Rifle Scopes Disadvantages to higher rings
- Thread starter Qwkcrss
- Start date
Paging @Jack Master
What’s the difference in between .5” (going from a 1” ring to 1.5”) over bore at 300 and 500yds. With some realistic cant variations?
Say a 2” bore height to a 2.50”
What’s the difference in between .5” (going from a 1” ring to 1.5”) over bore at 300 and 500yds. With some realistic cant variations?
Say a 2” bore height to a 2.50”
I could only do that for my use. Each of us must weigh the trade off’s and make our own decision of how to set up our own rifle for our own use.
I carry and shoot my rifles almost every day year round. Normally only a few shots except on range days. Lot of my shooting is offhand. Much on moving targets. For me, lower is better. YMMV
I was simply pointing out that there are also negatives to raising a scope
I carry and shoot my rifles almost every day year round. Normally only a few shots except on range days. Lot of my shooting is offhand. Much on moving targets. For me, lower is better. YMMV
I was simply pointing out that there are also negatives to raising a scope
Yes there are, however the pros out weigh the cons. That however depends heavily on what the weapon is used for as well as the max engagement yardage.
A high mounted scope is much faster mounting for snap shots, plus has a longer point blank range. The military learned this long ago, hence why irons were higher on a 16 vs a 14 or anything prior.
Hi,
Can you line out those negative affects in line item form so each line item can be discussed??
Sincerely,
Theis
I did that above in paragraph form above.
But seriously, why? If you like a high scope, get a high scope. I really don’t care to endlessly debate it. Just made a point that there are downsides.
Last edited:
Never would i have guessed yesterday that this thread would have reached 3 pages and counting..
we are bored, people.. lol
we are bored, people.. lol
Not really, just killing time cooling down from working out. Have a 600cfm Holley an a duel point to build an install, then tweak on Ford-a-Lay.
@lowlight the Hide still needs a Hall of Fame Sticky.
No need to ban, we can keep them around for entertainment. It would be super easy for anyone to look them up in the sticky, an set straight.
If they don't fix stupid on their own, they can be vetted by @THEIS approved by @Dthomas3523 and voted in by @lash @Steel head @BLKWLFK9 @spife7980, etc. 3 Votes and a nod by Theis and Dave can make the user immortal. We've lost some of the all-time greats already.
If they can get @TheGerman to make a loving and compassionate case for them, they'll get a second chance.
PS I was going to suggest @beetroot as well, but he'd troll people into being stupid and laugh as people try to decide if they need a metric scope.
Jim
No need to ban, we can keep them around for entertainment. It would be super easy for anyone to look them up in the sticky, an set straight.
If they don't fix stupid on their own, they can be vetted by @THEIS approved by @Dthomas3523 and voted in by @lash @Steel head @BLKWLFK9 @spife7980, etc. 3 Votes and a nod by Theis and Dave can make the user immortal. We've lost some of the all-time greats already.
If they can get @TheGerman to make a loving and compassionate case for them, they'll get a second chance.
PS I was going to suggest @beetroot as well, but he'd troll people into being stupid and laugh as people try to decide if they need a metric scope.
Jim
Last edited:
Hi,
Ok, so....
1. "Less Pointable for fast shots"....scope height would have nothing to do with that as long as you are able to adjust your stock for proper sight/cheek alignment.
2. "slight less durable"....based off what? I can toss my rifle all sorts of ways and there is pretty much no way to have it land on scope rings first; it always lands on something else first.
3. "more prone to canting error"....so if my integral rail is manufactured to say a .001 tolerance and my scope mount is manufactured to say a .001 tolerance....how does my 1.5" mount offer more cant capability than my 1.0" mount?
4. "slightly more difficult to place bullet exactly at short range"...ONLY if your rifle is not setup for that scope height. Being that BR rail guns have crazy high optics; how can you say it causes difficulty in exact bullet placement??
Sincerely,
Theis
Last edited:
@lowlight the Hide still needs a Hall of Fame Sticky.
No need to ban, we can keep them around for entertainment. It would be super easy for anyone to look them up in the sticky, an set straight.
If they don't fix stupid on their own, they can be vetted by @THEIS approved by @Dthomas3523 and voted in by @lash @Steel head @BLKWLFK9 @spife7980, etc. 3 Votes and a nod by Theis and Dave can make the user immortal. We've lost some of the all-time greats already.
If they can get @TheGerman to make a loving and compassionate case for them, they'll get a second chance.
PS I was going to suggest @beetroot as well, but he'd troll people into being stupid and laugh as people try to decide if they metric scope.
Jim
LoL, where was that posted?
Hall of Fame as in people or hall of fame as in threads? I created a Legendary thread a while ago for the second type that anyone can decide to add a thread to.@lowlight the Hide still needs a Hall of Fame Sticky.
No need to ban, we can keep them around for entertainment. It would be super easy for anyone to look them up in the sticky, an set straight.
If they don't fix stupid on their own, they can be vetted by @THEIS approved by @Dthomas3523 and voted in by @lash @Steel head @BLKWLFK9 @spife7980, etc. 3 Votes and a nod by Theis and Dave can make the user immortal. We've lost some of the all-time greats already.
If they can get @TheGerman to make a loving and compassionate case for them, they'll get a second chance.
PS I was going to suggest @beetroot as well, but he'd troll people into being stupid and laugh as people try to decide if they need a metric scope.
Jim
I'll throw some calculus at this later to "Run the Math" rather than "Run the rifle"... outside is scary
uhh...Ever run a ballistic program/calculator???..... yeah..... all math!! Go eat a bag of dicks.
Everything we do In long range precision shooting is Math... so, do the damn math.
Am I reading correctly, 10 degrees of cant at 400yds would move the POI 1.042 and 1.302”?
Call it a 1/4” difference at 400yds with .5” extra height at a 10 deg cant?
Yep. 1/4" difference due to the ring height change.
You'll still need to add the cant due to dialing up and rolling your scope over to get the total cant effect. If you dial up 2 mils and role over 10 degrees is .34 mills of windage added--> 4.448" windage, + 1.302 for a total of 5.791" total.
Look at us.... "Running the math"!
My old 22" 308 with a 1.875 off set, at full cant on a Harris is less than .5moa off group center at 600 yds.
So, you’d have to be severely canted at 10 degrees.
And, the difference from a 2” bore and 2.5” bore to center isn’t substantial enough to be of any issue.
Meaning, if the cant was enough to miss with a 1.5” set off rings, it was already enough to miss with a 1” set of rings.
I found out long ago that if you don't mount the scope high enough that there won't be enough elevation to rest the rim of your helmet on when you fall asleep on security. Too low and your chin will rest on the stock, not comfortable at all. Too high and you're liable to take a headshot (in the form of a smack to the back of the head IME).
FWIW they got the irons just spot on the AR. Snug up that chinstrap and you can appear to be staring intently down the sights at all times, sending chills up the enemies spine, all the while getting rested up for when they blow that whistle and go over the top! Then you'll be glad you had the high rings and that extra rest, boy will they be surprised!
Of course this is 2000 era pre 9/11 training... It's changed since then. Not sure what height works best with these newer helmets.
FWIW they got the irons just spot on the AR. Snug up that chinstrap and you can appear to be staring intently down the sights at all times, sending chills up the enemies spine, all the while getting rested up for when they blow that whistle and go over the top! Then you'll be glad you had the high rings and that extra rest, boy will they be surprised!
Of course this is 2000 era pre 9/11 training... It's changed since then. Not sure what height works best with these newer helmets.
I wonder why folks get upset when reading a differing opinion written by a stranger?
If you choose to introduce small errors into your system it’s OK with me. I have always tried to reduce errors as much as possible. It actually may be a good trade off for you if you have issues with your neck or upper body stress.
If you choose to introduce small errors into your system it’s OK with me. I have always tried to reduce errors as much as possible. It actually may be a good trade off for you if you have issues with your neck or upper body stress.
LoL, you know what I read from that chart???
@lowlight told everyone, you don't need a damn bubble level!
Im taking my bubble level off when I get home and turning it into jewlery!!
In reality that is the easiest way to shoot a AN/PVS 4, on a 14, 16 or 700 Rem.
But your still raising your position exposing yourself to getting your noggin popped by enemy snipers.
Hold on now. That chart is showing only the change from 2" to 2.5" rings. You still have to the add in the actual cant effect of dialing your scope.
Rolling over 3 degrees while shooting 600yds (2.5 mils up) will add a .1mil of windage or shooting 1000yds (8 mils up) could ad .4 mils windage.
It's marketing and sales,
They are "selling" you on this line of thinking, but the origins, the reality, the fact is, canting is not solved by a level
A level is a crutch for people
They are "selling" you on this line of thinking, but the origins, the reality, the fact is, canting is not solved by a level
A level is a crutch for people
no, I hear you. My eye is good enough to not have me 3-5deg canted. Love having someone like you as a numbers resource. good lookin out, homie.
Opinions are often wrong. Many people on here strive for truth.
You’re not missing in any of your hunting scenarios due to raising the rings up and the slight amount of cant induced windage. If you could prove it, you’d be all over it posting. You can’t prove it so it’s just “an opinion from a stranger.”
Anything you may have observed is from either A) high rings without the proper adjustment in the stock B) flawed fundamentals
1 degree at 1860 yards with my 7 saum would get me a miss.
At 800 yards,,,,not so much.
I would make a strong suggestion that you go to your account options and sign up for the upgrade to online training which is less than $20 per month.
That will let you view a long list of training videos by the site owner Frank.
If you watch those videos, practice at home then go practice on the range, then watch them again, you'll find you will get a lot more out of any physical class you go to, since you'll have a grasp of all the basic stuff down good.
lol, I wish I had somewhere to shoot 1860 yards. I would then agree to keep my bubble levels. I just know, the matches that I have shot without one, I did just as well or better (time saved by looking at the bubble) than ones I have shot with one. Most matches I shoot are 1200 and in.
I’m pretty lucky in that department.
I don’t have one on my 260 anymore, it’s not needed for the ranges I’m generally shooting now with it.
Just cause it’s 105 outside and I had nothing better to do than practice in the sun. To give an example how little cant messes with you at closer distance. This is a 1.5” mount. I need to measure, but a minimum of 2.5” over bore.
This is 100 yds standing locked into a tripod. So there’s a little wobble to account for.
1st pic, “cold bore” (hate that term, but whatever, first shots of the day). No cant
2nd pic is from behind the rifle at almost a 30-45deg cant. This is a huge amount of cant. It also played hell with my recoil management.
3rd pic is the shots from that cant. It took that much to put my POI about a minute to the right.
I used an extreme amount of cant to illustrate how
Little of an excuse this is at short range.
This is 100 yds standing locked into a tripod. So there’s a little wobble to account for.
1st pic, “cold bore” (hate that term, but whatever, first shots of the day). No cant
2nd pic is from behind the rifle at almost a 30-45deg cant. This is a huge amount of cant. It also played hell with my recoil management.
3rd pic is the shots from that cant. It took that much to put my POI about a minute to the right.
I used an extreme amount of cant to illustrate how
Little of an excuse this is at short range.
Attachments
I haven't been on here for years, but these quoted posts gave me a good chuckle.
On an aside - with 1" high 34mm rings on a 700's A1-3 stock, my cheek weld was about spot on.
With the same 34mm scope, 1.35" rings give me similar eye placement on a Tikka laminated stock - the comb/geometry is deceptively high. Granted, the rail here is a tad lower.
I have been conferring with the DLOO about various 30mm scopes as a replacement for that ancient, creaky 34mm Hensoldt...it's great when I mention what I need & his wired brain says "this scope & this scope" is what you need.
I'll take his optics experience over my conjecture 8 days a week.
On an aside - with 1" high 34mm rings on a 700's A1-3 stock, my cheek weld was about spot on.
With the same 34mm scope, 1.35" rings give me similar eye placement on a Tikka laminated stock - the comb/geometry is deceptively high. Granted, the rail here is a tad lower.
I have been conferring with the DLOO about various 30mm scopes as a replacement for that ancient, creaky 34mm Hensoldt...it's great when I mention what I need & his wired brain says "this scope & this scope" is what you need.
I'll take his optics experience over my conjecture 8 days a week.
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.
^^^^
To me that is a lot of change. But if you shoot large targets at short range no big deal.
I primarily get concerned with small issues in crow shooting. I shoot them daily for months each winter. My longest shot last year was 485 meters with several over 400 m.
A crow is about a 2”-2.25”wide by 3” tall kill zone. They look larger but when put pull the feathers off they are not.
Shooting these targets at these ranges I cannot give up a 1/4” at 400 meters. I am far from hitting them all but I try to hit as many as possible. I did hit 25 straight recently with an average range of 245 meters and max range of 399 meters. Ended up missing # 26 at 254 meters in a wind gust.
I am still amazed that others get upset at someone who post a civil comment based on fact.
To me that is a lot of change. But if you shoot large targets at short range no big deal.
I primarily get concerned with small issues in crow shooting. I shoot them daily for months each winter. My longest shot last year was 485 meters with several over 400 m.
A crow is about a 2”-2.25”wide by 3” tall kill zone. They look larger but when put pull the feathers off they are not.
Shooting these targets at these ranges I cannot give up a 1/4” at 400 meters. I am far from hitting them all but I try to hit as many as possible. I did hit 25 straight recently with an average range of 245 meters and max range of 399 meters. Ended up missing # 26 at 254 meters in a wind gust.
I am still amazed that others get upset at someone who post a civil comment based on fact.
"large targets at short range" ? LOL.
I hope this wasn't addressed to me. I'm not completely up & up on all this online stuff, replies, etc.
I hope this wasn't addressed to me. I'm not completely up & up on all this online stuff, replies, etc.
Last edited:
FYI,
Most people who involuntarily cant the rifle are well inside 3 degrees.
most of the time examples are given in higher numbers to make it appear more impressive. The reality is, you would never shoot that way on purpose without accounting for it. IE: Being rolled over to shoot under or around something. If I want to sell you an overpriced level at $100+ dollars, I better make it sound important and necessary.
In reality, the average person cants about 2 degrees or less, a point where it will appear visible downrange but not be noticeable behind the rifle. Why is it not noticeable, because your head is probably rolled over so you partially disabled the 4 levels that currently reside in your head, each of which is about 10x more accurate than your $6 store-bought level.
My experience has demonstrated the bigger issue is the inconsistency in the group or combination of shots vs a singular issue. Canting is never all or nothing it's normally incremental, which then opens up the groups because everything is launched at a slightly different angle from the shot before.
You start chasing what you did previously with a system that is in a different position. A simple bipod adjustment will fix it better than a level. A level fixes nothing, it just points out a problem. If you don't fix the problem what is the point of continuing to point it out?
Most people who involuntarily cant the rifle are well inside 3 degrees.
most of the time examples are given in higher numbers to make it appear more impressive. The reality is, you would never shoot that way on purpose without accounting for it. IE: Being rolled over to shoot under or around something. If I want to sell you an overpriced level at $100+ dollars, I better make it sound important and necessary.
In reality, the average person cants about 2 degrees or less, a point where it will appear visible downrange but not be noticeable behind the rifle. Why is it not noticeable, because your head is probably rolled over so you partially disabled the 4 levels that currently reside in your head, each of which is about 10x more accurate than your $6 store-bought level.
My experience has demonstrated the bigger issue is the inconsistency in the group or combination of shots vs a singular issue. Canting is never all or nothing it's normally incremental, which then opens up the groups because everything is launched at a slightly different angle from the shot before.
You start chasing what you did previously with a system that is in a different position. A simple bipod adjustment will fix it better than a level. A level fixes nothing, it just points out a problem. If you don't fix the problem what is the point of continuing to point it out?
So since I've been such a great source of humor for you folks...questions...
If "Canting" is okay?...(historically speaking of course)...why did us old school types go to great pains to level our scopes and?...
Why did my Springfield Armory Government Model 4-14X56 Scope come supplied with an "Internal Bubble Level"?
just curious...cause apparently?...we were all really screwed up back in the day.
If "Canting" is okay?...(historically speaking of course)...why did us old school types go to great pains to level our scopes and?...
Why did my Springfield Armory Government Model 4-14X56 Scope come supplied with an "Internal Bubble Level"?
just curious...cause apparently?...we were all really screwed up back in the day.
QUOTE="JINKSTER, post: 8525147, member:
So since I've been such a great source of humor for you folks...questions...
If "Canting" is okay?...(historically speaking of course)...why did us old school types go to great pains to level our scopes and?...
Good question. hang around here a while and you’ll find out that it is appropriate to take great pains to level your scope. The difference that you’ll hear here is with respect to what you level the reticle. What’s most important is that the reticle is level when your are shouldering the rifle.
Almost everyone induces some cant to the rifle when they shoulder a rifle. Even when at the bench (excepting most bench rest shooters), there is typically cant induced when you pul the rifle into your shoulder.
You want that reticle to be aligned with a plumb bob/line downrange.
Why did my Springfield Armory Government Model 4-14X56 Scope come supplied with an "Internal Bubble Level"?
It seemed like a good idea at the time. The marketing idea is used from time to time, but never seems to take off.
just curious...cause apparently?...we were all really screwed up back in the day.
QUOTE
So since I've been such a great source of humor for you folks...questions...
If "Canting" is okay?...(historically speaking of course)...why did us old school types go to great pains to level our scopes and?...
Good question. hang around here a while and you’ll find out that it is appropriate to take great pains to level your scope. The difference that you’ll hear here is with respect to what you level the reticle. What’s most important is that the reticle is level when your are shouldering the rifle.
Almost everyone induces some cant to the rifle when they shoulder a rifle. Even when at the bench (excepting most bench rest shooters), there is typically cant induced when you pul the rifle into your shoulder.
You want that reticle to be aligned with a plumb bob/line downrange.
Why did my Springfield Armory Government Model 4-14X56 Scope come supplied with an "Internal Bubble Level"?
It seemed like a good idea at the time. The marketing idea is used from time to time, but never seems to take off.
just curious...cause apparently?...we were all really screwed up back in the day.
QUOTE
Last edited:
You are too ignorant to be on this site asking those questions
Canting is not "okay" as you put it, that said, you can calculate a solution to a cant.
Springfield Armories were a joke as a scope and how you try to make a joke relevant add in an anecdote that makes it sound believable
we level the scopes to create a baseline, BACK IN THE DAY as Assholes like to put it, Scopes used to be offset too like the M1D. If I said to you to mount your scope to the side of the rifle you'd bitch about that.
The point is, the system is forgiving, and if you know what you are looking at, or how to solve the problem you can address it.
I graduated a 12 Week Scout Sniper course, no Spindrift mentioned even once, no Coriolis, no canting, no bubble levels, not even a Bipod to shoot off of... and yet I have enough common sense to understand context for all these things
Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest might have been slow, but he exhibits a ton of common sense, which makes him successful.
Canting for most shooters can be dialed out immediately in 10 seconds, just tighten the bipod so you can't pull or push the rifle over.
How hard is it, rest the rifle on the bipod, look over the top of the scope and align it straight, tighten the bipod and then shoot? Can you not see if it appears straight or crooked
Canting is not "okay" as you put it, that said, you can calculate a solution to a cant.
Springfield Armories were a joke as a scope and how you try to make a joke relevant add in an anecdote that makes it sound believable
we level the scopes to create a baseline, BACK IN THE DAY as Assholes like to put it, Scopes used to be offset too like the M1D. If I said to you to mount your scope to the side of the rifle you'd bitch about that.
The point is, the system is forgiving, and if you know what you are looking at, or how to solve the problem you can address it.
I graduated a 12 Week Scout Sniper course, no Spindrift mentioned even once, no Coriolis, no canting, no bubble levels, not even a Bipod to shoot off of... and yet I have enough common sense to understand context for all these things
Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest might have been slow, but he exhibits a ton of common sense, which makes him successful.
Canting for most shooters can be dialed out immediately in 10 seconds, just tighten the bipod so you can't pull or push the rifle over.
How hard is it, rest the rifle on the bipod, look over the top of the scope and align it straight, tighten the bipod and then shoot? Can you not see if it appears straight or crooked
Because they could put a 35cent level in it and add $100 to the price......
He said he considered the 1moa shift in my live fire examples a lot of shift.
What I showed is how much cant was needed to move the POI about 1 minute. It’s a metric shit ton of cant that Stevie wonder would notice and not take a shot or at least aim a little left if forced to shoot the rifle with that much cant.
Here is a great example
Is this rifle crooked or straight ?
Do we have to fix a cant?
How about his one
Now before I even address the rifle I can tighten the bipod and call it good,
I put the cant in the Butt plate to satisfy my brain. I can feel it now, if this rifle is rolled the butt plate will make me feel it.
Is this rifle crooked or straight ?
Do we have to fix a cant?
How about his one
Now before I even address the rifle I can tighten the bipod and call it good,
I put the cant in the Butt plate to satisfy my brain. I can feel it now, if this rifle is rolled the butt plate will make me feel it.
Similar threads
