Ring height

[NJRaised]

Origin action with a heavy palma barrel . Dropping into a mpa comp.

Adding a razor gen 2.

What ring height should I go with? I’m thinking medium height 34mm.

 

[Maciej]

Origin action with a heavy palma barrel . Dropping into a mpa comp.

Adding a razor gen 2.

What ring height should I go with? I’m thinking medium height 34mm.

It depends on how you'll be shooting, I prefer 1.5" just as it's more comfortable.

 

[NJRaised]

Mostly bench and prone.

Origin has a 20moa built in rail w/ heavy palma barrel, and the razor is a 56mm objective. The mpa does have a night vision bridge

 

[Maciej]

Mostly bench and prone.

Origin has a 20moa built in rail w/ heavy palma barrel, and the razor is a 56mm objective. The mpa does have a night vision bridge

Most recently I threw a 1.5" mount on my AI AT-X that has a 20MOA built-in running my NF ATACR 7-35x56, and it's been perfect in terms of ergonomics for bench shooting. I think you'll be good, but I'm sure a bunch of pros will imminently chime in with their experience, I'm just a hobbyist.

 

[powdahound76]

Its subjective to your comfort.

Thats all.

The old “low as possible” isnt a thing with adj cheek rests.

Many find a bit higher creates less neck fatigue.

See if you can try a few first?

 

[Rob01]

With that heavy of a barrel I would go with a 1.1" height as the minimum but a 1.25" would be a good area for plenty of room for caps. I have a 56mm Razor on my TL3 action with a Proof comp contour barrel and there is maybe .1" between objective and barrel. Too tight for a cap so go in the 1.1"+ depending on how comfortable you are with higher mounts/rings.

 

[NJRaised]

Unfortunately the area I live in (nj sucks) is not home to many shooters, so trying them is kind of off the table. I’d prefer to buy them and be done.

I was leaning towards 1.1” or 1.25”.

I know the mpa comp has some room for adjustment so I see no harm in going 1.25”.

It also has a nv bridge fwiw.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[LuvDog]

Too low is too uncomfortable for me anymore. I tried 1" and 1.1" ended up with 1.25

 

[Baron23]

to my mind this question is not answerable by anyone but yourself based on the configuration of YOUR face. Cheekbones down near your jawline like a gorilla or up by your eye like a cover girl model.

Yes, you have an adjustable comb to bring your eye up to the scope, but...for example....I run a JAE chassis, ALWAYS need a high comb (little drop at comb), and I run 1.10" ARC so as to clear the bell on a ZCO 5-27 and still need to raise the comb a very large degree.

To my mind, you need to determine how high you need to be for the scope bell to clear the barrel by a bit then stay as low as possible. I don't see any advantage to having a taller stack than necessary except perhaps for shooting off hand.

Just me I guess as I see many folks putting very high (well, very high for me) mounts on their guns.

 

[Shoots 700's]

I use ARC 1.26 height MBrace

 

[NJRaised]

I’m gathering the consensus is 1.26”

I guess there’s not much difference between 1.1 and 1.26

 

[FrozenFingers]

At least 1.25". Your neck will thank you

 

[DownhillFromHere]

I'd go 1.25" or even more (34mm-high rings would be 1.34"). With the BA Comp chassis, you can raise the adjustable comb as needed. But you cannot lower it past minimum if rings are too low.

There's one other issue, however rare, that I ran into with one of my rifles: with low rings, I had empty cases bouncing off windage turret on ejection and landing right back in the breech. Rifle is a Stiller TAC-30 action with a 20MOA rail and gen-2 Razor 4.5-27x56. I first put the scope in 1.1" Vortex PMR rings. The front scope cap had to be sanded flat to avoid touching the MTU-profile barrel but it fit, barely. So pretty quickly after setup I had what I thought were ejection failures - I'd run the bolt and live cartridge would be jammed up with empty case still in the breech. It turned out that the empty cartridge case was bouncing off the scope's windage turret and right back into the breech. Rail length and my own placement requirements precluded moving the scope forward or backward, so I exchanged the 1.1" rings for 1.26" ones. Problem solved.

The notion that scopes be mounted as low as possible is as outdated as plain cross reticles. Go with the extra height.

 

[Maxduty]

Business cards. Stack them under your scope until you get a good sight picture. That's how high your rings need to be.

 

[Shoots 700's]

 

[LuvDog]

I’m gathering the consensus is 1.26”

I guess there’s not much difference between 1.1 and 1.26

There really is. At 1.1" ,I was uncomfortable getting a good sight picture... raised to 1.26 and much faster and easier to get behind the rifle and see.

 

[Rob01]

View attachment 7931521

Problem with that is those are generic terms and different heights for low, medium etc from one ring/mount maker to another. Would have been better with actual heights.

 

[b6graham]

Problem with that is those are generic terms and different heights for low, medium etc from one ring/mount maker to another. Would have been better with actual heights.

its the ARC table so it applies to their stuff

im with most people here though. 1.1-1.26" will be fine. i prefer the ARC M Brace 32mm/1.26" myself

 

[Rob01]

That’s good as there is a reference point even if you don’t use their rings/mount. They should put their name on the chart though.

 

[Maciej]

@NJRaised, I think we're probably a half hour or so away from one another, I have an ERATAC Gen 2 One-Piece Mount
34mm 0MOA sitting in my safe for my AR10 build that won't be done for a while. If you want to meet up I can give it to you so you can check out the fitment. If you're interested, shoot me a PM.