Eye Relief

bugsy5

bugsy5

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Location
B.C. Interior
I have a brand new Winchester mod 70 in 30.06. AT time of purchase, picked up a new Diamondback Vortex scope.

Got it mounted up and and finding I have to really lean into the stock to get the correct sight picture. Ideally, I would be able to move the scope back to accommodate this, however, there is no room on the scope to come back (the front bell is up against the front ring now).

Is this a scope problem, or a ring and base issue ?? I am using Leupold rings and Burris 2 piece base. I have mounted many scopes on many different rifles over the years and have never run into this.
 
I don't like one piece bases-just a preference. You can get leupold extension rings and use your same base or change out the base to the one with the front extension.
 
One of my biggest pet peeves with most scopes (regardless of cost)... Not enough dog damn eye relief.
As others has said try other bases.
 
I am having the same problem with a Mauser .. It came with Leopold bases . and I have to lean into the gun to get a clear view ..
Weaver has extended bases but I am not sure about Leopold... And if they do .. to get a set that will fit the gun you require them for might be the next problem .. If the scope was longer between the bells that would help .. It is six inches between the bases and some scopes are only five between the bells .. I have seen a few longer scopes but they were like 24 power
 
One of my biggest pet peeves with most scopes (regardless of cost)... Not enough dog damn eye relief.
As others has said try other bases.
Click to expand...
thats the trade off with all scopes Field of View vs Eye Relief vs Magnification .. you can have one.. maybe 2 but not all three
 
So by making a scope longer in length ..does that take away from field of view .. If they made a 3x9 scope a foot ( only an example )between the bells instead of six inches .. What would that do ...
 
Good question ....I'll check Bob Bell's excellent articles and see if he has anything to say on that subject. I believe the reason we dont use 20 inch long scopes these days though is due to much better optical glass availability and better techniques for grinding the glass etc.
 
If the scope must be mounted well behind the cocking piece of the rifle in order for you to acquire a full sight picture, it could be that the rifle's LOP is too long for you. Its wouldn't be a surprise, as stocks are cut on the long side to accommodate the greatest number of people. A long stock requires a scope that is set back more if 3"-4" of eye relief is to be maintained. A one piece Picatinny rail provides the greatest latitude for scope mounting, but shortening the stock will provide greater benefits.
 
The gun is six inches between the Leopold mounts for the scope .. It came with a fixed power 2.5 Bushnell and it has no front bell .
So I can use that .. But I wanted to use a variable power scope I have here and it is only 5 1/2 inches between the bells .. So even if it was the 6 inches you have ""ZERO " ability to move the scope forward or back . The rifle is a 257 Roberts built on a 33/40 Mauser action.
So I am not even sure if the holes would be the same as a later built Mauser that had holes from the factory ,, Or maybe a Husky would have the same hole pattern .
Or Maybe the gun smith that did the build put the mounts six inches apart :???
But I guess if I had a longer scope or a Picatinny rail or have the LOP shortened it would fix the problem .. But I hate to cut a custom stock if there is other options .. And a pretty one at that .
May have to take it too a gun smith and have him look at it
 
It had 6 honest inches of eye relief!
Click to expand...
at 1.25X not at 8X... a similar low powered Leupold would have about 4inchs (at low power) but a wider field of view than the 6500.... its a trade off unfortunately and there aren't a lot of "free lunches".


Tyler -- the one piece base could be the most expedient answer ....but make sure that the one piece base wont interfere with spent casings when being ejected - cause that can be a PITA. Another (very pricey solution) could be EAW rings ...the front ring can be had with quite a long "foot" that accommodates moving the scope back
 
You can buy a set of bases with the front base reversible, [Theses are available for your M70 Winchester] plus rings are available that are also offset. This would add 2+ full inches of rearward movement of the scope to give you the eye relief you seek.

I have the excellent Leupold 6x42 on several of my long-action hunting rifles. The 6x42s have quite a short tube, and require at least one of the above components.....in some cases both, to get the proper eye relief.

This problem particularly manifests itself on Ruger #1 rifles, and, since the quarter rib is integral with the rifle, one must buy the Ruger offset ring(s) to accommodate most scopes.

A bit of a nuisance, but solutions are always there, if you seek them out.

One caution. If your scope has a relatively large objective lens, you may need higher rings as well when you move the scope back, to avoid interference between the objective "bell" and the front base. This applies to some picatinny rails as well.

Regards, Dave.
 
AP said:
at 1.25X not at 8X... a similar low powered Leupold would have about 4inchs (at low power) but a wider field of view than the 6500.... its a trade off unfortunately and there aren't a lot of "free lunches".
Click to expand...

There may no be any free lunches but ... Ya don't ever have to worry about scope eye with the 6500

Then there is the Leupold V6 1-6x24 with a whopping 116 FOV with 3.8 inches eye relief. How the heck do you almost get 1/3 of 360 degree with 24 mm without it have a fisheye affect. Hats off to Leupold for that one!

But I love the turrets and resettable zero on the 6500 - amazing feel even if my FOV is 66 ft
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom