new to adding a scope

[danielson]

I will get pics when I get a day without ot and have time to go pick the stuff up and put it on. I tried to get a good cheekweld and it looks like just above the rear sight base will be perfect for me. Thanks for the link for sight removal.

 

[danielson]

Since the picture, I removed the top part of the rear sight so I could put the end piece on the scope. I added the butstock pouch/shell holder which is a nice little deal. I put a box of ammo inside. Now I need to get it out and sight it in.

 

[oldpink]

Those are some beefy rings for sure.
They look like the sort with the six screws per ring clamp, but it's hard saying from the photo.
Not sure if you intended it to sit up so high, but I'm sure you could mount it much lower, which is nearly always preferable.
You won't even see your sights, since your scope can't focus on them at all so close.

 

[M67]

They're Weaver Tactical Rings, Highs, don't quite look tall enough for Super High. And agreed, the scope can go much lower

 

[oldpink]

Again, just my recommendation here, and it's still your rifle, but scopes should nearly always be mounted as low as practicable, unless there's some compelling reason to put them up in the clouds.
One of those compelling reasons could be from a comb on your stock that necessitates the scope sitting higher so you can get a clear view through it.

 

[seedubs1]

That looks super non ergonomic. Scope looks way too high and too far back. I don't know how you could possibly shoulder that and have good eye placement.

 

[danielson]

I have mounted the scope exactly where my eye needs it to be, when I have a cheek weld. There is less than half inch of space between the base and the bottom of the scope at the objective side. I can't move the scope foreword, which would allow the scope to clear the base, because the eye relief is perfect where its at. They are high, not xtra high. I had to find a forum where some nice person had given the difference in height between the Rings. Weaver didn't feel it was necessary to include that info on its website. Maybe it's just me but my biggest complaint about rifles with low mounted scopes is I have to turn my head completely sideways and jam my cheek to the point where it hurts before I can get proper alignment with the lens. I put the scope right where my eye is when I'm pushing my cheek into the gun without it being uncomfortable. Hopefully it doesn't affect the performance of the scope being that high.

 

[tbhausen]

Lots of good advice being given here :thumbup:

 

[tradertator]

I'm not picking on you, but you did open a thread asking for advice so I'm going to give some more: That scope setup is a mess, and I wouldn't leave it that way just to avoid removing that rear sight. This video does a better job explaining it than I could ever hope, and I strongly suggest you take his advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COoXVpGfXQE

Obviously it's your rifle and you're free to do it however you wish. I have no doubt that you can hang your head on the rifle in a manner that you can make out the scope, but I guarantee that you'll have better luck operating it by removing that sight, moving the scope a long ways forward, and adjusting it to your eye. Plus you'll be able to go with lower rings, and avoid the "Russian chin weld method". I've been guilty of it too at times but make the rifle work around you, not vice versa.

 

[tradertator]

View attachment 41205

Here's a picture of my rifle with the same scope, to give a comparison to how much farther back and high your's is. Obviously, you won't want it in the exact same position as mine, but this is a much more traditional Western marksmen type setup:

 

[oldpink]

Just to give you some more photos of low-mounted scopes on my own rifles.
The first two are my Gamo air rifles, the third is my Marlin 39A, the fourth is my Marlin 1894, and the fifth is my Ruger M77.

 

[sloughfoot]

Larry Potterfield tells it like it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpLi064e_JI

 

[danielson]

I don't have a problem with advice, or removing the sight. I did that already. At first I wanted to avoid it until the link provided above showed how easy it was, and wouldn't hurt anything. The problem I have now is, where the scope is, is where my eye rests comfortably. I can make my scope look like the ones above, but I have to move it foreward before I can lower it that far. Then, when I held the scope there to test it, I had to crane my neck to get lined up with it, and the scope is too far away to work. My question is, is having the scope that high above the bore axis gonna cause me to have to make stupid adjustments to compensate? Basically, if its aesthetic, and it just looks stupid, I could care less, its where my eye naturally sits. If its a functional issue, then I will have to change it and just be uncomfortable when shooting it. The eye relief on this scope is stupid short, my forehead has to be like an inch away from the scope. The Bushnell scope that came on my other rifle is like 5"

 

[cwillour]

I don't have a problem with advice, or removing the sight. I did that already. At first I wanted to avoid it until the link provided above showed how easy it was, and wouldn't hurt anything. The problem I have now is, where the scope is, is where my eye rests comfortably. I can make my scope look like the ones above, but I have to move it foreward before I can lower it that far. Then, when I held the scope there to test it, I had to crane my neck to get lined up with it, and the scope is too far away to work. My question is, is having the scope that high above the bore axis gonna cause me to have to make stupid adjustments to compensate? Basically, if its aesthetic, and it just looks stupid, I could care less, its where my eye naturally sits. If its a functional issue, then I will have to change it and just be uncomfortable when shooting it. The eye relief on this scope is stupid short, my forehead has to be like an inch away from the scope. The Bushnell scope that came on my other rifle is like 5"

You should actually have around 3.25-3.5" relief on that scope, but if you are tilting your head forward it may feel like significantly less. As for the neck shape, the term I am used to is "turkey necking" and it is not necessarily a bad thing.

When holding the rifle offhand, remember to lean in properly. Better yet, check the scope position & cheek weld in offhand, kneeling, sitting, & prone. FWIW, if I find my head tilting to the side or feeling like I cannot get low enough on the scope, it is normally an indicator that I either have the rifle too far out on my shoulder or that my posture is sloppy (leaning back when shooting offhand, for example.)

 

[tradertator]

Are you adjusting the eye relief on the scope (by twisting the lock ring on the rear of the scope and adjusting the eye piece)? If not, it's possible that it's way out of adjustment. You should have around 3-1/2" or so. If you have and it's still that bad, it needs to go visit the folks at Leupold for repair.

Aesthetics aside, having the scope that high above the bore will play hell with the performance of the rifle, especially at different distances. Here's a crappy pic from the internet, but it gives you the basic idea:



The blue line is your line of sight, yellow is the line of bore. The barrel of any firearm is pointed up slightly, thus making your bullet travel in an arc. You want the line of sight through the optic to be as near the line of bore of the rifle. If not, the problem you'll run into is you'll be able to zero the rifle at one distance, but it will shoot lower closer in - higher past the distance you have it zero'd at - and then lower again as the bullet begins to fall. This is going to happen regardless how high or low you mount it, but the greater the distance is between the line of sight and the bore, the more drastic the effects are. This is why you see weird stuff in the industry like the Leupold VX-L scopes with the crescent shaped objective lenses at the bottom to wrap around the barrel.

The other added benefit to lowering your scope is you will be able to get a lower, more consistent cheek weld. This is incredibly important when you're shooting at longer ranges, because it forces you to look through the exact same viewpoint in the scope every time and helps relieves parallax issues. That is why it's critical to get the rifle setup in a manner to where the scope naturally comes to your eye when you get behind it, rather than you adjusting your head for the rifle. The exercise in that video I linked looks really goofy where he's closing his eyes and bringing his head onto the stock, but will improve your shooting dramatically if done properly.

 

[oldpink]

Way to explain it, traderator.
Rep for you.

 

[danielson]

Alright. I'll pick up some normal height rings tomorrow. We'll see how it works. I guess what feels comfortable to me, might not be the correct way of doing it. Saddle heights for normal 30mm weaver rings is .32 and high is .49. I really don't see how .17 makes that much difference but I don't know anything about it. The distance from the point of contact with the base and the point of contact with the scope on my rings is 19/32" that's .59". .32 is around 21/64", so about half the height of my rings. We'll see.
A side note question. Why does everyone recommend high rings on an AR, if they're such a bad idea? The bore axis is already pretty high on an AR.

 

[42769vette]

Alright. I'll pick up some normal height rings tomorrow. We'll see how it works. I guess what feels comfortable to me, might not be the correct way of doing it. Saddle heights for normal 30mm weaver rings is .32 and high is .49. I really don't see how .17 makes that much difference but I don't know anything about it. The distance from the point of contact with the base and the point of contact with the scope on my rings is 19/32" that's .59". .32 is around 21/64", so about half the height of my rings. We'll see.
A side note question. Why does everyone recommend high rings on an AR, if they're such a bad idea? The bore axis is already pretty high on an AR.

Because the AR was originally designed for carry handle sight's. With the ergonimic's of the AR your head naturally sits higher.

 

[danielson]

I guess I figured if an AR upper had been built with a flat top receiver that it would not be setup for optics at the same height as those that were made with the integrated carry handle 30 years ago..lol

Its so much easier just lining up the old iron sights. Lol

 

[danielson]

So? Does the barrel in an AR not point perfectly level? I'm just trying to wrap my head around the idea of high rings making the bottom most point of the scope sit 27/32" from the top of the hog hunters barrel being a problem, but its a good idea for the high rings making the bottom most point of the scope sit 1 1/8" above my ARs barrel. Wouldnt that have to mean the barrels do not both point perfectly level? I'm confused.