Scope Ring Spacing

[surgeon260]

Every time I mount a scope, I try to space the rings as far apart as possible, using as much of the rail as possible. If the scope allows it and I can get the eye relief I need, I will use the first and last slots on the rail. My thought process is that the ring is a fulcrum under recoil, and I want the shortest lever/lowest amount of mass on the outside of the ring to minimize scope flex. I see lots of pictures of rifles where the rings are several slots closer together than they could be, so I am curious: what are your thoughts on scope ring spacing? Do you try to separate the rings as much as possible, or are there other factors that drive you to a different spacing approach?

 

[BurnOut]

I take the same approach as you do, with the thinking that the wider "footprint" will lend natural stability to the optic/rifle interface.

 

[Blowby]

The base will flex so the front ring can't be too far in front of the front base screw mount location or you did not gain anything. JMHO

 

[surgeon260]

Good point on the base flex. That is one reason why I pretty much use integral rails exclusively.

 

[brianf]

if we are worried about flex i would not be as worried about outside the ring flex, but between the ring flex.
all the goodies/internals are in between, if flex is a issue you want that part of the scope to be as solid as possible.
By putting the rings farther apart the "middle" segment would flex a larger distance if the scope ring flex the same amount of degrees all things being equal (just speaking math not force etc).
but realistically, most if not all scope manufactures suggest that you keep the rings away from the 2 bells (where the scope diameter grows for front and rear glass) and not to put the rings too close to the center where the guts are.
this is especially true of olderor cheaper scopes that are not one machined tube, but parts welded together.

 

[Arc Light]

I have the same thought process as the OP...rings as far apart as practically possible. One reason I try not to use one-piece mounts, especially those with close spacing between the rings.

 

[kthomas]

In all reality, has anyone seen any scope issues induced by ring spacing?

With the high end equipment that we run, I really doubt this is an issue. I think we are really overthinking things if we are trying to optimize scope ring spacing for the sake of our equipments reliability...

 

[...]

generally i mount them far apart as possible....

that being said, im not super concerned about it.....ive never had a scope fail or lose zero because of my scope ring spacing.......i have a number of scope where i could space the rings out more.....i havent bothered because its not an issue and i dont want to rezero

 

[flyer]

In all reality, has anyone seen any scope issues induced by ring spacing?

With the high end equipment that we run, I really doubt this is an issue. I think we are really overthinking things if we are trying to optimize scope ring spacing for the sake of our equipments reliability...

There is some high speed video of an AI .50BMG shooting and scope flex is real.

I like to use a one piece base to create a stable platform and then go wide on the ring spacing.

I'm not worried about the middle because it is mounted on both ends, it's the objective and ocular swinging in the breeze that concern me. It's kind of like double shear vs. single shear.

 

[kthomas]

There is some high speed video of an AI .50BMG shooting and scope flex is real.

I like to use a one piece base to create a stable platform and then go wide on the ring spacing.

I'm not worried about the middle because it is mounted on both ends, it's the objective and ocular swinging in the breeze that concern me. It's kind of like double shear vs. single shear.

I'm sure it does flex on a big gun like that. But again, has that caused the end user any issues?

I personally haven't missed a target due to scope flex, nor have I have reliability issues with my scopes.

I'm still not convinced that changing ring spacing by tenths of an inch is going to really effect much.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I have seen a scope that had the ring up against the turret assembly get bound up when the ring was tightened especially securely. It's a real issue because the scope maker actually warns against doing this. I try to keep the rings roughly an inch or more away from the turret assembly on all of my scopes.

Greg

 

[PinesAndProjectiles]

I'm running a Spuhr that's holding an XRS. I don't think the rings could be any closer together and it still work. There is very little room on either side of the turrets. That said, Spuhr mounts tend to be very reliable. I've only had mine a few months so I can't say for sure that it's bullet proof, but I purchased it knowing others have had great success with them.

 

[Rob01]

I put them in the middle of the tube between the knobs and objective and power ring. Not too close to either. Never an issue.

And that .50 flex video if you look it appears the mount isn't attached but semi free floating.

 

[Threadcutter308]

Every time I mount a scope, I try to space the rings as far apart as possible, using as much of the rail as possible. If the scope allows it and I can get the eye relief I need, I will use the first and last slots on the rail. My thought process is that the ring is a fulcrum under recoil, and I want the shortest lever/lowest amount of mass on the outside of the ring to minimize scope flex. I see lots of pictures of rifles where the rings are several slots closer together than they could be, so I am curious: what are your thoughts on scope ring spacing? Do you try to separate the rings as much as possible, or are there other factors that drive you to a different spacing approach?

Agreed.

And, Agreed;

I'm running a Spuhr that's holding an XRS. I don't think the rings could be any closer together and it still work. There is very little room on either side of the turrets. That said, Spuhr mounts tend to be very reliable. I've only had mine a few months so I can't say for sure that it's bullet proof, but I purchased it knowing others have had great success with them.

I'm all in for one piece mounts. Would have to be an extraordinary situation for me to go back to rings.

 

[flyer]

I'm sure it does flex on a big gun like that. But again, has that caused the end user any issues?

I personally haven't missed a target due to scope flex, nor have I have reliability issues with my scopes.

I'm still not convinced that changing ring spacing by tenths of an inch is going to really effect much.

.50s are kind of known as scope killers. How much does flex contribute to that? I'm not sure but if I can reduce the flex I minimize that contribution.

Shooting a rifle with less recoil reduces the flex too.

I think Rob is right, from what I remember the mount was a bit cantilevered which was probably a contributor and something else to avoid.

Is wide ring spacing going to help me? I don't know for sure but I know it can't hurt so I'll go with my gut and mount wide.

 

[WT1]

I contacted Badger Ordnance about their 30MM 1 Piece Unimount, a smaller, lighter mount that is only 3.375 inches in length and weight a little over 4 ounces. It also only sits .885 inches up from the rail, which I find to be excellent. It would sit pretty close to the center with only 2.125 inches clearance for the knobs to sit within. It is light, low, one piece. I contacted them and listed a couple of scopes I wanted to use it with and this is their response. There is something probably to the fulcrum effect in the center of the scope, so I will probably take their advice. I like the idea of a one piece mount but for me, most of them sit up too high to be used on a regular rifle stock without a cheek riser and they are usually 7 or eight ounces, a half pound, too heavy. This one needs to be lengthened by an inch or so and it would be ideal.

[email protected] <[email protected]>​	2:27 PM (4 hours ago)
to me

Hi,

It will work, but it is very short and a lot of your scope will be unsupported.

That mount was made for a specific rifle/mount/scope combination.

We suggest when possible use rings, and space them as far apart as your setup will allow.

xxxxx


xxxxxx xxxxxxx
Badger Ordnance
1830 Jasper St.
N. Kansas City. MO. 64116

30 mm 1 Piece Unimount, .885"

The Badger Ordnance 30 mm Medium Unimounts are light weight due to both design and materials. By removing material without compromising strength and rigidity, the Unimount is an unparalleled scope mounting option. Designed specificallyfor use on M-14 and

www.badgerordnance.com