at the budget-conscious vast majority who are not dedicated long range shooters or rifle cranks obsessed with ultimate accuracy or the "cool" factor but are simply hunters or casual target shooters looking for a reliable, reasonably accurate rifle that can be easily accessorized at their local Walmart or small gun shop -- all at a bargain price. For that vast army of folks, the American is a great option. If you're not a member of that army, the solution is simple -- bite the bullet and spend the bucks to modify the American to your tastes, or buy another rifle. After all, Ruger does make a Precision Rifle, no? Complaining about it is akin to griping that your Toyota Corolla is not competitive in the Indy 500, and just about as sensible.

 

[DGW1949]

I agree with the OP's complaint. It would not have taken much more effort to engineer the rail properly.

It's just how Ruger likes to do things.
No rhyme or reason to it, just is what it is.

DGW

 

[SteelBlue]

Yeah, well if it were something that cost more to do or manufacture I would just write it off as many have suggested, since Ruger sells at a relatively low price point. But this is something that is just a matter of programing the right numbers into the CNC machine. Whatever, no complaining at my end, but I still agree that the rail could have been set up better from the get go.

 

[gunzo]

Compared to the Weaver system, the picatinny is an infant in design. So who's to say they didn't do it proper? I was unaware that the rifle was expressed or even implied to be a tactical, target, match, combo, convertible, or any other type of platform. A sporting rifle, nothing more nothing less, with a sporting rifle scope mount base. If you consider the name Predator to be associated with the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, well, I guess it should have come with a picatinny for mounting lasers & "stuff". Otherwise, it's serviceable.
To agree with some, a picatinny would have been a nice touch, convenient maybe. But.............there is absolutely no conformity or set standards when it comes to sporting arms optic mount systems, doubt there ever will be. They've been all over the place since the beginning.

Not taking up for Ruger here, my Predator, when new, cut me & drew blood. It would not feed the first shell I tried. So, I guess I was too busy working on the thing to notice other anomalies, the scope mount not being one of them. IMO.

 

[jkh004]

Like it or not, Ruger, like all companies, designs its products for a certain market. The American line is directed at the budget-conscious vast majority who are not dedicated long range shooters or rifle cranks obsessed with ultimate accuracy or the "cool" factor but are simply hunters or casual target shooters looking for a reliable, reasonably accurate rifle that can be easily accessorized at their local Walmart or small gun shop -- all at a bargain price. For that vast army of folks, the American is a great option. If you're not a member of that army, the solution is simple -- bite the bullet and spend the bucks to modify the American to your tastes, or buy another rifle. After all, Ruger does make a Precision Rifle, no? Complaining about it is akin to griping that your Toyota Corolla is not competitive in the Indy 500, and just about as sensible.

What he said ^^^^ - Weaver rings are much more available in stores. If you want a Picatinny tactical thingy on there, buy one.

 

[Coyote Hunter]

Asking why and bitching about it is a waste of time and energy. They did what they did, end of story.

You want perfection, spend more money. Settle for less, spend less.

That said, it seems like a dumb bit of engineering on the part of the person that designed the rail - maybe a lazy copy-paste type thing.

 

[RSIno1]

Which brings me back to the original point; why not just use standard rail specs? Give the owner more options? Anyone?

The bean counters have determined they can make more money when you need to buy different parts rather than being able to use something you already have.

 

[9x19]

Ruger is probably not happy with you now, either.... so even-steven?

:mrgreen: