Suuuuuper low 34mm rings? Do they exist?!

[drh2687]

Looking for a set of 34mm scope rings that are lower than most on the market. Looking in the neighborhood of .7-.8 inches of ring height. Lowest I've been able to find is a .92" from Seekins.

Does such an animal exist? If so, point me in the right direction. Any help is appreciated. Huge bonus points if they are QD capable.

Strange request and I know the math may not make sense at first glance, but this is bit of a oddball project I'm working on.

 

[srt-4_uk]

Hawkins are .885"

 

[stello1001]

Eotech

 

[J-Ham]

And that will clear the bottom of the erector housing...? 2-piece bases maybe...

 

[458win]

ARC… makes x low .79

 

[srt-4_uk]

ARC… makes x low .79

Not in 34mm tube size.

 

[st1650]

MDT shows 0.82 on their website but out of stock. Not sure if it’s an error and only the 30mm are 0.82

 

[458win]

Not in 34mm tube size.

I stand corrected.

 

[stello1001]

You should look at Ken Farrell and APA...

 

[Brym427]

Spuhr rings might go pretty low

 

[mrmarklin]

It seems there is a practical limit here. My scope mount barely has front end bell clearance albeit with a 56mm end bell. It’s a Vudoo rifle with a MTU barrel. No bridge. The mount is 1.5” high.

 

[diggler1833]

I ran into an issue with low 34mm rings the other day. Seekins .92 rings give me about a solid 1/16" or less clearance between the objective lens on my Bushnell DMR II and M24/40 contour barrel (replacement) on my FN SPR with factory 20 MOA Badger base. Hell, maybe it is 1/32" clearance...I can't get the bikini scope covers that came with the Bushy over the objective lens. I like a tight fit, so it doesn't bother me one bit.

I also have a set of Vortex precision matched .92 rings in 34mm from an older Burris XTR II 3-15x50 that sat on a different, factory barreled FN SPR. However I'm having that barrel replaced.

Anyway, I purchased a Burris XTR III 5.5-30x56 recently, and tried them on my M40 contoured SPR...I maybe had .003 - .004" clearance with the .92 rings...too close for comfort for me. It is literally like the barrel/cylinder gap on a good revolver. I'm now running the Vortex 1.1 rings, and I've got a good 1/4" clearance.

My point being: Maybe we aren't going to see a whole lot of 34mm rings lower than .92 because it can get you into clearance issues with heavy contoured barrels pretty quickly.

 

[stello1001]

 

[Baron23]

Looking for a set of 34mm scope rings that are lower than most on the market. Looking in the neighborhood of .7-.8 inches of ring height. Lowest I've been able to find is a .92" from Seekins.

Does such an animal exist? If so, point me in the right direction. Any help is appreciated. Huge bonus points if they are QD capable.

Strange request and I know the math may not make sense at first glance, but this is bit of a oddball project I'm working on.

Leupold Mk4 rings in “medium” (they don’t actually make a “low”??) is .9.

Lowest I found.

 

[drh2687]

Lots of good info here. You guys never fail to impress with your depth of knowledge.

My point being: Maybe we aren't going to see a whole lot of 34mm rings lower than .92 because it can get you into clearance issues with heavy contoured barrels pretty quickly.

Fully understand there are limiting factors (like the objective bell/barrel) which would typically make the use of something lower than .92 a no-go... which in turn drives what's available on the market.

That is a non issue for this project - LPVO going on a M1A. No objective bell (straight 34mm tube), only need to clear the ocular over the rear sight. Even the lowest M1A mount sits a bit high relative to the stock comb, and getting over the rear sight won't take much.

 

[B-P-UU]

APA's at 0.856".. as someone else mentioned, I think Ferrell makes some slightly lower.

Just need to make sure the bottom of the turret housing clears the pic rail.

They aren't QD, but my Re-zero when moving scopes around is usually only a tenth or 2.

 

[Conqueror]

I have a set of the 0.856” APAs in 34mm, it is about as low as possible, the erector/turret housing comes very close to the mount rail.

 

[JMGlasgow]

Lots of good info here. You guys never fail to impress with your depth of knowledge.

Fully understand there are limiting factors (like the objective bell/barrel) which would typically make the use of something lower than .92 a no-go... which in turn drives what's available on the market.

That is a non issue for this project - LPVO going on a M1A. No objective bell (straight 34mm tube), only need to clear the ocular over the rear sight. Even the lowest M1A mount sits a bit high relative to the stock comb, and getting over the rear sight won't take much.

Which scope mount for your M1A are you using? I've had Smith, Sadlak, and now I have the ARMS 18 mount. The ARMS sits the lowest of the 3 I've tried. Maybe the combination of a lower mount and rings will get your scope where you want it.

I had to remove the rear sight assembly to clear the eyepiece (SWFA 12x). You will also want to get a cheek riser, Bradley Adjustable is my pick.