Rifle Scopes Help Tikka and Spuhr mount

[Hogg0494]

Hi all. Building my first rig.with the help of the hide i have a Tikka CTR 6.5 creedmoor 24” and a Athlon Cronus 4.5-29x56 on order.i would like to go with a Spuhr 1 pc but have a few questions.i see on Spuhr site they list a direct bolt on for T3’s but it says without picatinny rail.the CTR has a factory pic rail so do i not want this one?
Spuhr # ST4801?under pic rail mounts there is a few height choices
1.18
1.46
1.5
1.73
I definately want 40+ moa on the mount
Without having the rifle or scope yet,does anyone have this set up and can give me the right height.i have a20 percent coupon at optic planet that expires tomorrow so i will lose it if i wait

 

[mrtoyz]

I’ve got a CTR and am using the Spuhr pic mount SP-4901:
9mil/30MOA
30mm/1.18” height
Scope is a S&B 5-25 PM2 with just enough room for Aadland scope caps.
9mils is just enough to get me out to 1 mile.
Very happy.
Check the mil adjustment in your scope. Don’t forget you have reticle you can use in addition to the elevation adjustment.
You may find 40MOA isn’t needed. Additionally you may find you can’t zero at 100 using 40.

 

[Angel0632]

I’ve got a CTR and am using the Spuhr pic mount SP-4901:
9mil/30MOA
30mm/1.18” height
Scope is a S&B 5-25 PM2 with just enough room for Aadland scope caps.
9mils is just enough to get me out to 1 mile.
Very happy.
Check the mil adjustment in your scope. Don’t forget you have reticle you can use in addition to the elevation adjustment.
You may find 40MOA isn’t needed. Additionally you may find you can’t zero at 100 using 40.

I have the 4802 on a tikka tac a1 with a S&B 5-25X56, I was able to zero at a 100 but left with practically no space left between the bell of the scope and the optic

 

[stello1001]

What do you need 40 moa for? It might be just a tad too much. Unless you don't care much about being able to zero at 100 yards!

 

[Hogg0494]

I see the cronus has 110 moa. Figured i would want to use as much of the 50-55 moa that was not gonna be used

 

[Hogg0494]

So looks like 30 moa and 1.18 height or possibly 40 moa at 1.5 height?

Angel0632 i see how close your a1 is with the rail.i am guessing since mine is a CTR i would have plenty of clearence with the 4802

 

[Hogg0494]

Definately want to zero at 100

 

[Soulezoo]

20 moa may be more appropriate. In any case you want the 1.5" . Like the picture above, it just barely clears with a lens cover

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Seems to me you're gonna run out of steam on the bullet before you can take real advantage of 40 MOA... so why crank all the "down" out of the scope and potentially run into close-range issues if unable to use all the "up..."

 

[Hogg0494]

Hi downhill.new to all this and this is my first build.maybe a total newbie question but i thought you really dont need much moa down but want as much up as possible?a 20 moa base would leave me with about 30/35 moa down.wouldnt this all be not usable?especially once setting the zero stop?

 

[mrtoyz]

Refer to my post above. 4901 gets you everything you need using the stock pic rail. Very easy to over think this

 

[mrtoyz]

I would add that if you are planning to put your CTR in an adjustable stock you could do a higher mount. If not then I would advise not going higher than the 4901.

 

[Hogg0494]

Thanks mrtoyz.i do plan on putting it in a manners stock eventually.so should i step up to a 1.5 height?

 

[fastfwd]

Thanks mrtoyz.i do plan on putting it in a manners stock eventually.so should i step up to a 1.5 height?

You probably don't need to. The 1.5" height would only be necessary if your scope had a big erector housing that extended downward from the tube so far that it hit the bridge between the shorter mount's two rings, or if your rifle had a full-length rail that extended forward all the way past the scope objective, as it does in some tactical chassis setups.

Here's a photo from the Manners website. It shows separate rings rather than a one-piece mount, but you can imagine that if there were a thick bridge between the rings, the erector housing would just barely clear that bridge. So this scope fits on this rail, but you can see that if the bottom of the erector housing were much bigger, or if the rail extended all the way forward, the scope wouldn't fit without a taller mount:

What @mrtoyz is suggesting, I think, is that you can -- but you don't have to -- use a taller mount with an aftermarket stock, so long as that stock has an adjustable comb that can be raised to position your eye at any scope height (like the Manners stock pictured above). The factory CTR stock doesn't have a height-adjustable comb, though, so if you were going to use the factory stock you'd want to keep the scope as low as possible.

The way you're thinking about angled mounts is completely understandable. You're right; you'll never need to dial much, if any, down elevation. But three things:

1. The amount of up adjustment that you need is directly related to the distance you're shooting, and a 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't shoot far enough to need an enormous amount.
2. To zero your scope at 100 yards, you'll need to dial out (by dialing down) most of the up- elevation that's built into your angled mount. So if your mount is too steep, the down adjustment provided by your scope might not be enough.
3. Scopes generally perform best when the erector isn't dialed all the way to the up or down extremes, so it's best if you can arrange things so you're usually near the middle of the range. Therefore, you don't want to use a really steep mount to take ALL of the down adjustment out, even if you CAN barely get your scope zeroed with it.

So instead of using the mount to take 40 MOA out of the 50 MOA down adjustment that your scope provides, use a mount that will only take 20-30 MOA out. After zeroing, your erector will always be at least 20-30-or-so MOA off the bottom, and you'll still have plenty (70-80+ MOA) of up adjustment that you can use to dial for distance.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Hi downhill.new to all this and this is my first build.maybe a total newbie question but i thought you really dont need much moa down but want as much up as possible?a 20 moa base would leave me with about 30/35 moa down.wouldnt this all be not usable?especially once setting the zero stop?

As I understand the mechanics of scope internals, you want to avoid having the scope turned to and left at extremes of the elevation turret's travel - there are a number of threads discussing this. So, if you have this high-angle mount and zero the scope at 100 yards, you're pushing the erector pretty much to its limit, and it will sit there the great majority of the time.

At the other extreme ("up"), a 6.5CM goes transonic well before 2K yards - so why have the elevation to shoot way past where the bullet loses stability?

It all points to a 20MOA rail; fastfwd's post says it well.

 

[b6graham]

As I understand the mechanics of scope internals, you want to avoid having the scope turned to and left at extremes of the elevation turret's travel - there are a number of threads discussing this. So, if you have this high-angle mount and zero the scope at 100 yards, you're pushing the erector pretty much to its limit, and it will sit there the great majority of the time.

At the other extreme ("up"), a 6.5CM goes transonic well before 2K yards - so why have the elevation to shoot way past where the bullet loses stability?

It all points to a 20MOA rail; fastfwd's post says it well.

so then why does KO2M exist? and everything else ELR? are we suddenly not allowed to shoot transonic?

there's nothing wrong with 40MOA with most big 30/34 mm scopes with a shitload of travel

 

[Diver160651]

so then why does KO2M exist? and everything else ELR? are we suddenly not allowed to shoot transonic?

there's nothing wrong with 40MOA with most big 30/34 mm scopes with a shitload of travel

ELR we make certain compromises-

The guns primary use is at longer ranges than must will shoot. The scopes often end up crunched at the other end where you'll often see the scope no longer offers a circular image. These guns also have a caliber with enough mass and speed to spot the misses and impacts.

Setting up a 6.5 to compromise areas where one might shot the most, just to gain 50-100 yards of dial in the top end is silly.

Lastly on scope height —

Look at the image posted on Manners site above. The scope is not slammed to the bell. While it was common practice with Hunter stocks to get as low as possible because the comb never adjusted and it was "thought" it gave better short range pbz, it really is not the best.

Having a scope height that is taller often let’s us get behind the gun straighter, more comfortably, with less optical disturbance from a hot barrel and in some cases as with extreme cant, a brighter image.

 

[stello1001]

You probably don't need to. The 1.5" height would only be necessary if your scope had a big erector housing that extended downward from the tube so far that it hit the bridge between the shorter mount's two rings, or if your rifle had a full-length rail that extended forward all the way past the scope objective, as it does in some tactical chassis setups.

Here's a photo from the Manners website. It shows separate rings rather than a one-piece mount, but you can imagine that if there were a thick bridge between the rings, the erector housing would just barely clear that bridge. So this scope fits on this rail, but you can see that if the bottom of the erector housing were much bigger, or if the rail extended all the way forward, the scope wouldn't fit without a taller mount:

View attachment 6967175

What @mrtoyz is suggesting, I think, is that you can -- but you don't have to -- use a taller mount with an aftermarket stock, so long as that stock has an adjustable comb that can be raised to position your eye at any scope height (like the Manners stock pictured above). The factory CTR stock doesn't have a height-adjustable comb, though, so if you were going to use the factory stock you'd want to keep the scope as low as possible.

The way you're thinking about angled mounts is completely understandable. You're right; you'll never need to dial much, if any, down elevation. But three things:

1. The amount of up adjustment that you need is directly related to the distance you're shooting, and a 6.5 Creedmoor doesn't shoot far enough to need an enormous amount.
2. To zero your scope at 100 yards, you'll need to dial out (by dialing down) most of the up- elevation that's built into your angled mount. So if your mount is too steep, the down adjustment provided by your scope might not be enough.
3. Scopes generally perform best when the erector isn't dialed all the way to the up or down extremes, so it's best if you can arrange things so you're usually near the middle of the range. Therefore, you don't want to use a really steep mount to take ALL of the down adjustment out, even if you CAN barely get your scope zeroed with it.

So instead of using the mount to take 40 MOA out of the 50 MOA down adjustment that your scope provides, use a mount that will only take 20-30 MOA out. After zeroing, your erector will always be at least 20-30-or-so MOA off the bottom, and you'll still have plenty (70-80+ MOA) of up adjustment that you can use to dial for distance.

It is important to keep in mind that the erector housing can sometimes be a problem if too big and might interfere with the bridge. In my case, I've got some pretty low rings and i just barely have clearance.

 

[mrtoyz]

Well said @fastfwd.
You can do a higher mount than the 4901 if you plan to use a Manners but you don’t have too. It simply allows for more vertical height if your body/face shape needed that extra height to fit behind the scope better.
With regards to 20,30 or 40 MOA. It really comes down to what you are doing and how far you’re realistically going to shoot. In my case I wanted to get to 1 mike using Prime 130 and 9mils/30MOA does that.

 

[Deadman Pointers]

Excellent feedback from diver. As an aside though, the adjustable cheek piece on every stock always seems to be perfectly in line with the bolt preventing me from removing it without removing the cheekpiece or having a folder.

 

[Diver160651]

As Deadman Pointers correctly pointed out (lol pointer -pointed).. There can be a downside to check rests drives the need to lower, fold or in many cases, create a simple bolt relief; however, it is actually very simple.. But with the cleaning rod, ya, you have to fold or remove the comb/cheek rest.. but it is a small price to pay for better ergonomics.

I for the life of me can NOT figure out why everyone on a forum with so much available knowledge, would ever try to mount their scope as low as possible.. unless they only had a non-adjustable hunter stock.

Here are the same 6.5 (mine) one run with AR hight SPUR and one with hunter super low rings SOB 1.5" Can anyone tell what is better... ??

Here is the classic hunter argument run with CB -- Hunters NEED PBZ right?

Who knows what column is the hunter rings?

 

[Deadman Pointers]

For the same reason we still wind up trying to chase the lands on factory rifles shooting factory loads at 1/2" moa... an article said we need to somewhere, and internet articles never provide bad info.

As far as the question, "Can you tell which one is better?" Yep. Whichever one doesn't give you neck pain to get behind properly.

 

[Diver160651]

For the same reason we still wind up trying to chase the lands on factory rifles shooting factory loads at 1/2" moa... an article said we need to somewhere, and internet articles never provide bad info.

As far as the question, "Can you tell which one is better?" Yep. Whichever one doesn't give you neck pain to get behind properly.

Yes, and that happens to be the first column with the better PBZ and a few extra click (to small to actually matter) to use on the long end.. Science vrs traditional wisdom/emotion

 

[stello1001]

I for the life of me can NOT figure out why everyone on a forum with so much available knowledge, would ever try to mount their scope as low as possible.. unless they only had a non-adjustable hunter stock.


View attachment 6967296

Because I'm not rich to be buying and exchanging new scopes and rings like many others here. I'm not hating on them. I'm glad for those that have the luxury or buying a new scope one day and then selling to buy a new one in a month just because they already want to try something else. Hopefully that'll be me one day. For now, I have to buy what I want/need and get it right the first time. Since I'm gonna be spending so much I'm gonna make sure I'm going to like it, not somebody else but me. And me personally, I like my scope mounted as low as possible. I think it looks better aesthetically. That's why I do it. So long as I can still get behind the scope and rifle properly and comfortably I don't see why it matters. On my set up, it affects nothing!

 

[Diver160651]

I think it looks better aesthetically. That's why I do it. So long as I can still get behind the scope and rifle properly and comfortably I don't see why it matters. On my set up, it affects nothing!

I was not even commenting on you.. Your image while the scope looks low it is not as low as some without the forend handgaurd - and your rest doesn't looked jacked-up

No issue with me nor does it really mater what I think. -- I get that.. AND I have no idea how you set and feel behind your rifle.. I wrote what I did to try to help those who may not understand why we do certain legacy things, especially when they have more down sides than up.

That said, one very common issues people create with precision (positional) rifles as people use super low rings and adj combs/cheek rests that are set a bit too heigh, is they need to offset their head more, often this results in them with turned hips on a barricade, bench or off at an angle when prone. More often than not, these people have no idea they are NOT fundamentally squared away. Oh, and they feel very comfortable

 

[stello1001]

I was not even commenting on you.. Your image while the scope looks low it is not as low as some without the forend handgaurd - and your rest doesn't looked jacked-up

No issue with me nor does it really mater what I think. -- I get that.. AND I have no idea how you set and feel behind your rifle.. I wrote what I did to try to help those who may not understand why we do certain legacy things, especially when they have more down sides than up.

That said, one very common issues people create with precision (positional) rifles as people use super low rings and adj combs/cheek rests that are set a bit too heigh, is they need to offset their head more, often this results in them with turned hips on a barricade, bench or off at an angle when prone. More often than not, these people have no idea they are NOT fundamentally squared away. Oh, and they feel very comfortable

Haha, I didn't mean to sound too attacking lol. You mentioned you didn't understand why people have such low setups and I simply responded why I DO IT. Others might have different reasons though.

 

[mrtoyz]

To Deadman’s point (lol) about not being able to remove the bolt without removing the cheekpiece or folding the stock. Depending on which Manners you get some of their non folding stocks have a cutout to in the cheekpiece to aid in removing the bolt if memory serves. Something to definitely be aware of in stock selection.

On a side note. I think it’s amusing how much debate simple mount selection causes. It’s what armchair sniping is all about!

 

[Diver160651]

To Deadman’s point (lol) about not being able to remove the bolt without removing the cheekpiece or folding the stock. Depending on which Manners you get some of their non folding stocks have a cutout to in the cheekpiece to aid in removing the bolt if memory serves. Something to definitely be aware of in stock selection.

On a side note. I think it’s amusing how much debate simple mount selection causes. It’s what armchair sniping is all about!

Is it even a debate?

Seems to me to be an exchange of information.. I’m not saying anybody wrong for wanting a certain look.

Just that the logic for pbz and or “I’m a hunter” is simply wrong logic to you use on the modern Percision Rifle as the reason for slamming your bell your barrel. Fit should come first.

 

[mrtoyz]

I do think mount height discussions turn into debates. Lots of things to think about and lots of ways to git r dun. Not pointing a finger at all. Just making a general observation.

 

[Diver160651]

I do think mount height discussions turn into debates. Lots of things to think about and lots of ways to git r dun. Not pointing a finger at all. Just making a general observation.

Got it.

I think I’m just a little sensitive because I end up being the squad mom for lotta new shooters during our matches. I can’t tell you how many guys suffer because you’re just a little too low, a little too sideways and can’t spot their impacts.

And of course the myth of having to have it Low always gets recited

 

[mrtoyz]

Lol. Preach!
It’s great that you take so much time and effort helping. Hope it doesn’t go unnoticed.

 

[Tunnuh]

To the OP. I have a Tikka CTR with a Cronus BTR using a 30 MOA rail. I have no issues having a 100 yd zero. There is 32 mils of usable elevation in the Cronus. I have 24.5 available now. I don't use a spuhr but I think you're ok with at least 30 MOA of inclination.