Hey Ron, how about a shorter set of rings on that scope.
A higher mounted scope (within reason) also gets you additional yardage from your "near zero" to your "far zero". While the scope mounted closer to bore provides a " flatter" perceived trajectory. Given a choice between the two, give me a touch higher.Why? Height over bore is a non-issue if appropriately accounted for. I know “lower is better” used to be all the rage, but being able to appropriately set up behind the rifle is more important. Look at the Barrett MRAD, Ruger RPR, or most any other chassis rifle. They all shoot just fine with much higher height than old methods would find acceptable. Heck, you ever seen the optics setup on the King of 2 Mile guns, or the ones they’re using to reach out to 4+ miles?
For one, it will move his cheek weld down and more with being inline with the rifles bore. If that rifle had an adj cheel piece, who cares.Why? Height over bore is a non-issue if appropriately accounted for. I know “lower is better” used to be all the rage, but being able to appropriately set up behind the rifle is more important. Look at the Barrett MRAD, Ruger RPR, or most any other chassis rifle. They all shoot just fine with much higher height than old methods would find acceptable. Heck, you ever seen the optics setup on the King of 2 Mile guns, or the ones they’re using to reach out to 4+ miles?
We arnt talking about or needing a scope base with built in MOA here.Why? Height over bore is a non-issue if appropriately accounted for. I know “lower is better” used to be all the rage, but being able to appropriately set up behind the rifle is more important. Look at the Barrett MRAD, Ruger RPR, or most any other chassis rifle. They all shoot just fine with much higher height than old methods would find acceptable. Heck, you ever seen the optics setup on the King of 2 Mile guns, or the ones they’re using to reach out to 4+ miles?
We arnt talking about or needing a scope base with built in MOA here.
That rifle would be much more comfortable to shoot with a set of low of med rings versus Extra High.
You sure?How do you know? Maybe Ron’s had a neck injury and likes to keep his neck straighter when shouldering a rifle? I fall in to that camp somewhat, which surprised me a few years ago when I was setting up a new rifle with a new (to me) type of chassis.
I’m not trying to be argumentative, though it may initially appear that way. I’m just saying sometimes there’s a valid reason for doing something different that isn’t readily apparent.
In this case though, I agree with you that he needs either lower rings or an adjustable cheek piece to improve his cheek weld if he needs/wants a more heads up position!
Ron was using the method of trying to adjust the scope to move the crosshair to the point of impact after each shot, which can be a shortcut and save a lot of ammo during sight in. However, this only works if you can keep the rifle absolutely steady during adjustment. He still probably ended up using less ammo than other methods but the rifle movement cost quite a bit of ammo.I think Ron might be too far out over his ski's on this one? He said early in the video that his rings were too high, but that's all he had and had to get this done, approaching season?
Looked like to me that initially he was chasing shots, dialing after each one? I could be wrong, be maybe he hasn't done this much?
Ron was using the method of trying to adjust the scope to move the crosshair to the point of impact after each shot, which can be a shortcut and save a lot of ammo during sight in. However, this only works if you can keep the rifle absolutely steady during adjustment. He still probably ended up using less ammo than other methods but the rifle movement cost quite a bit of ammo.
Here's a link detailing the method he was trying to use.
I'm OLD, but I have a Night Force that I had a Horus Reticle installed that goes with a PDA.Ron was using the method of trying to adjust the scope to move the crosshair to the point of impact after each shot, which can be a shortcut and save a lot of ammo during sight in. However, this only works if you can keep the rifle absolutely steady during adjustment. He still probably ended up using less ammo than other methods but the rifle movement cost quite a bit of ammo.
Here's a link detailing the method he was trying to use.
Maybe he thought he bought "See Through"Looks like he's set up for piddlin' around on the bench.
How well that scope/ring setup will translate when a quick shot is needed in the sticks?
Because he wasn't demonstrating a one shot zero, he was demonstrating a 30 yard zero.Understood, what he was trying to do. Like the too tall scope rings though, it didn't appear that he had his together?
Why would you make a demonstration video, showing that you weren't following the fundamentals of how to do it?