what will be my proper heigth rings?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Extreme Tac rings seem to run a little high, so I would imagine you could get away with the Mediums, but can't be sure.
 
I have an EGW 20 moa base on my Savage 10fp and the Burris med rings were too high for my liking (even with my B&C medalist stock). I switched to the low Warne qd rings which are .25" (base to bottom of ring) like the low Burris rings. The scope is a Bushnell Elite Tac 6-24x50 and clears easily. Just in case anyone is interested, the Burris medium rings are a good height for an XTR14 on a FAL.
 
I dont like a lot of daylight between my objective bell and my barrel. Proper head alignment is uniquely individual.
 
I dont like a lot of daylight between my objective bell and my barrel. Proper head alignment is uniquely individual.

I'm just the opposite. However, that golden cheek weld may require something other than a bare bones stock.

I'm all about extending point blank range to the maximum. Nothing like holding dead on from zero to 300 yds with a scope 3" above bore.
 
When the scope is 3" above the bore you are preparing for an unlikely situation. At the range 300 yards is cool. But in practical use most shots are under 100 yards. The high rings make it difficult to find a soft case for your gun and the scope gets banged around a lot anytime you take the gun anywhere.

The scope should be 1/8" to 1/4" above the barrel or rear sight. By the time you fire 100 rounds you will have the amount of holdover down pat for long shots. I have hunted all across the US. Even in the plains where there are few trees or brush a good guide will put you pretty close to where the quarry is likely to be seen.
 
Basically you want rings that will keep the scope as low as possible while still giving adequate clearance between the bell of the scope (objective lens) and the barrel. The bigger the objective lens, the higher the rings will have to be to do this. Of course with higher rings comes the likelihood that you will need some sort of cheek piece on the stock to bring your eye into natural alignment with the center of the scope or else you will be craning your neck to get a clear sight picture through the scope (really bad for accuracy). If you are trying to figure out what height rings to buy and you don't have them in front of you to physically try, then the following formula (which I cut and pasted for you) is helpful. Different makers of scope rings use different points of measurement to classify their rings as low, med, high etc, so you may need to visit their website to check the dimensions and measurements to make sure everything will work out with the following formula.

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=922
 
Last edited:
Nothing like holding dead on from zero to 300 yds with a scope 3" above bore.
except you will be shooting very low at 50 yards or less, probably low enough to botch a clean kill. You arent altering your rifles exterior ballistics with a scope mount.
 
The only purchase I've made so far is the rifle, I'm looking at a scope but the 400 dollar range, I've never heard of the pride Fowler, I'm thinking I want at least 12x for shooting past 600 yards I'm open to advice and suggestions
 
There is generally a simple solution here, though not all mount/ring vendors make it as easy as it should be. The simple equation is a function of the diameter of the widest part of the optic (almost always the diameter of the tube around the objective lens; sometime the sunshade tube is a bit wider); the distance that you want the optic to hover over the rifle mount base; and the center height of the rings over the mounting base. You have to ensure that the radius of the objective end of the scope is less than the center point of the ring/mount over the mounting base. As long as that is a positive number, you are good to go, but you want to optimize that positive number to be precisely how high above the base you want the optic to be.
It would seem that if there is a big difference between the objective end and the ocular end of the scope, you want the scope to be rather close to the base or you'll find it hard to get a cheek mount. If there is less of a difference, you have room to play with. But in general, as noted via others in this thread, keeping the scope relatively low to the mount will ensure that there is minimal offset between the eye view and the barrel view; it will be easier to pack the rifle/optic setup in a single-rifle carrier; it will be less likely that you'll need a cheek-pad to get a good weld when aligning your eye with the optic.
This is probably quite obvious, but I thought I'd mention it.
B
 
A little history if you like: http://www.rapidreticle.com/About/About.aspx

On longer distance shots clear glass will give you better results than high magnification. I'm only familiar with Falcon by reputation which is iffy and scope style which includes 2-piece models and generally outdated manufacturing techniques.

If you're planning to use a rangefinder the PF or something like a Leupold CDS http://swfa.com/Leupold-3-9x40-VX-2-Riflescope-P51802.aspx scope will work extremely well.

If your plan is to learn the mil-dot system then a Bushnell Elite http://www.midwayusa.com/product/950843/bushnell-elite-3200-tactical-rifle-scope-10x-40mm-1-10-mil-adjustments-mil-dot-reticle-matte fixed 10X or SWFA's SS line will allow you to range targets: http://swfa.com/SWFA-SS-10x42M-Tactical-Riflescope-P53713.aspx If you opt for a mil-dot make sure the adjustments are mil/mil and if this is your first scope I'd suggest having it professionally mounted to prevent damage.

The rings I linked to earlier are but one example of a good quality QD (quick detatch) style which are also readily available in standard form as well. As important as bell clearance is with a scope it is often bolt clearance that is forgotten and must be factored in.

I urge you to take time to consider options and intended use before making your purchase and if possible to have a look over a few at local dealers if possible. Store conditions will make some comparisons difficult but others such as positive or audible windage/elevation adjustments, edge distortion and reticles can be checked. I wish you luck in finding one that suits your purpose.
 
The simple equation is a function of the diameter of the widest part of the optic (almost always the diameter of the tube around the objective lens

True of some scopes. Lower magnification rifle scopes, generally 3-9X and under will almost always have an ocular housing that is larger in diameter, especially those with quick focus adjustment. Of the dozen or so scopes I own only two have an objective that requires a larger cover than their corresponding eyepiece. Also, keep in mind bolt clearance as a potential issue.
 
Fair point and I stand corrected, or at least amended. I was thinking about longer range scopes which generally fit the model that I was describing. And was basing that perspective on the scope that the OP outlined. But it is surely true that, for low magnification optics, the ocular end radius is larger than the objective end and so it must be the critical part of the calculation.
Regarding the bolt becoming the 'long pole' in these measurements, I just have not run in to that example.
Thx,
B
 
You have to ensure that the radius of the objective end of the scope is less than the center point of the ring/mount over the mounting base.
That's not correct. That would only be the case if you were using some kind of an extended base that ran all the way out under the objective.
 
In this case Haxby the OP has posted the specific rifle he intends to scope and it is doubtful any mount available would extend much, if any, beyond the receiver. A shorter compact scope may indeed bottom out but again it appears the OP is looking for a mid-power which tend to be somewhat longish. It's a good point you raise with the popularity of AR pattern rifles and their rimfire clones as well as smaller optics such as red dots.
 
im leaning towards the swfa 12x42 milquad, while the bdc reticles are neat i dont really feel they are precise enough for the hold overs, i dont want any guessing. haha i want a precision rifle not a guessing rifle
 
except you will be shooting very low at 50 yards or less, probably low enough to botch a clean kill. You arent altering your rifles exterior ballistics with a scope mount.

Ain't never looked at a ballistics chart have you? Further, I don't do any ground hog whacking so within 3 inches is good enough.

Play around with this very basic ballistics program. It's free. http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/downloads/remington-shoot-software.aspx

I wouldn't call my self an expert expert, but I was one of 4 out of about 100 in my basic training company to qualify expert with an M-16.
 
Well all these years I thought that's what the elevation knob was for! Extensively modifying the stock to achieve a battlesight zero isn't the most practical means of addressing concerns that amount to an inch here or there, especially in a long range shooter meant for target work. Knowing that the scope will track accurately and repeatedly to center the reticle to the limits of the cartridge is far more convenient. As much a concern as cheek weld with such a set-up is the wretched quality of most if not all see-through rings.

I've lived my whole life mainly with MOA scopes and charts to give adjustment and find stadia lines with a FFP combined with a rangefinder or a mil-dot to be a far more elegant solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top