Scope Rings Excessively Tall?

[SlowMiss6.5]

Can I get a sanity check? I feel like this scope looks goofy with how high it sits but this is my first chassis rifle.

These are 1.5” NF rings for this 30mm tube 42mm objective scope. My adjustable check piece is only one click up from being bottomed out (has 6-7 more click up) so I doubt I’d be able to get away with much lower rings from an eye alignment perspective but maybe I’m missing something?

 

[ELCO82]

It's fine.

 

[6brshooter]

If it works, it's not stupid. I've got a normal shaped face and that would be a jaw weld for me.

 

[SlowMiss6.5]

If it works, it's not stupid. I've got a normal shaped face and that would be a jaw weld for me.

Lol that’s what I was thinking. Coming from a hunting style rifle with low ring heights, I used the same check weld and I almost needed to bottom out my adjustable check piece. It seems like it works but looks goofy to me haha

 

[Supersubes]

Leave it. Side bonus, your scope can be a carry handle.

 

[SlowMiss6.5]

Leave it. Side bonus, your scope can be a carry handle.

With the SWFA scope and NF rings it would be strong enough to function as a handle LOL

 

[SlowMiss6.5]

If it works, it's not stupid. I've got a normal shaped face and that would be a jaw weld for me.

Did some testing with a typical hunting rifle stock and the chassis. Turns out I’ve been used to siding more of a jaw check weld due to how hunting rifles are designed.

Can anyone comment on if this is something I should try to change or keep using the jaw bone cheek weld?

 

[spife7980]

Did some testing with a typical hunting rifle stock and the chassis. Turns out I’ve been used to siding more of a jaw check weld due to how hunting rifles are designed.

Can anyone comment on if this is something I should try to change or keep using the jaw bone cheek weld?

I wouldnt like using my jaw as the anchor point but thats not to say its bad or wrong, just personal preference.

Youll find lots of people recommend the 1.5" on everything they run, just run the cheek piece up higher and try the cheek weld before you buy new rings as an experiment.

 

[GoingTheDistance]

I can remember when the going thing was to mount the scope as low as possible

 

[Lowlight]

Higher is better,

it keeps the head up, uses the 4 levels built into our head better,

The idea low is better is old, no longer relevant if it ever was

It was trying to replicate the sights on the barrel, we don't do that anymore

Majority of my rings are 1.375" or higher today

 

[Kamerad]

I went through the same thing, and found taller than traditional ‘lowest is bestest’ was more comfortable, and easier to get behind the rifle and scope. I think it was in one of Franks training videos, or his book. Probably both.

 

[FimRire RongLifle]

now that the sphur 5006 is gone i went 1.5" on any new mounts. never liked below 1.34 except on anything with a heinously high rail like some rimfire setups.

 

[Lowlight]

It's a back in time thing to, "get low" ...

History shows us, first we had sights on the barrel, we were able to use point blank ranges to hunt with as there was no offset. Then we moved to scopes and originally, like the Leupold above, they tried to make the transition from Iron Sights to Scopes easier by trying to place the scope in the same location as the sights on the barrel. The combs on the stocks were lower for sights on the barrel, and since nobody changed the stocks when they switched sights, it made sense.

Today we have adjustable cheeks, or you can buy a stock with a raised comb for the scopes, but still very low because all of the institutional knowledge focused on sights, not scopes. (Now if you look we can adjust the cheeks very high)

Today even the Carbine crowd knows to raise their heads up. Taller sights means it's easier to address the scopes on the rifle. Keep our head up prevents from having to roll our heads over compromising our levels and messing with our eyes.

Higher rings have a lot of advantages and really only one disadvantage and that is if you can't the rifle, the offset is greater, but the reality is, Canting is not a issue if you lock your bipod correctly. You can't push or pull the rifle over to can't using the bipod. It's not a scope mount or level fixes that, the bipod does it better.

 

[Baron23]

Can I get a sanity check? I feel like this scope looks goofy with how high it sits but this is my first chassis rifle.

These are 1.5” NF rings for this 30mm tube 42mm objective scope. My adjustable check piece is only one click up from being bottomed out (has 6-7 more click up) so I doubt I’d be able to get away with much lower rings from an eye alignment perspective but maybe I’m missing something?

If the comb can go high enough for you to get eye relief with a cheek bone weld and its comfortable to get behind it, then leave it alone.

 

[Terry Cross]

Higher is better,

it keeps the head up, uses the 4 levels built into our head better,

The idea low is better is old, no longer relevant if it ever was

It was trying to replicate the sights on the barrel, we don't do that anymore

Exactly.
Beat me to it!

 

[NateVA]

one disadvantage and that is if you can't the rifle, the offset is greater,

Even that's way overblown. If I recall right the difference from a 5 degree cant at 1000 yards is a fraction (and I mean like 0.1" or less) of an inch between 1" and 10" high rings. MDT did a video on it too with a comically high scope mount.

High scope and canting - the end of an ancient myth

Anglia, Középfölde, Midlands, Field Target lövészet, légpuska, légfegyver, utazás, kertek, rózsák, kastélyok, várak, városnézés

www.szottesfold.co.uk