Rifle Scopes another "what ring height" request

[charliehustle]

Alright, I know it is super annoying given the calculators out there and available, but I am trying to help out my dad who doesn't have the gun in hand and knows nothing about rings/bases. He just bought a Rem 700 308 5R (sendaro profile, if I understand correctly). He also purchased a Zeiss conquest, 1 inch tube, 4-14x50 (or something like this, I know it is a 50MM bell).

His budget for base and rings is fairly low (100-150 let's say). I recommended the EGW 1 piece base. He wants the 15 MOA cant. I think that is decided.

For rings, I talked to the guys at SWFA. They recommended TSP rings in this price range. I tried to get him into a pair of seekins, but the only seekins in 1 inch that I saw were low (0.75) height. I am not certain it will work.

For the TPS rings, I am fairly sure that their medium (0.98) rings would work. I'm wondering if their low (0.78) height would work. If the seekins low would work, I'd push him that direction.

The reason I am asking this very annoying question is, without the gun and base in hand, I am unsure how to measure the "base to barrel" spacing that many online calculators ask for. If anyone wants to chime in, I (and he) would greatly appreciate it. No idea if he'd ever want to run BC covers or anything.

Again, I appreciate the help.

 

[Layton]

Not sure on height but Murphy Precision makes good bases in your price range.

L

 

[seanh]

EGW makes a good budget base, Murphy is a grate base but is 120 bucks. For rings, Weaver makes a nice budget picitinny set of rings...go with the high and you'll be fine.

 

[thrusty]

My rifle is a Rem 700 AAC-SD...barrel is Remington's varmit contour 0.820" at the muzzle.
I have a Leupold Mark 4, 4.5-14x50mm that sits on a Badger 20MOA rail; I'm using Badger standard rings - which are 0.823" tall.
I have JUST enough clearence for the scope and the butler lense covers.

The highest I would put on my rifle would have been Badger medium rings - which are 0.885" tall.

Those numbers should help you out.

 

[Win308]

On my Rem .308 5R I originally had a 20moa EGW rail and the TPS low steel rings (.920"), and with my SWFA SS 10x42 HD which has a 42mm lens at the bell, I had 0.35" to spare between the bell and the barrel. I am fairly confident that a scope with a 50mm bell would have fit comfortably with the excess space that I had.

 

[slivoman]

I know Seekins used to have a ring height calculator on their site, however they have updated the site and I cannot find it anymore. Just for reference, I have a 5R with an SS 5-20 scope mounted in 30mm Seekins rings in size low. I had to slightly modify the Butler Creek caps in order for them to not touch the barrel, only the front. My scope is also a 50mm bell. If you want it as low as possible, I would say get the medium rings. Otherwise high will clear it all, but you may have an issue aligning your cheek on the stock.

 

[charliehustle]

Thanks, guys. This is all very helpful. I am starting to think that the 0.78 inch rings will be tight but would technically work. Based on Win308's numbers, the 50 inch bell (vs his 42) would cut clearance by about 0.16 inches and the rings themselves would be 0.14 inches lower (0.78 compared to 0.92). That is 0.30 inches and Win308 had 0.35 inches to work with. That leaves VERY little room by my calcs (0.05 inches, or 1.2 mm!!). I will advise him accordingly. Guessing that leaves no room for even a shaved set of caps. Thanks again guys.