What mounting system will keep my NF 2.5-10x32 as low as possible on a Rem 700 for proper cheek weld?
Alan
Alan
Rifle Scopes Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
- Thread starter Alan Griffith
- Start date
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Go as low as you can find!
Below is a two-piece (0 MOA) Burris base and TPS super-low (0.820") rings. As you can see, there is a ton of room left. This height is still very comfortable though. The stock pack is for comfort, and certainly not a necessity.
Go as low as you can find!
Below is a two-piece (0 MOA) Burris base and TPS super-low (0.820") rings. As you can see, there is a ton of room left. This height is still very comfortable though. The stock pack is for comfort, and certainly not a necessity.
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Glock24,
That's awesome. I use TPS and didn't know they had ex-low rings; cool! I wonder if various brands of pic bases are of different height? Did you choose Burris because they were lower?
Alan
Glock24,
That's awesome. I use TPS and didn't know they had ex-low rings; cool! I wonder if various brands of pic bases are of different height? Did you choose Burris because they were lower?
Alan
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
I went with a Seekins 20MOA base and low rings and ended up with a scope height of 1.84"...really no problem getting a good cheek weld with it. The Seekins rings are also .82" and with that base are rock solid. You could go with a flat base, but unless I'm mistaken, it's only the height of the front end of the base that changes. But no question the NF has the elevation to handle .308 shots out to 1000 with any base.
I went with a Seekins 20MOA base and low rings and ended up with a scope height of 1.84"...really no problem getting a good cheek weld with it. The Seekins rings are also .82" and with that base are rock solid. You could go with a flat base, but unless I'm mistaken, it's only the height of the front end of the base that changes. But no question the NF has the elevation to handle .308 shots out to 1000 with any base.
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
I use the NF low rings. I also have a 20moa base, but I would encourage you to look @ Karsten adjustable cheek pieces. They are inexpensive, but great quality. I use one, and Karsten was awesome to work with. He personally will answer any questions you have.
Good luck
I use the NF low rings. I also have a 20moa base, but I would encourage you to look @ Karsten adjustable cheek pieces. They are inexpensive, but great quality. I use one, and Karsten was awesome to work with. He personally will answer any questions you have.
Good luck
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Mk4 two piece bases and badger rings,lowest they make,will get you low as possible !!
Mk4 two piece bases and badger rings,lowest they make,will get you low as possible !!
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GSSP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock24,
Did you choose Burris because they were lower?
Alan </div></div>
Nope, I went with the Burris base because it was cheap, and I wanted a two-piece system.
I've read (from Lindy) that the lowest system of all is a two-piece dovetail base and ring system. Burris makes a set of 30mm low rings that are crazy low! Unfortunately they aren't real tacticool.
http://swfa.com/Burris-Standard-30mm-Rings-P45506.aspx
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: GSSP</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Glock24,
Did you choose Burris because they were lower?
Alan </div></div>
Nope, I went with the Burris base because it was cheap, and I wanted a two-piece system.
I've read (from Lindy) that the lowest system of all is a two-piece dovetail base and ring system. Burris makes a set of 30mm low rings that are crazy low! Unfortunately they aren't real tacticool.
http://swfa.com/Burris-Standard-30mm-Rings-P45506.aspx
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 81sfo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mk4 two piece bases and badger rings,lowest they make,will get you low as possible !! </div></div>
I disagree about the Badger rings. TPS and Seekins make the lowest 30mm rings (0.820")
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 81sfo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mk4 two piece bases and badger rings,lowest they make,will get you low as possible !! </div></div>
I disagree about the Badger rings. TPS and Seekins make the lowest 30mm rings (0.820")
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
why does everyone want the lowest rings possible. I'm not extremely knowledgeable but its really not necessary. Look at the trajectory path. As long as you understand POA and POI its not a huge deal. Am i missing something?. Oh I come from an AR background.
why does everyone want the lowest rings possible. I'm not extremely knowledgeable but its really not necessary. Look at the trajectory path. As long as you understand POA and POI its not a huge deal. Am i missing something?. Oh I come from an AR background.
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
My goal is to always get the scope as close to the receiver as possible for two reasons;
1. Eliminate the need for an adjustable cheek-piece (whenever possible)
2. Reduce the bulkiness of the overall system. In other words, make the rifle more convienent to handle and hide.
I've also read the closer the better for minimizing recoil damage. And lastly, it seems that a minimal POA/POI delta would be good for more accurate close-up shots (<100 meters)
If there are other reasons, I'm not aware of them.
My goal is to always get the scope as close to the receiver as possible for two reasons;
1. Eliminate the need for an adjustable cheek-piece (whenever possible)
2. Reduce the bulkiness of the overall system. In other words, make the rifle more convienent to handle and hide.
I've also read the closer the better for minimizing recoil damage. And lastly, it seems that a minimal POA/POI delta would be good for more accurate close-up shots (<100 meters)
If there are other reasons, I'm not aware of them.
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why does everyone want the lowest rings possible. I'm not extremely knowledgeable but its really not necessary. Look at the trajectory path. As long as you understand POA and POI its not a huge deal. Am i missing something?. Oh I come from an AR background. </div></div>
For me, it the fact that the NF 2.5-10x32 does not have a Parallax adjustment. I need to get my face on the stock and keep it there. I could use a stock pack but I want my stock Hollywood, if possible.
Alan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Enkry</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why does everyone want the lowest rings possible. I'm not extremely knowledgeable but its really not necessary. Look at the trajectory path. As long as you understand POA and POI its not a huge deal. Am i missing something?. Oh I come from an AR background. </div></div>
For me, it the fact that the NF 2.5-10x32 does not have a Parallax adjustment. I need to get my face on the stock and keep it there. I could use a stock pack but I want my stock Hollywood, if possible.
Alan
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Hi Alan,
Look into the 30mm Talley one pc. ring bases in LOW. That scope has enough internal ele. adjustment to get away with a zero cant system...
Fred
Hi Alan,
Look into the 30mm Talley one pc. ring bases in LOW. That scope has enough internal ele. adjustment to get away with a zero cant system...
Fred
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Our base and low rings will give you a nice comfortable cheek weld. Thats what you should be worring about. Much lower than that and you will feel crowded.
Our base and low rings will give you a nice comfortable cheek weld. Thats what you should be worring about. Much lower than that and you will feel crowded.
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
Maybe it's because they don't sell them but NF says in the manual:
"Under no circumstances do we recommend the use of turn-in style rotary/dove tail type ring and base designs, especially those equipped with windage adjustment."
Maybe it's because they don't sell them but NF says in the manual:
"Under no circumstances do we recommend the use of turn-in style rotary/dove tail type ring and base designs, especially those equipped with windage adjustment."
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
what does that mean? They are describing almost every ring on the planet. Cheek weld, that makes sense.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it's because they don't sell them but NF says in the manual:
"Under no circumstances do we recommend the use of turn-in style rotary/dove tail type ring and base designs, especially those equipped with windage adjustment." </div></div>
what does that mean? They are describing almost every ring on the planet. Cheek weld, that makes sense.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: azimutha</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe it's because they don't sell them but NF says in the manual:
"Under no circumstances do we recommend the use of turn-in style rotary/dove tail type ring and base designs, especially those equipped with windage adjustment." </div></div>
Re: Which "lowest" rings/bases for NF 2.5-10x32?
I think it means that they believe that "turn-in style rotary/dove tail" rings are harder to get aligned correctly and may cause problems with the scope operation. I dunno about "almost every ring on the planet." I own four scoped rifles and two have Weaver-style mounts and the others have Picatinny rails and rings. The only set of dove tails I have are sitting in a box, rusting. Maybe there are lots of people who use them, but they're far from the only style out there.
I think it means that they believe that "turn-in style rotary/dove tail" rings are harder to get aligned correctly and may cause problems with the scope operation. I dunno about "almost every ring on the planet." I own four scoped rifles and two have Weaver-style mounts and the others have Picatinny rails and rings. The only set of dove tails I have are sitting in a box, rusting. Maybe there are lots of people who use them, but they're far from the only style out there.
Similar threads
