-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Disadvantages to higher rings
- Thread starter Qwkcrss
- Start date
The only downside is better cheekweld and a more relaxed head position.
I’m about to go to higher tings for a better cheekweld and more vertical head position
I prefer higher rings now.
I have adjustable cheek rests and butt pads so it’s nice to get the bore line a bit lower.
I have adjustable cheek rests and butt pads so it’s nice to get the bore line a bit lower.
I've been going in this direction lately, mainly because I've found that a vertical head position means that I can keep the sight picture centered in my eyeglasses. As my head position goes lower in relation to the optic, I have to look more out of the corner of my corrective lens, and then things get goofy due to the astigmatism correction and the strength of the lens prescription.
Obviously, proper cheekweld must be maintained, but an adjustable stock or chassis makes this easy and the payoff is significant.
Those without corrective eyewear may likely come to a different conclusion, and that's OK.
34-28mm rings will clear a 56mm objective plus caps over a straight 1.13 cylinder barrel with room to spare on your Tikka. I’d go with the 24mm arc rings if you’re running a 50mm on a factory CTR. My 56mm ZP5 fit on my CTR with 24mm rings. I switched it to a heavier barrel gun and had to go with 28s. That scope is going to sit pretty high on your rifle with 28s IMO. Won’t make much difference with the adjustable cheek riser but it might look goofy if you care about that at all. Just imagine it almost a 1/4 inch higher than it is now.
The biggest disadvantage is that people on Sniper's Hide will laugh at you if more than a human hair fits between the scope and barrel 
You lose elevation range in your scope going with higher rings, because now your scope is further out of alignment. More MOA on the rail can help offset that, or you can get a scope with more elevation range. Go with what is more comfortable and still repeatable. The scope does not have to be almost touching the barrel.
I’ve standardized on 1.5” for everything. Tried various heights and the higher rings feel more natural with how the head positions. Also helps me get more square to the rifle. I know it gets said a lot but get on the rifle with closed eyes and see where you naturally end up. If you’re looking over the scope higher rings might be the ticket.
That was definitely a thing, not as much now.The biggest disadvantage is that people on Sniper's Hide will laugh at you if more than a human hair fits between the scope and barrel
The problem with that is...where your eyes wind up?...will be dictated by where your cheekbone meets comb...raise the comb high enough to meet scope?...and you'll blow a disc out in your neck when it comes time to go prone.
We can always tuck down and get tight to the rifle but high and back to see through a high mounted scope?....not so much.
In the last couple years I've been shooting more AR type rifles then bolt guns so the ring ht. seems to be getting higher and higher.
I've now changed my cheek weld also due to the ht.
I've moved my bolt guns to now set in chassis and had to get higher rings.
So I think sometimes you just have to go with the flow.
Mirage off a hot barrel seems to be less also with more separation between scope and barrel.
Just throwing a different perspective out there
I've now changed my cheek weld also due to the ht.
I've moved my bolt guns to now set in chassis and had to get higher rings.
So I think sometimes you just have to go with the flow.
Mirage off a hot barrel seems to be less also with more separation between scope and barrel.
Just throwing a different perspective out there
Do the math on this, then come back and present your findings. Hint - it's a non-issue for any practical purpose.
Got to the height that gives you the most comfortable cheek weld...each of us area bit different...
Down side is you'll be more comfortable, more than likely, and ultimately end up shooting MORE, and spend more money on ammo and matches, end up trolling the PX for new kit because you are now even more addicted, and you'll neglect either time with your family/loved ones, and/or end up with a divorce.
/sarcasm off - In all seriousness, I don't have any issues keeping my glass a little higher than most off of my bore, still plenty of elevation (+16 mils) which will cover anything I could possibly acquire.
/sarcasm off - In all seriousness, I don't have any issues keeping my glass a little higher than most off of my bore, still plenty of elevation (+16 mils) which will cover anything I could possibly acquire.
Shooters need to start realizing that adjustable cheek risers are NOT to line your face/eyes up with the optic.
Cheek risers are there to accommodate your head position when rifle is setup properly to you. RINGS are the devices used to bring the optic to the proper placement.
Start setting up rifles without the optic and rings and then get the ring height that gets the optic as close to proper height without adjusting the rifle setup.
Cheek risers are there to accommodate your head position when rifle is setup properly to you. RINGS are the devices used to bring the optic to the proper placement.
Start setting up rifles without the optic and rings and then get the ring height that gets the optic as close to proper height without adjusting the rifle setup.
Different for everyone. Rifle needs to be setup properly to you in a way that allows you to properly utilize the fundamentals of marksmanship.
For example, if you shoot mostly prone, you will have a slightly different setup than if you focus more on positional. My rifle/optic shoulders perfectly in positions where I’m very vertical and square behind the rifle. But not as perfectly when I’m prone. Reasoning behind this is positional is mostly what I focus on and it’s much easier for me to fudge it a little when prone as it’s a much smaller amount of my shooting.
Also included is how long you have to hold your head on the rifle.
If it’s not long, you’ll want your head as vertical as possible. The weight of your head supported by muscle and using the cheek piece for reference/index point.
If you need to be looking through your optic for long periods of time, you’ll want the weight of your head being supported by the cheek piece as to not induce muscle fatigue.
If it’s not long, you’ll want your head as vertical as possible. The weight of your head supported by muscle and using the cheek piece for reference/index point.
If you need to be looking through your optic for long periods of time, you’ll want the weight of your head being supported by the cheek piece as to not induce muscle fatigue.
Dthomas is spot on. If you are shooting for any length of time, the tension in your head/neck muscles has to be minimized. Everythign comes from that. You have to set-up your stock and scope position to match your eye, not the other way around.
ILya
ILya
The problem with that is...where your eyes wind up?...will be dictated by where your cheekbone meets comb...raise the comb high enough to meet scope?...and you'll blow a disc out in your neck when it comes time to go prone.
We can always tuck down and get tight to the rifle but high and back to see through a high mounted scope?....not so much.
With an adjustable comb I set it after I’m comfortable with where my cheek will be and fine tune. I like to be at a shorter LOP and being close and high to me feels natural. In my opinion it makes prone to upright really smooth.
Well?...whatever floats your boat I guess but to me?...there's just something fundamentally flawed about setting up a rifle in such a way that your head is positioned well above the barrel...tactically speaking?...it seems like your setting yourself up to be picked off as an easy head shot and for that reason I choose to stay low and tight rather than high and loose.
If a 1/2” difference was the difference between a head shot or none at all the first problem was probably my concealment. Professional sniping isn’t my job.
Dthomas...very interesting. I'll have to try that.
I'm curious to see if it works out differently than how i set mine up.
I'm curious to see if it works out differently than how i set mine up.
Do you find yourself in a lot of Sniper vs Sniper battles?
Something else to take into acount is the way your eyeball looking thru the scope. I had my AI AT set up with a 1.18 mount and a low scope base. Swapped over to 1.35 rings and a tall scope base.
It been a better experience with the rifle and it also alot easier to hold on barricades i can hold the smaller circles on the DFAT training card.
It been a better experience with the rifle and it also alot easier to hold on barricades i can hold the smaller circles on the DFAT training card.
I personally like my optic as close to the bore as possible. But because I am going to start using a clip on NV I need higher rings. I am using AR height rings on my ARC Nucleus now. Turns out the higher rings have less drop according to JBM's calculations.
I have a 308 shooting a 155g bullet at 2775. With the optic 1.5" above the bore the drop at 500 is 59.9" at 500 yards. With my optic 2" above the bore the drop is 57.9. The higher rings give me 2" less drop at 500 yards with no other changes other than ring height.
I have a 308 shooting a 155g bullet at 2775. With the optic 1.5" above the bore the drop at 500 is 59.9" at 500 yards. With my optic 2" above the bore the drop is 57.9. The higher rings give me 2" less drop at 500 yards with no other changes other than ring height.
I use 1.42" ARC 10 rings on everything. I setup my cheek piece so I can lay my head on it, get great position and be comfortable. I have shot prone for several hours straight at different events and classes. Maybe it is just my physical make-up but I never have any neck pain. In fact, I can usually fall asleep in my position. Super comfortable and it allows me relax.
Anything lower doesn't feel right to me and is far from comfortable. The taller rings also help when using night vision that mounts in front of the riflescope
Anything lower doesn't feel right to me and is far from comfortable. The taller rings also help when using night vision that mounts in front of the riflescope
The problem with that is...where your eyes wind up?...will be dictated by where your cheekbone meets comb...raise the comb high enough to meet scope?...and you'll blow a disc out in your neck when it comes time to go prone.
We can always tuck down and get tight to the rifle but high and back to see through a high mounted scope?....not so much.
I'm not sure how you think you can speak in such absolute terms when everyone's physiology and anatomy is slightly (or not so slightly) different.
You do you and let everyone else figure out what works best for them. There are very few absolutes when it comes to fitting a rifle (or shotgun for that matter) to a shooter.
It’s really trial and error. You’ll know when you get it right. The first chassis / stock may not be for you either. It wasn’t me. That’s why there are so many.
I honestly can't say that I noticed more stability but my ability to shoot well, consistently and comfortably, was a big thing I have noticed
......the fuck did I just read?
The best way is to find an instructor that is big into fundamentals.
Dude!
That extra 1/2 inch of exposure is huge if your an elite operator down range!
Get with the program!
Hi,
HOLY SHIT....somebody has been reading too many fantasy novels.......
Somebody misspelled Jester by the way.... @Dthomas3523 maybe you can fix that for him....
Sincerely,
Theis
HOLY SHIT....somebody has been reading too many fantasy novels.......
Somebody misspelled Jester by the way.... @Dthomas3523 maybe you can fix that for him....
Sincerely,
Theis
I suggest you research more and stop posting either outdated or completely wrong info.
Its becoming a pattern
Fuck I love this site. ^Hall of fame material right here.
Hi,
And from a former member of the Black Sheep Squadron too...
Its always the Florida people, lolololol
Sincerely,
Theis
@JINKSTER
Can you please provide us with some more context of your post regarding low and tight head position vs high and loose.
My thought on the matter are being tight if fine but it requires alot more muscle tension. Thus more oxygen and thus a higher heart rate. This is counter productive. Just like holding your breath.
Also please provide some info on your background. Did you attend any military formal training to come to these conclusion?
Can you please provide us with some more context of your post regarding low and tight head position vs high and loose.
My thought on the matter are being tight if fine but it requires alot more muscle tension. Thus more oxygen and thus a higher heart rate. This is counter productive. Just like holding your breath.
Also please provide some info on your background. Did you attend any military formal training to come to these conclusion?
Similar threads
