New Rifle: What Spuhr mount height?

[BillyNg]

Hello gents. SAC just shipped out my new .308 yesterday and I expect to pick it up tomorrow or Friday. I've already got a Leupold Mark 5 HD at home patiently waiting, but need to order up my Spuhr mount. As this is my first Spuhr, I've got nothing to reference off of.

The Mark 5 HD has a 35mm tube and a 56mm objective (not sure about OD of the objective end), and the action/barrel is a Heavy Palma profile mounted to an Impact 787R. Although the 787 already has an integral 20MOA rail, the Mark 5's 120MOA/35MIL of elevation adjustment should allow me to run a 20MOA/6mil Spuhr mount on top of the 20MOA rail.

Spuhr has two height choices for this mount, 30mm and 38mm. Anyone have any experience with a similar setup that can tell me whether or not I can get away with the 30mm height version?

 

[Iamero]

30mm height (1.18") is perfect if you aren't running it in a chassis with a top rail. This is what I ran with my MK8 (same tube and objective diameter) over a Heavy Palma on a Bighorn TL2 in a Manners. I know actually scope rail height can vary slightly but you should be fine.

 

[BillyNg]

30mm height (1.18") is perfect if you aren't running it in a chassis with a top rail. This is what I ran with my MK8 (same tube and objective diameter) over a Heavy Palma on a Bighorn TL2 in a Manners. I know actually scope rail height can vary slightly but you should be fine.

Perfect, thank you. Not running a chassis, the stock is a Manners PRS1.

 

[Iamero]

Awesome, then the 30mm should be perfect for this application.

 

[MDT_Josh]

How far do you plan on shooting? With that 20 MOA built into the Impact, you shouldn't require an additional 20 MOA out of the mount? Ideally, you want your optic as close to mechanical centre when you're shooting and we have mount that may just make you reconsider?

 

[BillyNg]

How far do you plan on shooting? With that 20 MOA built into the Impact, you shouldn't require an additional 20 MOA out of the mount? Ideally, you want your optic as close to mechanical centre when you're shooting and we have mount that may just make you reconsider?

Short Answer: As far as I can. That said, I agree I overlooked the mechanical center benefits in my thought process. (I just wanted as much usable elevation out of the scope as I could get). Apologies, but not going to reconsider the mount at this point in time. Seems like a gorgeous piece of kit, and I'm a fan of MDT in general, but the heart wants what the heart wants.

 

[generalzip]

What stock? I'd go 1.35" height if it's an adjustable one. less mirage off the barrel. With an adjustable cheek piece you really can't go "too high". Ballistic programs account for any sight height so no issue there.

 

[lawofsavage]

Either will work perfectly fine imo with adjustable cheek. Personally, my preference is the lower height aesthetically but in my opinion the higher mount feels more natural and makes it easier to have a more straight up head position.

 

[BillyNg]

What stock? I'd go 1.35" height if it's an adjustable one. less mirage off the barrel. With an adjustable cheek piece you really can't go "too high". Ballistic programs account for any sight height so no issue there.

Mentioned earlier: Manners PRS1 (adjustable cheek height)

 

[generalzip]

If for PRS go 1.35” to get off the barrel more and reduce some mirage. I use a 4006 on all my comp rifles

 

[Feif64]

How far do you plan on shooting? With that 20 MOA built into the Impact, you shouldn't require an additional 20 MOA out of the mount? Ideally, you want your optic as close to mechanical centre when you're shooting and we have mount that may just make you reconsider?

Like the looks of it, wish it had a level like the spuhr though.

 

[MDT_Josh]

Like the looks of it, wish it had a level like the spuhr though.

Good feedback and that is something that we debated back and forth quite a bit. The problem with putting the level in the base of the scope mount is that it is almost always impossible to see (especially with lower ring heights). We are working on some good solutions to that now though

 

[Feif64]

Good feedback and that is something that we debated back and forth quite a bit. The problem with putting the level in the base of the scope mount is that it is almost always impossible to see (especially with lower ring heights). We are working on some good solutions to that now though

I have never actually used a spuhr just saw they had the level and looked to be a good alternative to the scope mount one. Didn't think about vision problems with the scope on the way.

 

[BillyNg]

I have never actually used a spuhr just saw they had the level and looked to be a good alternative to the scope mount one. Didn't think about vision problems with the scope on the way.

I wanted to follow up on this thread. I just needed to say, MDT Josh is right. Couple of interesting points:

1) The rail on my Impact Precision 787R isn't perfectly level front to back. With the rifle stationary, I get slightly different readings from a bubble level at the front of the rail than I do at the back of the rail. So I "leveled" my rifle with the bubble level in the middle of the rail. I want to believe its just manufacturing tolerances, but I do secretly wonder if the action got bent when the barrel was torqued down to it (I know, that seems absurd, but then again you do use a lot of torque)

2) When I then mounted the Spuhr, the level on the Spuhr was slightly off (don't remember which direction). And more importantly, you REALLY need to get up off the rifle to see it, which is something of an issue, because when you get back down on the rifle, you tend to move it a bit.

3) I ended up buying a Vortex scope-mounted bubble level and used the torch-through-the-front-of-the-scope method to make sure that the bubble was aligned with my reticle and a plum line (used the same method to level the scope to the "center" of the rail on the action).