Ring Height -- How Important Is It?


December 29, 2008, 07:51 PM
Was looking at Leupold rings and mounts today. I have a Rem. 700. The guy behind the counter was steering me toward the "medium" height rings. Taking his advice, I went ahead and had him order me a set. I get home and look at the Leupold web site and see that they recommend the "low" rings for my rifle with my scope. In looking at them in the store, there looked to be 1/8 of an inch, maybe a tad more, difference in height between the medium and the low.

Will it make that much difference if I go with the mediums?

If you enjoyed reading about "Ring Height -- How Important Is It?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 29, 2008, 07:59 PM
you typically want the lowest rings you can get without the objective lens touching the barrel.

disadvantages of higher rings are:
poor head-position/cheek weld
more offset on your trajectory

December 29, 2008, 08:50 PM
It is VERY important! One wants, as stated above, the very lowest rings that can be used with your scope. This is because the closer the sight plane (of any type) is to the bore axis, the better for accuracy over distance, whatever distance one wants to address. Also, at least equally important, unless one has a special stock (or special face), then the lower the ring, the better the "weld" of cheek to stock, a very important entity in good shooting. The guy steering you should be in a different business!!!!!!

Art Eatman
December 29, 2008, 10:08 PM
Usually, a low mounting aids in getting a proper cheek weld with the stock. To me, that's the primary importance in setting up a rifle. I don't really see where accuracy or sight-in or apparent trajectory/line of sight is affected to any significant amount by 1/4" difference in height. But if you have to move your head around to get "righteous", you have a problem.

December 29, 2008, 10:22 PM
I have a Rem 700 Ti, and I used to think the lower the scope rings the better. I had a scope mounted with low rings, and I was having problems getting a good sight picture under hunting conditions. It turns out the scope was too low, and was not lining up with my eye when I had the rifle to my shoulder. A new set of medium height rings solved the problem. By the way, I use Burris Signature rings. They cost a bit more, but are worth it. They are easier on the scope, and no need to lap them or worry about them being miss aligned.

December 29, 2008, 10:26 PM
I agree that as low as possible is usually best, but depending on the rifle mediums may not be a bad choice. You do not specify which Remington you have, but if it has a cheekpiece and a higher comb, like the BDL, it will raise your head a bit more than the classic style stocks.

December 29, 2008, 10:32 PM
I have a Remington 700 SPS SS with a Leupold 40MM, the weaver medium height quad lock rings are a little too high, but not so high as to cause a problem. Just remember every brand of rings is a different height!

December 29, 2008, 10:33 PM

December 30, 2008, 12:10 AM

That must be the highly sought after Jamaican scope ring.

December 30, 2008, 12:11 AM
I would advocate low as well. In my shop everyone likes to get see through rings and I always preach the reasons above as to why you dont want your scopes that high off the bore. I then proceed to sell them see through rings.

Anyway go as low as you can and still have comfortable shooting.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ring Height -- How Important Is It?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!