Scope height, does it matter?

Remmy700

Remmy700

BANNED
CGN frequent flyer
BANNED
Rating - 100%
90   0   0
Location
Nanaimo, BC
I’ve bought some new glass for a rifle and I was looking through my surplus rings trying to find the “right” ones………. but is that even a thing beyond personal preference?

I’ve always tried to mount optics so the bell was as close to the barrel as possible and still maintaining the necessary clearance for the bolt. This is my first 50mm objective scope so I’m pretty sure most of the rings I have aren’t going to allow bolt clearance, so I’m probably in the market for another pair. I’ve been hesitant to buy as I don’t want my scope sitting “too high”.

Then I thought about see thru rings, they’re tall and seem to be popular and work so……..


Is there any advantages or disadvantages to different scope heights?




Rifle is a Remington 700 LTR w/20 MOA base, scope is a viper HST 6-24x50mm. Anyone with a similar setup want to share ring height and clearance would be appreciated.
 
The scope needs to be mounted so that it is comfortable to use; that is more important than how close the objective bell is to the barrel.
 
I try to be a bit more specific.

Does the sight line of the optic have any contributing factors?
I know you can get more “up” out of a MOA base, so in theory wouldn’t a slightly higher sight line contribute to that slightly?

What about a BDC reticle, would it not be calibrated to a industry standard height (sight line)?
My thinking being if the sight line is higher, the bullet travel (arc) will have less distance above the sight line. Would it not cross the sight line a little further away than a lower mounted scope? Would it not come back down to the line of sight sooner as well?
 
Scope mounting is all about being as efficient as possible.

You obviously want comfort, propper eye relief, and solid secure mounting.

Ideally you want your objective end as close to the barrel as possible maintaining a small clearance.

That way your bore-sight relationship is minimized and your trajectory will be flatter to the optical plane.

Most BDC are only ballpark anyway, and will almost never be perfect.

Your scope documentation should include a height over bore measurement, and barrel lenght/bullet weight the BDC was calibrated for.

That would be your closest.




I should add the edit: I am referring to hunting with scopes... since that's where my head is at today.

When shooting of targets, I don't think it matters, as your DOPE will be independent of your height-over-bore
 
Last edited:
I've always bought low rings to mount my 40mm-56mm objective scopes. I use a single piece base/rail so low rings are probably medium height in the end.
 
Consistent cheek placement for accurate requires a low scope or adjustment in the cheek rest itself. I have transitioned to a more vertical head position for comfort and better accuracy. Your actual center scope height over center bore is important to put into your ballistic calculator if you use one.
 
I think it depends on personal preference and shooting style. I like a scope as low as practical, but it is not necessary for me. "Cheek weld" is a popular concept recently, some would say "cheek weld' is critical to success. Only a couple of my rifles allow firm cheek contact. And they are mostly varmint/target type rifles. European hunters do well with lower combs and higher scope mounts than is fashionable in the USA. I like European rifles and technology better than most USA products so I have transitioned to their way of shooting while hunting game animals. More "heads up" and less stock crawling. I like longer stocks too. Instead of a "cheek weld" I now seek a lower point anchor, more like a "jaw weld". This technique is also better suited to quick shots at moving game, from standing, kneeling or sitting. The European type of heads up mount is less suited to prone shooting at far distant targets. If you like laying on your belly to shoot at targets, varmints or game animals far, far away, you won't be happy with a high mounted scope and a stock with much drop at comb and heel.
 
If you're shooting with a stock with no adjustment then low is necessary. If it's adjustable then go for comfort. I personally don't like my scope jammed super low. As long as you set up your ballistic solver with the correct height over bore, it shouldn't matter how high your scope is
 
Longwalker said:
I think it depends on personal preference and shooting style. I like a scope as low as practical, but it is not necessary for me. "Cheek weld" is a popular concept recently, some would say "cheek weld' is critical to success. Only a couple of my rifles allow firm cheek contact. And they are mostly varmint/target type rifles. European hunters do well with lower combs and higher scope mounts than is fashionable in the USA. I like European rifles and technology better than most USA products so I have transitioned to their way of shooting while hunting game animals. More "heads up" and less stock crawling. I like longer stocks too. Instead of a "cheek weld" I now seek a lower point anchor, more like a "jaw weld". This technique is also better suited to quick shots at moving game, from standing, kneeling or sitting. The European type of heads up mount is less suited to prone shooting at far distant targets. If you like laying on your belly to shoot at targets, varmints or game animals far, far away, you won't be happy with a high mounted scope and a stock with much drop at comb and heel.
Click to expand...

I do find a more vertical facial position is a lot more flexible for unusual positions. I have really grown to like an adjustable cheek/chin/jaw rest whether part of or added to a stock.
 
laker415 said:
If you're shooting with a stock with no adjustment then low is necessary. If it's adjustable then go for comfort. I personally don't like my scope jammed super low. As long as you set up your ballistic solver with the correct height over bore, it shouldn't matter how high your scope is
Click to expand...

This. We don’t have the ability to “like” a post without commenting.
 
adamg said:
Unless you are shooting at under 40m regularly, there's nothing wrong with high scopes.

Click to expand...


Thanks for the video, it answered the exact questions I was asking.

As for those mentioning comfort, I have the magpul hunter stock so cheek weld is adjustable. I just need to decide if I want to bring the scope down or the cheek weld up?

Desjard said:
I've always bought low rings to mount my 40mm-56mm objective scopes. I use a single piece base/rail so low rings are probably medium height in the end.
Click to expand...

If you’re getting 56mm bell to fit with 1pc base + low rings, I’m guessing the lowest I have is mediums as I still have a decent sized gap.


https://freeimage.host/

The scope is still sitting to high for proper cheek weld for me, in this situation should I just bring the cheek weld up or buy some lower rings?
 
You want your head vertical with minimal pressure on the cheekpiece. Easy natural alignment. If you feel the scope is too high you can either lower it or raise the comb. I would be inclined to raise the comb - that would be cheaper than buying another set of rings.
 
Remmy700 said:
...

The scope is still sitting to high for proper cheek weld for me, in this situation should I just bring the cheek weld up or buy some lower rings?
Click to expand...

Depending on how you are using the rifle, the optic height over bore may be annoying. Look at your ballistics tables with your load and zero and make sure it's going to work for you.

I'd get lower rings, personally. No harm in having spare rings around, and then you can test fire both options properly.
 
I used to fuss about lowest rings and getting the scope as close to the barrel as I could. I’ve since changed my position, now it’s comfort and ease of getting a sight picture. As silly as that sounds for the most oft instead of low rings it has been medium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom