Eye relief - is there a cost trade off to manufacturers?

[SRvet]

I put a Swarovski 1.25-4x24 scope (80mm eye relief) on a CZ602 in 458 Win Mag. The eye relief was only just adequate and I had to be really careful that I didn’t creep my head forward into my normal shooting position or I would get a warning tap on the eyebrow! Fortunately the scope had a telescoping eyepiece which gave a little leeway but it was still a recipe for a flinch. I’m pretty sure extending the stock would be the best solution if this scope needed to be used. The rifle now wears a Trijicon RMR and is much more user friendly.
My new 458 Lott already wears the Z6 1-6x24EE scope and has a longer than usual stock at 15 inch length of pull. I’m hoping this will be much more comfortable to shoot with less risk of scope making contact

 

[geoff rath]

Now you guys are going to string me up, but I prefer the lines of the Ruger No1 to the Dakota Model 10. Now I grant you, it is a beautiful rifle, but it just doesn't have the classic pedigree of the No1.

I've been wondering; would Dakota have produced their Model 10 if William B hadn't brought out the No. 1? Anyone have any idea on this?

 

[WAB]

I've been wondering; would Dakota have produced their Model 10 if William B hadn't brought out the No. 1? Anyone have any idea on this?

I don’t know, but I suspect that WBR created the market and Dakota saw the opportunity and stepped in to satisfy the high end niche.

The No3 and No1 were high risk but genius moves from a marketing standpoint. Think about the time this occurred. Mass produced bolt guns were moving to stamped parts, pressed in checkering and high gloss finish. High end NA guns were being defined by Weatherby with lots of gloss and high velocity cartridges. Here comes William B saying, hey let’s step back a hundred years. I’ll give you one shot with a traditional cartridge and finish. And we loved it!

 

[rookhawk]

I've been wondering; would Dakota have produced their Model 10 if William B hadn't brought out the No. 1? Anyone have any idea on this?

I would say yes, definitely. A dakota 10 and a ruger 1 are not the same thing. Both are wonderful falling block actions, but they are different.

The Ruger 1 is a single action type that was built to cover .17 cal all the way up to .458. (and people have removed breech wall thickness and ramp to stuff even bigger in it) Its way over built to provide the widest possible platform with different barrel contours to mass produce many models on one action.

The Dakota 10 is a dimunitive action that has lines far closer to the Gibbs Farquarson and other English falling block actions. It is truly a staling rifle action, with calibers from .17hmr up to about .330 Dakota. (think .338 class) Even in 300HH its a fairly unpleasant gun to shoot. But you can carry it all day.

Of course their manufacturing quality is a lot different, the biggest difference is the Ruger 1 is a through bolted stock so it is heavier and has a hollow void in it, the Dakota 10 is not.

All of this are paying homage to English and Scottish falling blocks of the 19th century of which there were many patents. The Ruger action is as large as those originals designed for 450-400 and similar, whereas the Dakota is built for small bore rounds in a very lightweight package.

Both are cool, they are not the same at the starting point, and a Ruger can be made to shoot bigger rounds and the Dakota can be made to shoot smaller rounds in a better dimensioned gun.

 

[Bonk]

I have a Ruger GSR .223 wearing a Leupold fixed power scout scope. It's a very handy rifle and the long eye relief allows me to shoot with both eyes open. It's almost like having a red dot. I have no need for a lightweight bolt action .223 rifle but the GSR/Leupold combo is just such a great setup I can't bring myself to part with it.

I've had a few #1 rifles and getting a scope mounted correctly was always a minor challenge. Not that big a deal but it was usually more involved than just buying a scope and mounting it in the Ruger rings.

 

[Laniarius]

Since I started this thread earlier this year, I purchased one of the new Bushnell Elite 4500s, in 1-4x. Eye relief is 4.4" according to Bushnell. Seems about right from using it. I have it on a .223 sporting rifle as a no bells and whistles LPVO. I'm tempted to try it on my 375 H&H, for which I have QD mounts. As I've seen in online reviews, I think the the quality is about the same as the previous Elites. These ones are made in South Korea. The earlier elites were made in Japan and there is apparently something special about the Light Optical Works factory. I guess it will take time to see how these hold up compared to the old elites.

Bushnell says "Recoil’s no problem either as it’s been built to withstand the highest magnums without missing a beat." I may test that in the future.

They also make a 2.5-10x with a stated eye relief of 4.3". I don't have a use for one of those right now but would consider getting one.