Rifle Scopes Scope ring question from a newbie

[Jgluch]

Hi everyone. First time getting into long range and I’ve set the goal to get out to 1000 yds. I just picked up the RAP in 6.5 creedmoor and I have a vortex viper pst gen 2 (5-25, ffp) that I’m gonna use. My question is about scope ring height. I’m planning on installing a cheek riser so alignment won't be an issue. So here's the question. I have a 70 moa elevation range in my scope. If I use higher rings, will that mean I will set the zero stop a little further down than if I used medium rings thus giving me a few more moa on the top side? Is this the right way to think about this or am I way off? I haven't actually sat down to do the math but I'm thinking it will be a similar effect of adding a 20 moa rail right? I appreciate any advice you may have.

 

[celltech]

Raising the scope a whole inch will only net you 1 moa. Get the 20 moa rail if you think you will run out of adjustment, although you will likely have enough in the scope to target 1000 yards.

 

[lancetkenyon]

I would install a 20MOA rail, then as low of rings as you can to clear the barrel with minimal gap.

 

[Jgluch]

Thank you both. I was kind of thinking it would be minimal so I'll go ahead with the medium rings. I'll probably end up going with a 20 moa rail in the future when I want to go past 1000.

 

[Rob01]

Actually you might not even need the 20 MOA base with the Creedmoor to reach 1000 but would be a good idea.

Medium is a generic term. What ring and actual height?

 

[Lawless]

Raising the scope a whole inch will only net you 1 moa. Get the 20 moa rail if you think you will run out of adjustment, although you will likely have enough in the scope to target 1000 yards.

This.

I would install a 20MOA rail, then as low of rings as you can to clear the barrel with minimal gap.

And That.

 

[E. Bryant]

I would install a 20MOA rail, then as low of rings as you can to clear the barrel with minimal gap.

I used to think this way, but have come to the realization that mounting the scope as low as possible is not necessary optimal for the following reasons:

1) It forces me to tilt my head towards the rifle, which isn't comfortable. I'd rather keep my head as upright as possible.

2) It requires that I look through the upper inside corner of my eyeglasses. Since I have a strong prescription with astigmatism correction, this results in optical distortion. It's bad; towards the edges of my eyeglass lens, crosshairs no longer appear straight and square. I really need to look through the center of the lens if at all possible.

These problems are minimized with taller scope mounts, and any resulting issues with cheek weld are relatively easy to correct.

Obviously, other people might be in a different situation and come to a different conclusion.

Raising the scope a whole inch will only net you 1 moa.

At 100 yards (roughly). Since it's a linear offset, the effort is larger at shorter distances, and less at longer distances. Changing the scope ring height by a full inch is only worth 0.1 MOA (roughly) at 1000 yards. In other words, it's a non-issue at typical precision shooting distances. It's only an issue to be considered for those doing close-in work.

It's also a net loss - as the scope is raised, the POI shifts down relative to POA, so the scope elevation needs to be increased. Once again, the effect is trivial at long distances.

 

[Jgluch]

Actually you might not even need the 20 MOA base with the Creedmoor to reach 1000 but would be a good idea.

Medium is a generic term. What ring and actual height?

I was looking at the Eotech PRS medium rings (0.98") because I can get a deal on them.

 

[Rob01]

I was looking at the Eotech PRS medium rings (0.98") because I can get a deal on them.

I was wondering more about height and that height will work.

How much are you getting the rings for?

 

[Jgluch]

I was wondering more about height and that height will work.

How much are you getting the rings for?

35. I work for a sister company of EOtech and they give discounts every so often on certain items.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

The whole thing with mounting the scope as low as possible is largely irrelevant history. I bought into it early on and actually encountered a real problem as a result: with a 4.5-27x56 Vortex Razor mounted with .92" rings, empty cases bounced off the windage turret and right back into the breech 10-20% of the time. I was astounded when I slow-motion-video'ed the ejection cycle and saw what was happening.

As others have said, a low mount can also put strain on your neck. Maybe not much of an issue if you're young and limber but... just wait.

A ballistic calculator takes scope height into account. You'll reach 1000 with ease with that scope and cartridge with a 20MOA rail, and you should make it even with a flat rail - you'll just be close to maxing out elevation.

Enjoy!

 

[Lawless]

Obviously “as low as possible” means as long as it doesn’t impede proper form.
I recently went with lower rings and negated the need for a riser on my Kidd. The more solid cheek weld has netted some small improvement and as we all know small improvements are big in 22.

 

[E. Bryant]

Obviously “as low as possible” means as long as it doesn’t impede proper form.
I recently went with lower rings and negated the need for a riser on my Kidd. The more solid cheek weld has netted some small improvement and as we all know small improvements are big in 22.

The problem is that many people believe "as low as possible" to mean "I'm going to mount my 32mm objective scope so low that there won't be more than a RCH between the barrel and a Butler Creek cover". Then they told their head so far over that their ear is mashed into their shoulder.

Obviously, turning a cheek weld into a chin weld is no good, and so there may be some element of compromise. But especially for those who wear corrective lenses, it's important to understand the importance of the various aspects, including the relationship between eyeball, scope ocular, and eyewear.

For those lucky enough to not worry about such things, feel free to continue picking on my for making unfashionable ring height choices

 

[Lawless]

 

[Codypage76]

I used to think this way, but have come to the realization that mounting the scope as low as possible is not necessary optimal for the following reasons:

1) It forces me to tilt my head towards the rifle, which isn't comfortable. I'd rather keep my head as upright as possible.

2) It requires that I look through the upper inside corner of my eyeglasses. Since I have a strong prescription with astigmatism correction, this results in optical distortion. It's bad; towards the edges of my eyeglass lens, crosshairs no longer appear straight and square. I really need to look through the center of the lens if at all possible.

These problems are minimized with taller scope mounts, and any resulting issues with cheek weld are relatively easy to correct.

Obviously, other people might be in a different situation and come to a different conclusion.



At 100 yards (roughly). Since it's a linear offset, the effort is larger at shorter distances, and less at longer distances. Changing the scope ring height by a full inch is only worth 0.1 MOA (roughly) at 1000 yards. In other words, it's a non-issue at typical precision shooting distances. It's only an issue to be considered for those doing close-in work.

It's also a net loss - as the scope is raised, the POI shifts down relative to POA, so the scope elevation needs to be increased. Once again, the effect is trivial at long distances.

 

[Codypage76]

I have a set of badger ordnance ultra high 1.49" 34mm rings if you are interested

 

[johnrice]

you can go to low on rings with a oversized bolt knob , ask me how i know

 

[NorthWesterner]

Go with a 20 moa base for sure. You won’t regret that now or later. As for rings, I prefer between 1.1-1.25” tall rings. Helps get my head where I need it and no worry about barrel profile.