This is a great thread. First, it has some actual good advice for those setting up their first rifles. It also has humor and super snipery sniper stuff for when you’re tired of playing fortnite.
Rifle Scopes Disadvantages to higher rings
- Thread starter Qwkcrss
- Start date
Hi,
And do not forget the 1988 CBR 1000 that he paid $1800 for from FB marketplace, lolol
Sincerely,
Theis
A lot more of AR15 .Com is making its way to snipers hide.
I was hoping to keep him engaged in this conversation but you guys are knuckle heads with no honey to keep this pot buzzing.
So, Yes, Thesis, your assignment will be judged on creativity and individuality. Go.
*Actual info, I used to do the whole lower is better to minimize the effects of canting for weird positions. But i am finding as of recently I am much more upright allows me to level the rifle alot better. I think it stems from my eye not being at the top of the eye sockets when looking thru the scope.
So, Yes, Thesis, your assignment will be judged on creativity and individuality. Go.
*Actual info, I used to do the whole lower is better to minimize the effects of canting for weird positions. But i am finding as of recently I am much more upright allows me to level the rifle alot better. I think it stems from my eye not being at the top of the eye sockets when looking thru the scope.
Theres just something about the optics section that always brings out the retards.
His response kinda set him up to be picked off by a head shot regardless of his OAF positioning behind the rifle.
Last edited:
All the pretenders to the throne have quite a ways to go before they can dethrone the king of the scope retards, my man Buddly.
By “tight” I’m not speaking of muscle tension (which as you say would be very counterproductive)...by “tight” I mean the eye, shoulder and cheek weld being in close proximity to each other.
Marines...Rifle Expert...spoke with and learned from several Vietnam era Marine Snipers...dabbled in DCM
I guess no one puts pool cue chalk in the rings of their belted magnum rifles anymore either.
I’m obviously not a good fit here.
you just might fit in, seem to have thick skin so far
You will be fine, but i warn you ALOT has changed since those times. And this site is very good source of todays techniques that have surpassed those of the past where long range was 600 yards.
But the best of luck in your journey of learning.
But the best of luck in your journey of learning.
What do you guys think of my setup? Too low, or just about right? 
Last edited:
No, we use rings that are actually round inside and in line with each other.
And if you're really worried use rosin instead of some bullshit home made fix
fuel injection...ha...don’t forget to check the tire pressures in your wheel chair
we have cars that drive themselves powered by batteries
we have cars that drive themselves powered by batteries
Hi,
AND some of them drive straight into a brick wall with absolutely no understandings as to how that wall hit them, lol..
Sincerely,
Theis
Man. im glad I stumbled into this thread. Ive been wondering why ive had bullets wiz by my head in the last few PRS matches and while hunting. I need lower rings for sure.
Hi,
William, don't go get thin skinned now...it does not hold well with HD owners.
Sincerely,
Theis
This is why I stand by my past statements. You sir, are the scariest person on SH.
Badass
Now, now Nick...let's not get to personal.
Hi,
And who is Nick, lol....read my username and you will manage to get my name correct, lol.
Sincerely,
Theis
Does anyone have a good video on rifle setup/cheek weld/optic placement? I plan to take a training class in the near future, but it may not be possible this year.
Shit, I remember the same thing with Aimpoints/EOTechs where people were trying to always get them as low as possible because of mechanical offset concerns, yet causing people to shoot with retarded body/gun positions.
Just a few years back on ARF there was some guy with a homebrew RDS/scope riser that got raked over the coals by everyone because they made fun of how high it was and how stupid this idea was; now there are companies like KAC and Unity that make risers just as high or higher.
Just a few years back on ARF there was some guy with a homebrew RDS/scope riser that got raked over the coals by everyone because they made fun of how high it was and how stupid this idea was; now there are companies like KAC and Unity that make risers just as high or higher.
- Get behind gun properly.
- See where your natual line of sight is with your head/cheek properly on the stock
- Get rings with a height that put the optic as close to that spot as possible
- Put optic in rings. Adjust back/forth for proper eye relief on max magnification.
- Make reticle plumb with the ground while you shoulder the gun properly; don't level it to the receiver (unless a level receiver is your natual position)
- Properly torque ring screws
- Measure the distance between the middle of your barrel/bore to the middle of the scope objective and put that number in as your height over bore in whatever ballistics calculator you are using
Oh no! Not the canting discussion again!
You are not wrong, but it’s also not of significant consequence for PRS or hunting purposes. Maybe for ELR work, but then most often you will be using a level at that point.
You are not wrong, but it’s also not of significant consequence for PRS or hunting purposes. Maybe for ELR work, but then most often you will be using a level at that point.
Yet some of the elr rigs out there have crazy high optics to overcome the amount of forward cant needed. And as you said, they will be watching for cant.
Sometimes exacerbating something that isn’t really a problem when properly utilizing a tool......equals still no problem at all.
My 260 doesn’t have a level.
Most everything is inside 1200 with that rifle now.
My 7 saum does but that rifle regularly sees past a mile.
Neither has a scope super close to the barrel.
Cant difference between low and high rings is probably basically a tiny nitpick like getting perfect bore height for ballistics solvers.
Overcoming adversity, good to see man!!
My scope windage turret on my CZ 452 was to big and kept causing empty cases to bounce back into the chamber.
So I just rotated the scope 90° in my rings, used the elevation and left side windage and windage as elevation, works mint!
I betcha that if you run the math on the effects of canting at reasonable centerfire ranges*, you will find that scope-to-bore offset has jack-shit to do with any of this. The math involved is the same as disproving the "you'll use up your elevation travel with higher rings" BS. Put another way, if you canted the rifle enough to miss with 1.5" "extra-high" rings, you canted it enough to miss with 0.9" "low" rings.
*meaning we're not talking about hitting the head of a pin at arm's length with a canted air rifle, which is a scenario in which the scope-to-bore offset may play a role
Hi,
So is it safer for me (my head of course) to use MOA and MIL rings?
Sincerely,
Theis
So is it safer for me (my head of course) to use MOA and MIL rings?
Sincerely,
Theis
I am always entertained by folks who “run the math” to solve shooting issues rather then “run the rifle”.
Please tell us a little about your 2 way experience, using a scoped rifle,...
Is this the old “I shoot a lot, so what I say trumps science” argument?
No, it’s pointing out that some folks play with numbers and keyboards more than they do rifles.
You know nothing about anyone's ability with a rifle here.
I tell you what I find more often than not: the people who make fun of or deride those who understand the math behind shooting usually do so because they can't understand it themselves.
That is true enough, but the argument does not support your point. It is just a detour.
I run my rifle to the tune of 200 rnds a week or more depending.
My gun seems to always line up with the math.
If it didn’t then either I or the math needs to change. There’s very little math now that hasn’t been tweaked. Spin drift and Aerodynamic jump are about the last few things that need to have a ton of time and money thrown at them.
Cant has be understood practically and mathematically for years. Raising rings 1/4” isn’t going to matter enough.
Last edited:
Similar threads
