Rifle Scopes Ring height: Is this correct?

[ronas]

Rifle is TRG-22 and scope is Premier 5-25x56. Paul at Premier told me that measurement is exactly 66 mm (2.5984") for the outside diameter of the bell of the scope with lens protector cap.

I’m not a math whizz so if someone would be kind enough to check my computations I would appreciate it. I used the forumula on this site. I think that the figure I came out with will work but it will be rather close and allows no room for parts that are not manufactured perfectly which is of course immpossible.

[rail height + ring height] - [bell diameter x 0.5]

So rail height is the sum of the two measurements in the photo. Yellow one is .3220" and blue on is .0700" for a total of .392".

Seekins makes a 34 mm ring with height of .97".

So: [.392" + .97"] - [2.5984" x .5] = .0628 Which I think less than 1/16" or 1.587 mm.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Edited</span>:
<span style="font-weight: bold">Base is 25 MOA</span>

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Ring height: Is this correct?

No tilt?

If you have any tilt on the rail your maths are all wrong, if you don't it looks like it fit.

Håkan

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Ring height: Is this correct?

Taking into account the 25 MOA cant from the front ring with the 3" sunshade (I estimated ~7" length beyond the front ring to the end of the scope), I estimate you'll need a clearance of 1.307" for the shade to just be touching the barrel (barrel taper <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> included). Subtracting the base height of 0.392" give a ring height of 0.915" necessary for the shade to just be touching the barrel.

With 0.97" rings, you'd have an estimated clearance of 0.055" (again, <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> including any barrel taper). Probably not enough for any kind of scope caps, or even a rubber bra. I spoke with an optics rep a couple weeks ago and asked what was the minimum clearance considered acceptable between the scope bell and the barrel and was told the thickness of two business cards would probably be a good estimate as an absolute minimum. I ended up using Badger 1.125" rings, and definitely could have gotten away with the 1.000" rings (56mm NF scope), except that I wanted to get the alloy rings and the 1.000" rings only come in steel. So the scope is running ~0.125" higher than it probably needs to be, but it's acceptable for my purposes that way. For me, a tad high is better than a tad low, which possibly wouldn't even work anyhow.

So you probably need to figure whether you want any kind of caps, bra, etc., on you scope, then add that much more to your estimate. Can you get away with 0.97" or 1" rings? Probably, but just barely, with little room (~0.06") for caps/covers.

 

[Rob01]

Re: Ring height: Is this correct?

Here's a pic of how high up my 20 MOA base sits on my Rem 700

And how much room I have with Seekins .97" 34mm rings over a M40 taper barrel with a 2.5" sunshade and Butler Creek cover.

I would bet you will be fine with the .97" height Seekins rings