Rifle Scopes What did I do wrong here?

L

LeviSS

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Jun 13, 2010
148
0
40
IL
#1
I have a Bushnell Elite Tactical 30mm tube with a 44mm objective that I'm trying to mount on a M700 ADL. It has the sporter barrel, rather than the heavy barrel. I used the calculation in this section to figure what base and rings to order. I must have screwed up a conversion or something.

I ordered an EGW base and Burris XTR medium rings. It ended up being really high - .65" off of the barrel. I had to stretch and was unable to get a good cheek weld with it that high. The base is .4-.45" high, according to their website. The medium rings are .5" high.

If I get the low rings (.25") that gets me to ~.4" off of the barrel. EGW makes a HD base that is .1" lower. So, that combination would get me down to .3" off of the barrel. Is that still too high? I can put my scope directly on the base and it still clears the barrel. Does the sporter barrel have anything to do with this since it is smaller than the heavier barrels most people use?

It seems that a base is gonna make it too high. I'm not a noob to shooting, but I've never had to figure a rail in to the equation...I usually just order 2 sets of rings and pick the ones that work. Am I gonna have to have it a little high and use a cheek riser?

Am I missing something?
 
#2
Re: What did I do wrong here?

Everyone is different when it comes to a good cheek weld. One persons to high is another one's to low. Sometimes a good idea is to get the base you want and go get some of the cheapest $10 or $20 rings you can find. Mount them and see if they are a good height for you. when you get the right height just measure them out from the bottom inside to the bottom of the ring. Then add half the diameter of the ring 1/2 inch or 15mm.

http://badgerordnance.com/scope-rings-sizing-chart/
 
#3
Re: What did I do wrong here?

Yes, the sporter barrel has more taper than the varmint barrel.

In order for your calculation to be more accurate, you need ring height from base to center of ring and not base to bottom of ring. 0.5" is the measurement from base to bottom of ring.
 
#4
Re: What did I do wrong here?

It seems like it's going to be high no matter what rings I use. It was quite a stretch to see through the scope with the medium rings, and the lows are only 1/4" lower.

scope.jpg
 
#7
Re: What did I do wrong here?

Unless your bell is very close or actually touching the chamber/barrel, it's the centerline height that is important, not the edge of the bell. You're running a 44mm objective, which will automatically give slightly more bell clearance than a 50mm or 56mm objective scope. So the real question is what is your centerline height? If the lowest rings you have (or can get) put it in the 1.5-2.0" range, you should be GTG, regardless of how high the edge of the bell looks.
 
#8
Re: What did I do wrong here?

Thanks. That's what I was looking for.

So, the centerline height would be the measurement from the center of the bore to the center of the scope, right?

Then, cheekweld would have to be adjusted with a cheek rest, correct?
 
#9
Re: What did I do wrong here?

Midway states that the "low" Burris rings are 0.25".

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=148716

I recently scoped one of my rifles and was in the same boat you are with the high base. These were the lowest rings I could find. If the middle of the picatinny base was not milled out, my zoom ring would not clear. It only has about 0.05 clearance. I still have to use a stock bag to get the cheek weld I want, but the scope is currently just about as low as it can be with the 50mm objective. You might give those rings a try.
 
#11
Re: What did I do wrong here?

I have an 20 MOA EGW and low Burris XTR's and have less than about an 8th of an inch clearance with a Sendero type barrel. Is your base straight or an MOA type?

IMO, the design of rifle stocks are flawed when it comes to scope use. Firearm companies sell rifles with and without iron sights, but they put the same stocks on them. It really makes no sense to me. No iron sights should equal a raised comb.
 
#13
Re: What did I do wrong here?

I ordered a Tacops stock bag and some low rings. Hopefully that gets me where I want to be. There's plenty of bolt handle clearance, so that isn't a problem.
 
#14
Re: What did I do wrong here?

The lowest rings I have used are the TPS superlow rings (.820"). Most lows are about .850" if I remember correctly. I have been very happy with the TPS rings. Some have had some issues, but most who have them like them.

The lowest base I have used is a Leupold Mark 4 one piece. It is very low. If you are interested I could measure the Leupy base for you.
 
#15
Re: What did I do wrong here?

You have got your measurements mixed up. Low rings are usually 0.25-0.5". As I mentioned above, the low rings on my rifle, which is set up similarly to the OP are about as low as you are going to get. You will still have lots of clearance with the barrel, but you cannot go any lower or the scope will contact the base at either the ocular or the bell.
 
#18
Re: What did I do wrong here?

get a set of seekins low rings and shoot a couple of boxes through the barrel.when the bushnell self destructs at least you will have a good set of rings to put a good scope on.I'm currently waiting for the 3rd bushnell warranty scope to arrive for a friends 7mm Mag which eats bushnells for lunch.The reticles keep floating in the tube after a box of shells.Put an old weaver on to get through hunting season and will put the bushnell on a .22 and hope it holds up.Just my recent personal experience.When in doubt do a box test.
 
#19
Re: What did I do wrong here?

a lot of the space is just from having a sporter barrel. in order to get the bell close, it would have to be sitting on the top of the action it looks like. just get a cheek piece, and some low rings
 
#20
Re: What did I do wrong here?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 3fingervic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO, the design of rifle stocks are flawed when it comes to scope use. Firearm companies sell rifles with and without iron sights, but they put the same stocks on them. It really makes no sense to me. No iron sights should equal a raised comb. </div></div>

This

Your cheekweld problem lays in this answer.

Even stocks that require a scope to be mounted high to clear the handguard i.e XLR, Remington MSR, AIAX, etc., have adjustable comb so the end user can achieve desired cheekweld

Get a new stock with higher/adjustable comb or try a cheek pad.
 
#21
Re: What did I do wrong here?

a 44 objective with a sporter barrel will give you that much gap, im not quite sure if a set of lower rings would make a difference. I would throw some foam and 100 mph tape with a stock pack.
 
#22
Re: What did I do wrong here?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LeviSS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a Bushnell Elite Tactical 30mm tube with a 44mm objective that I'm trying to mount on a M700 ADL. It has the sporter barrel, rather than the heavy barrel. I used the calculation in this section to figure what base and rings to order. I must have screwed up a conversion or something.

I ordered an EGW base and Burris XTR medium rings. It ended up being really high - .65" off of the barrel. I had to stretch and was unable to get a good cheek weld with it that high. The base is .4-.45" high, according to their website. The medium rings are .5" high.

If I get the low rings (.25") that gets me to ~.4" off of the barrel. EGW makes a HD base that is .1" lower. So, that combination would get me down to .3" off of the barrel. Is that still too high? I can put my scope directly on the base and it still clears the barrel. Does the sporter barrel have anything to do with this since it is smaller than the heavier barrels most people use?

It seems that a base is gonna make it too high. I'm not a noob to shooting, but I've never had to figure a rail in to the equation...I usually just order 2 sets of rings and pick the ones that work. Am I gonna have to have it a little high and use a cheek riser?

Am I missing something? </div></div>

Your XTR Med rings are too high for that combination. If you want the lowest combination then get the 1 piece Weaver weaver style rings (yes the cheapie ones $10 or so) since those sit really low on the rifle one of the lowest I have seen. Nightforce also makes a pretty low rail. EGW makes an average height rail (I have had several). Ken Farrel makes a really good rail out of steel and I love them but they are even higher than the EGWs so they are probably not for you. I would also transition over to the XTR Lows or get a set of Badger STD height which is their lows. This will move the scope much lower giving you a better cheek weld. Note the Badger Std height (lows) will be slightly lower than the Leupold QRW lows just in case any one is wondering. These are all 30mm rings.

Hope this helps


Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Is this acceptable for a high end ring manufacturer?
Replies
48
Views
2K
Aftermath
Aftermath
lmc08541
How did I do?
Replies
10
Views
510
lmc08541
lmc08541
fnbrowning
Help me pick ARC M-Brace rings for Remy 700
Replies
9
Views
332
fnbrowning
fnbrowning
A
Gunsmithing Checking rail alignment
Replies
1
Views
159
mick243
M
TheFighter88
Primary Arms Optic not working with 20 MOA base
Replies
4
Views
637
TheFighter88
TheFighter88
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts