Rifle Scopes Scopes don't always have to be as low as possible
- Thread starter OpticsPlanet
- Start date
Well, not sure how the author qualifies his statement. Unless that is you are Steve, I would ask if you can expound on your reasoning.
Obj lens to receiver can vary with obj size. For an offhand hunting rifle, Its all about cheek weld. I want as much of my fat face on the stock as possible. Chin weld on a 7.5 lb 300 WM wont be fun at all.
Obj lens to receiver can vary with obj size. For an offhand hunting rifle, Its all about cheek weld. I want as much of my fat face on the stock as possible. Chin weld on a 7.5 lb 300 WM wont be fun at all.
Last edited:
They don't have to be as low as possible for sighting purposes. However, for cheek weld, it does help. Most stocks do not have adjustable cheek rests, and shooting with a propped up neck hurts like hell and makes a range session miserable; I've been there.
Certainly you want to have a natural and solid cheek weld, but...
On the other hand, some stocks will make you mount that scope a bit higher than "as low as you can go". The R700 .223 I assembled for my wife is in a laminated stock. I originally put the scope in the lowest rings that would allow the scope to clear the barrel. Too low! I had to bump them up .25" so that she (and I) could get a good natural sight picture without laying the head down sideways to see through the scope. There are other reasons that one might choose to use somewhat higher rings also.
I believe that the article is just stating (to paraphrase) that you should consider the weapon system as a whole and not just black and white definitive statements heard on the internet.
On the other hand, some stocks will make you mount that scope a bit higher than "as low as you can go". The R700 .223 I assembled for my wife is in a laminated stock. I originally put the scope in the lowest rings that would allow the scope to clear the barrel. Too low! I had to bump them up .25" so that she (and I) could get a good natural sight picture without laying the head down sideways to see through the scope. There are other reasons that one might choose to use somewhat higher rings also.
I believe that the article is just stating (to paraphrase) that you should consider the weapon system as a whole and not just black and white definitive statements heard on the internet.
I sent for rings to put a 50mm objective scope as low as possible on my AR. Great! I couldn't shoot with it because I had to mash my face down too far on the stock, exit pupil was all wonky to see through, no go at the range. There's a mount on the way now for the 30mm tube which is just a standard Burris PEPR, which should be about right for what I'm doing. It was a nice experiment, but a waste of time & money in this case. Live & learn.
It really has to do with folks obsessing over thousandths of an inch for no real benefit whatsoever. A difference in a few eighths of an inch really doesn't mean anything in the real world. Cheek weld is crucial, but a fraction higher is just fine. A bit higher will let you load your top feeder more easily. You get to know your gun by shooting it and gaining muscle memory. Many thin barrels will accept low rings with a 40mm scope, or slightly larger, but using medium rings gives you more room to work a bolt with frozen gloved hands, and if you look at the measurement differences from most manufacturers, the amount of height difference between sizes is often less than a tenth of an inch. All I'm saying is that for most folks, it matters about zero in real world use.
If you think it's part of the whole package to have the objective lens as close to the barrel as possible, that's great. Sometimes the easiest way to accomplish that is to buy two sets of different heights, and see what physically works the best for YOU. Not for me or anyone else, but for you. I've stopped worrying about it that much years ago.
people do get hung up on mounting a scope low. I try to preach more comfort, which happens to often mean getting a scope low, but on an ar or an accuracy international, Barrett, or a number of other rifles, the opposite is true, you want to get the scope high to get into a comfortable position behind the rifle. I'd have more faith in a scope mounted slightly higher on a picatinny rail then i would on a lower Leopold standard system, thats for sure.
I keep used rings in many different heights for just this purpose. I shoulder the rifle with my eyes closed and when I open them I want the perfect sight picture. I do not want to adapt. I use whatever height rings is best
I have to disagree with you on this. The market is trending toward higher and higher magnification factors. That means exit pupils are getting smaller at the top. 1.6mm is a finicky bitch to get behind. So I agree that high or low doesn't really matter as long as it fits who ever is behind it. BUT, what it cannot be is a fraction of an inch off in either direction. It really does have to be perfect in some cases.
I've been wondering if this is why I've long been turned off to AIs. Several of my friend's AIs I've shot (AE, AW and an R700 in an AICS) all seemed to be very uncomfortable to get a good cheek weld because I felt like I had to lay my head sideways on the stock to get a decent sight picture. I assumed it was just me. I may have to go re-evaluate that and maybe a slightly higher rings or mount would solve that issue. I've been thinking about buying an AI for a while, but was just so turned off by how the stock cheek weld felt everytime I've shot them that I just assumed the gun wasn't right for me. Hmmmmm......
Similar threads
