To those of you with 50~mm objective lens scopes on your standard stock (i.e. ruger target stock, etc) 10/22s, does it seem like you have to mount it uncomfortably high to clear the barrel? (uncomfortable like you find yourself turkeynecking to see through it)
50mm obj. on standard stock 10/22 = turkeyneck?
- Thread starter spotch
- Start date
Re: 50mm obj. on standard stock 10/22 = turkeyneck?
I shot one a few months ago and it didn't seem bad at all (10/22 VLEH with 50mm Leupold scope). It was mounted as low as possible so it fit well.
To be completely clear, it is hard for me to find hats as my head is rather large so ymmv....
I shot one a few months ago and it didn't seem bad at all (10/22 VLEH with 50mm Leupold scope). It was mounted as low as possible so it fit well.
To be completely clear, it is hard for me to find hats as my head is rather large so ymmv....
Re: 50mm obj. on standard stock 10/22 = turkeyneck?
i recently put a 50mm on a savage mkii, i have a DIP base on it, so i got away with medium rings. the base gave it height to be somewhere where halfway between med. and high height rings would be good.
if i had a regular base on it, it would definately be needing high rings with still alot of gap between obj and barrel, and i definately would be turkey necking it (that's me though, i don't know if others would be in the same boat). i'd definately need a cheekpiece to get good weld and eyealignment.
those heights shouldn't be too much different from 10/22 heights.
i recently put a 50mm on a savage mkii, i have a DIP base on it, so i got away with medium rings. the base gave it height to be somewhere where halfway between med. and high height rings would be good.
if i had a regular base on it, it would definately be needing high rings with still alot of gap between obj and barrel, and i definately would be turkey necking it (that's me though, i don't know if others would be in the same boat). i'd definately need a cheekpiece to get good weld and eyealignment.
those heights shouldn't be too much different from 10/22 heights.
Re: 50mm obj. on standard stock 10/22 = turkeyneck?
I found it to be high enough that I couldn't get a consistent cheek weld (more like a chin weld), but I do have a long neck so others may not experience the problem. What I did was put an elastic buttstock shell holder on and stuffed strips of memory foam cut from a retired contour pillow between it and the stock until I had a nice soft raised comb that fit me perfectly.
I'm sure some of the very talented and experienced shooters here will say that a comb should be rigid to ensure repeatable cheek-weld, and I'm sure they're right. I merely pass this along to show what I did on a budget to solve the problem I had. Groups didn't change with this modification to this gun, so at least in this instance, there was no penalty, and it was so comfortable, you could just about fall asleep on it at the bench.
I found it to be high enough that I couldn't get a consistent cheek weld (more like a chin weld), but I do have a long neck so others may not experience the problem. What I did was put an elastic buttstock shell holder on and stuffed strips of memory foam cut from a retired contour pillow between it and the stock until I had a nice soft raised comb that fit me perfectly.
I'm sure some of the very talented and experienced shooters here will say that a comb should be rigid to ensure repeatable cheek-weld, and I'm sure they're right. I merely pass this along to show what I did on a budget to solve the problem I had. Groups didn't change with this modification to this gun, so at least in this instance, there was no penalty, and it was so comfortable, you could just about fall asleep on it at the bench.
Re: 50mm obj. on standard stock 10/22 = turkeyneck?
Thanks for the info guys
. I ended up going with the 50mm, and based on the info in this thread I'll be very careful about picking the lowest rings possible once I get the gun and the scope together to do some measurements.
Thanks for the info guys
