View Full Version : Scope Issues

Cuc Tu
April 27, 2011, 12:48 PM
Hi All,

I recently bought a Ruger 10/22 and a low-price scope (~$180 ret.) on special direct from the mfg.

Weaver Quad Lock rings and stock Ruger rail. The scope rings did not clamp hard enough on the rail and after 30 rounds, the whole scope was rattling, yet the nuts were still tight. I'm thinking of adding aluminum can shims to take up the slack, but any other suggestions?

Reticle (this is a bigger issue):
After the 30 rounds, I noticed the reticle looks rotated about 30 degrees from the turrets. I'm sure it was not off when I mounted the scope - I used the turrets to eyeball the scope alignment, and it all looked close enough at the time...I'm thinking the scope is a defect and should be returned? I've emailed the mfg, but they have not responded.

Windage and Elevation:
I was also just curious about the scope adjustments. The elevation knob is graduated from 0 to 14 (there is a gap between 0 and 14) and the threaded part of the tube is graduated from 0 to 7. The windage knob is graduated from 7 to 0 to 7 (there is a gap between 7 and 7) and the threaded part of the tube is graduated from 0 to 7. Each click is ¼” at 100 yards. What do these numbers mean and how are these marks usually used?

April 27, 2011, 01:18 PM
Is your factory base a weaver size base? If so, I would upgrade to the standard size base as the weaver base IMO dosn't hold as well. The mounting system for the larger size base is superior. You will aso have less trouble finding rings that lock well to your base. Do not use shims on your ring to base mounting. This will more than likely not hold well and could cause damage to your scope if not done correctly.

Be sure to get the correct size rings for your scope. Most common scope tubes are 1 inch but be sure to Mic or check the specs on your scope.

What brand of scope do you have? If it came with the rifle as a package deal it is most likely of poor quality and will need to be replaced. If I understand your statements correctly, and the cross hairs have shifted, then it is definately damaged and will need to be replaced. The damage was most likely caused by the incorrect mounting and firing. Dosn't take much to damage a cheap scope.

I'm not sure I understand your description of the turret markings and adjustment but I wouldn't worry about that until you get decent glass mounted correctly.

There are lots of great videos on youtube on how to correctly mount scopes that will show you how to get your crosshairs level and eye relief set correctly. Might be worth checking out.

You picked a great rifle and I'm sure you'll enjoy it once you get this problem worked out.

April 27, 2011, 01:24 PM
$180 should buy a very nice rimfire scope....which it looks like you didn't receive!

Mounting: if the rings won't hold the scope securely, they're a bad match. That said, the scope seems to be pretty terrible so maybe a scope change is in order before changing rings. I've had to ditch many cheap ring sets before learning my lesson about .22 rings.

Reticle: if they're rotated off axis from the turrets, the scope is broken and defective. Return it. Who is the manufacturer? Warranties differ among brands, but this sounds coverable by almost everyone.

Windage and Elevation: the numbers/hash marks are meant to give you a frame of reference for dialing in elevation and windage changes when you switch loads or range. For example, a subsonic load may require dialing in a change relative to your zero with a high velocity load. So I may know that '5' is my subsonic zero at 50yds, whereas '7' is my high velocity zero mark.
This is only typically useful if you have a good quality scope that adjusts back and forth repeatedly.

Cuc Tu
April 27, 2011, 02:29 PM
Thanks for the feedback.

I'm hesitant to mention the mfg name at this point until they respond or fail to do so. I think 3-days to respond and I’ll send them another email with a copy of my receipt and pictures of the problem. Suffice it to say that they are commonly mentioned in forums as producing a decent quality product for a good price. I got a good price and was extremely happy until I used the scope at the range.

Scope aside for the moment. I got the 10/22 Carbine with SS barrel. Ruger lists the supplied scope rail as a “Combination Scope Base Adapter for both Weaver-style and .22 “tip-off” scope mounts…” I picked the 1” Weaver Quad Lock rings. Are these not compatible with the Ruger base?

The scope calls for 1” rings.

Mounting the scope:
I first attached the base to the rifle and secured with small-screw loc-tight.
Then I attached the ring bottoms finger tight. The rear ring was tight, but the front ring could be moved, with some friction. I mounted the bottom rings by pushing them forward against the ribs (I figured the arm will jerk back when fired and this would help prevent any movement). My big screwdriver seemed to solve the “loose” ring connection to the base.
I plopped the scope on the ring bases and checked the alignment with the tube. The setup at this point seemed perfect to me. I could not see any gaps between the tube and rings, so I positioned the scope where it felt right.
I added the top rings (4 pieces) and tightened them slowly in an alternating pattern (something I was reading online, so I don’t recall the exact pattern, but it seemed reputable). The install seemed good from that point.

I hope this is not a source of damage to the scope. I’ll have to take the rings off and check for any marks on the tube, but I’m sure that area was OK.

April 27, 2011, 02:58 PM
I had a similar problem with my 10-22 way back when.

I bought a real cheap scope and the crosshairs rotated and then actually broke.

I threw the scope away and got a nice steel tube Weaver K4. That scope has been on the rifle over 30 years and still works fine.

My advice would be to toss the scope and get something from Weaver, Leupold or Nikon. I think your problems would go away.


April 27, 2011, 03:52 PM
Your mounting procedure sounds correct. My guess would be you just got a defective scope from the factory. Your ring problem is one I've ran into several times when trying to use weaver bases. There seems to be some variance in the sizes and again, IMO, that base type is inferior to the standard base. Check out these: