Rifle Scopes Does scope base cant increase height?
- Thread starter 9sigman45
- Start date
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
It would but it wont be much and would barely be noticible
It would but it wont be much and would barely be noticible
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
It depends on factors like which mfg's base (some of thicker than others), how much cant you are talking about, etc., but generally speaking you'll increase the height over the comb somewhat and decrease the clearance between the bell of the scope and the barrel/handguard a little too.
It depends on factors like which mfg's base (some of thicker than others), how much cant you are talking about, etc., but generally speaking you'll increase the height over the comb somewhat and decrease the clearance between the bell of the scope and the barrel/handguard a little too.
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
I have a 700 SPS Varmint with the Weaver 20 MOA base. I use low rings with the Weaver 3-15x50 base. Just clears the bell of the scope.
I have a 700 SPS Varmint with the Weaver 20 MOA base. I use low rings with the Weaver 3-15x50 base. Just clears the bell of the scope.
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 9sigman45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If using the same rings, would a Badger base with cant increase the height from the stock's comb more than a base witout cant? If so, is it noticable or not? </div></div>
I don't believe it would effect your eye position at all. According to Badger Ordinance, their 20 MOA base (unable to measure thickness from the bottom alone) has in increase in height over the length of base of .014". All other variables aside, this is the difference from the incline.
I believe 20 moa creates rise/drop from either direction at a rate of .005816...7" per inch. A scope 12 inches long should have a difference of .0698" in height from the centerline of the ocular to objective. My Math may stand corrected, but either way, the actual rise is negligible up close and should not effect your position behind the scope.
Good luck with your setup-
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 9sigman45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If using the same rings, would a Badger base with cant increase the height from the stock's comb more than a base witout cant? If so, is it noticable or not? </div></div>
I don't believe it would effect your eye position at all. According to Badger Ordinance, their 20 MOA base (unable to measure thickness from the bottom alone) has in increase in height over the length of base of .014". All other variables aside, this is the difference from the incline.
I believe 20 moa creates rise/drop from either direction at a rate of .005816...7" per inch. A scope 12 inches long should have a difference of .0698" in height from the centerline of the ocular to objective. My Math may stand corrected, but either way, the actual rise is negligible up close and should not effect your position behind the scope.
Good luck with your setup-
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
Actually I've found that a canted base on some platforms raises the ocular too high for me to get a repeatable cheek weld. A good example was my GAP10. I have high cheekbones which places my eye very close to the cheek riser. When I was running a canted 1-piece the adjustable riser was at full extension and even still it felt too high. I've also seen this happen during classes and matches on rifles without adjustable risers...guys couldn't get a proper cheekweld and a repeatable cheekweld is uber-critical.
Once I ditched the base and went to rings it allowed the optic to hug the rail better and gave me more adjustment in the riser. If you look at a rig with a canted base closely you'll see almost 1/4 inch plus difference between the ocular and objective. Remember...you cant look at the base to see how much higher it will sit...you have to view the optic on the base. The longer the optic the greater the rise at the ocular.
In the end if your optic allows enough elevation to shoot to the distances you are shooting, you gain NOTHING from a canted base and I'd even argue that raising the optic amplifies the negative effect of canting the rifle durng fire.
There should be only ONE reason for using a canted base...because your optic doesn't have enough elevation.
Actually I've found that a canted base on some platforms raises the ocular too high for me to get a repeatable cheek weld. A good example was my GAP10. I have high cheekbones which places my eye very close to the cheek riser. When I was running a canted 1-piece the adjustable riser was at full extension and even still it felt too high. I've also seen this happen during classes and matches on rifles without adjustable risers...guys couldn't get a proper cheekweld and a repeatable cheekweld is uber-critical.
Once I ditched the base and went to rings it allowed the optic to hug the rail better and gave me more adjustment in the riser. If you look at a rig with a canted base closely you'll see almost 1/4 inch plus difference between the ocular and objective. Remember...you cant look at the base to see how much higher it will sit...you have to view the optic on the base. The longer the optic the greater the rise at the ocular.
In the end if your optic allows enough elevation to shoot to the distances you are shooting, you gain NOTHING from a canted base and I'd even argue that raising the optic amplifies the negative effect of canting the rifle durng fire.
There should be only ONE reason for using a canted base...because your optic doesn't have enough elevation.
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look at a rig with a canted base closely you'll see almost 1/4 inch plus difference between the ocular and objective. </div></div>
20MOA is only 0.070" of rise per 12" of run (scope length).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BattleAxe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you look at a rig with a canted base closely you'll see almost 1/4 inch plus difference between the ocular and objective. </div></div>
20MOA is only 0.070" of rise per 12" of run (scope length).
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
20MOA is only 0.070" of rise per 12" of run (scope length). </div></div>
Correct but you can't use that measurement to determine the effect on optic placement. Using the rings as the pivot point, when you raise the tail of the optic, the front of the scope drops so the effect is roughly doubled over the length of the scope depending on ring placement. Given that the front drops from the pivoting effect you have to increase the bases height if you are already at the limits of of bell/barrel clearance. This was the case with my GAP 10. There was roughly a 1/4 inch effect at the tail of the optic.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Bryant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
20MOA is only 0.070" of rise per 12" of run (scope length). </div></div>
Correct but you can't use that measurement to determine the effect on optic placement. Using the rings as the pivot point, when you raise the tail of the optic, the front of the scope drops so the effect is roughly doubled over the length of the scope depending on ring placement. Given that the front drops from the pivoting effect you have to increase the bases height if you are already at the limits of of bell/barrel clearance. This was the case with my GAP 10. There was roughly a 1/4 inch effect at the tail of the optic.
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
I believe my understanding contradicts this idea. Not for arguments sake (only understanding) but I'm curious how this could be effected. Their may be some variable that I am overlooking.
As long as everything on top is straight, the rings and scope should follow the same rise/drop as the intended 20 MOA incline running at .005816...7" per inch regardless of where of how it's mounted. Therefore a 12" scope would have a height discrepancy of .0698". This would be the total difference in distance vertically between the centerline at the outermost edges. The distance that each side of the scope has changed would then be determined by bisecting the angle at its center, which may not be the center of the scope, and unlikely on larger models. This distance could be affected by placement as mentioned above but not its total travel because the angle remains constant.
For instance, if that 12" scope on a 20 MOA base has an angle that is bisected 5" from the ocular then the 7" from that point to the objective would be measured at a downward angle (and the first 5" up). The extra distance raised would reach. 029083~" at its highest point (above not canted) and .040716...7" below (not canted) at the end of the objective. So the the two differences added together account for the total distance the scope has traveled on that angle.
I'm not sure how rings can change how this works; it appears to me that if a scope had a .25" offset it would be canted more than 20 MOA or would have to be about 4 feet long. Again, I might be missing some other piece to this, I'm curios to hear how it would work. I also have no experience with the rifle you speak, so I will put that out there.
Interesting concept, thanks-
I believe my understanding contradicts this idea. Not for arguments sake (only understanding) but I'm curious how this could be effected. Their may be some variable that I am overlooking.
As long as everything on top is straight, the rings and scope should follow the same rise/drop as the intended 20 MOA incline running at .005816...7" per inch regardless of where of how it's mounted. Therefore a 12" scope would have a height discrepancy of .0698". This would be the total difference in distance vertically between the centerline at the outermost edges. The distance that each side of the scope has changed would then be determined by bisecting the angle at its center, which may not be the center of the scope, and unlikely on larger models. This distance could be affected by placement as mentioned above but not its total travel because the angle remains constant.
For instance, if that 12" scope on a 20 MOA base has an angle that is bisected 5" from the ocular then the 7" from that point to the objective would be measured at a downward angle (and the first 5" up). The extra distance raised would reach. 029083~" at its highest point (above not canted) and .040716...7" below (not canted) at the end of the objective. So the the two differences added together account for the total distance the scope has traveled on that angle.
I'm not sure how rings can change how this works; it appears to me that if a scope had a .25" offset it would be canted more than 20 MOA or would have to be about 4 feet long. Again, I might be missing some other piece to this, I'm curios to hear how it would work. I also have no experience with the rifle you speak, so I will put that out there.
Interesting concept, thanks-
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe my understanding contradicts this idea. Not for arguments sake (only understanding) but I'm curious how this could be effected. Their may be some variable that I am overlooking.
As long as everything on top is straight, the rings and scope should follow the same rise/drop as the intended 20 MOA incline running at .005816...7" per inch regardless of where of how it's mounted. Therefore a 12" scope would have a height discrepancy of .0698". This would be the total difference in distance vertically between the centerline at the outermost edges. The distance that each side of the scope has changed would then be determined by bisecting the angle at its center, which may not be the center of the scope, and unlikely on larger models. This distance could be affected by placement as mentioned above but not its total travel because the angle remains constant.
For instance, if that 12" scope on a 20 MOA base has an angle that is bisected 5" from the ocular then the 7" from that point to the objective would be measured at a downward angle (and the first 5" up). The extra distance raised would reach. 029083~" at its highest point (above not canted) and .040716...7" below (not canted) at the end of the objective. So the the two differences added together account for the total distance the scope has traveled on that angle.
I'm not sure how rings can change how this works; it appears to me that if a scope had a .25" offset it would be canted more than 20 MOA or would have to be about 4 feet long. Again, I might be missing some other piece to this, I'm curios to hear how it would work. I also have no experience with the rifle you speak, so I will put that out there.
Interesting concept, thanks- </div></div>
Part of what you're missing (and what I didn't mention) is eye relief. You eyeball isn't against the glass so you have to factor in relief and the height of your eye at the distance from the ocular, not the height of the ocular. In my example I'm talking about an auto...bolt guns don't suffer much from this because the objective only has to clear the barrel. On a gasser there's a rail on top of the barrel so when you start running large Obj. diameter optics it's been a problem for me using canted bases on 2 different rigs (I'd run out of elevation on the PRS cheek risers). Few people compete with precision autos so most aren't that picky and likely either don't care or notice. I like my rigs to all feel the same and I don't like needing a different cheek weld between platforms so I split hairs when it comes to optic mounting. I only brought this up since the OP didn't mention what stick he was talking about. It's arguably quite anal but precision is obtained through minimizing variables and optic height can be tweeked to an optimum. It's benefited me greatly.
Almost forgot...I was running out of the office so I didn't expand properly on my 1/4 inch difference comment...I'm talking "net effect". For example you largely can't control your ring height exactly. You have to buy whats available from your vendor of choice. Nobody makes mounts/rings in .1 height increments offering 10 different heights. So to buy brand "whatever" you're typically stuck with only a few choices. The canted bases I used were taller than anything I could find in rings so when you combine the height that the cant creates, to the .1 to .3 (or whatever) thickness increase of the base, the net effect can be large.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BobD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe my understanding contradicts this idea. Not for arguments sake (only understanding) but I'm curious how this could be effected. Their may be some variable that I am overlooking.
As long as everything on top is straight, the rings and scope should follow the same rise/drop as the intended 20 MOA incline running at .005816...7" per inch regardless of where of how it's mounted. Therefore a 12" scope would have a height discrepancy of .0698". This would be the total difference in distance vertically between the centerline at the outermost edges. The distance that each side of the scope has changed would then be determined by bisecting the angle at its center, which may not be the center of the scope, and unlikely on larger models. This distance could be affected by placement as mentioned above but not its total travel because the angle remains constant.
For instance, if that 12" scope on a 20 MOA base has an angle that is bisected 5" from the ocular then the 7" from that point to the objective would be measured at a downward angle (and the first 5" up). The extra distance raised would reach. 029083~" at its highest point (above not canted) and .040716...7" below (not canted) at the end of the objective. So the the two differences added together account for the total distance the scope has traveled on that angle.
I'm not sure how rings can change how this works; it appears to me that if a scope had a .25" offset it would be canted more than 20 MOA or would have to be about 4 feet long. Again, I might be missing some other piece to this, I'm curios to hear how it would work. I also have no experience with the rifle you speak, so I will put that out there.
Interesting concept, thanks- </div></div>
Part of what you're missing (and what I didn't mention) is eye relief. You eyeball isn't against the glass so you have to factor in relief and the height of your eye at the distance from the ocular, not the height of the ocular. In my example I'm talking about an auto...bolt guns don't suffer much from this because the objective only has to clear the barrel. On a gasser there's a rail on top of the barrel so when you start running large Obj. diameter optics it's been a problem for me using canted bases on 2 different rigs (I'd run out of elevation on the PRS cheek risers). Few people compete with precision autos so most aren't that picky and likely either don't care or notice. I like my rigs to all feel the same and I don't like needing a different cheek weld between platforms so I split hairs when it comes to optic mounting. I only brought this up since the OP didn't mention what stick he was talking about. It's arguably quite anal but precision is obtained through minimizing variables and optic height can be tweeked to an optimum. It's benefited me greatly.
Almost forgot...I was running out of the office so I didn't expand properly on my 1/4 inch difference comment...I'm talking "net effect". For example you largely can't control your ring height exactly. You have to buy whats available from your vendor of choice. Nobody makes mounts/rings in .1 height increments offering 10 different heights. So to buy brand "whatever" you're typically stuck with only a few choices. The canted bases I used were taller than anything I could find in rings so when you combine the height that the cant creates, to the .1 to .3 (or whatever) thickness increase of the base, the net effect can be large.
Re: Does scope base cant increase height?
If you find that you can't get proper cheek weld with the base a available scope rings, you can get a custom slope, custom height base made. Just let Cameron Murphy at Murphy Precision know what you need and he'll fix you up. Great product and excellent turn around time.
If you find that you can't get proper cheek weld with the base a available scope rings, you can get a custom slope, custom height base made. Just let Cameron Murphy at Murphy Precision know what you need and he'll fix you up. Great product and excellent turn around time.
Similar threads
