Finding Scope rings

[kmw1954]

I recently purchased an Athlon scope from another member and am expecting it to arrive around Weds... Now I need to find acceptable rings to fit this. The scope is a 30mm tube with a 56mm objective and the base I have is a 2pc. Weaver.

I have been searching everywhere and everyone's website trying to determine the correct ring height.

Weaver looks like they use their X High ring
Warne says #215 High
Burris I can't figure out, same for Vortex and Leupold.

Suggestions/advise?

 

[troy fairweather]

Depends how night the bases are some pic rails allow you to use lows even with a 50mm. What gun is it going on.

 

[kmw1954]

This is not on a rail it's on Weaver mounts which are rather low. On a bolt receiver.

 

[BigBL87]

With the Burris, it looks like the Sig Zee X-High should clear for sure. They are 1.18 inches (29.9 mm) to center. Not knowing the actual outside diameter of a objective bell, that gives you clearance for nearly 60mm worth of objective bell from the top of the base. Add the 1.65 mm height of the base, and if your barrel has NO taper (which I'm assuming is not the case) your outside diameter of the bell would need to be 61.45 mm to touch a non-tapered barrel.

The same math for the Sig Zee Highs once the bell reaches 58.85 mm outside diameter it would touch a barrel with no taper.

All that to say, the Sig Zee X-Highs are pretty much guaranteed to work, the Highs will depend on the actual OD of the objective bell and the taper of the barrel, but I'd guess they would likely work (but wouldn't guarantee it).

 

[LoonWulf]

The Athlon specs on that scope call for a 2.5" or 63.5mm bell dia.

I forgot what rifle this is going on, but id expect highs to be pretty close on average...my inclination would be to go to xtra highs....or buy both and see what works best.
Meds are tight with my1" tube 50mm scopes, and my varmint barreled Christensen, and heavy sporter xbolt.
A 30mm tube would give a little more clearance.

 

[kmw1954]

This is going on the Savage Model 10 and I'm pretty certain a Medium will never fit, Highs are iffy and think some of the X High may be too high. Have to agree that the Burris X High are right also. Haven't found anyone local with the Sig rings.

 

[LoonWulf]

Varmint Barrel Savage?

 

[kmw1954]

Sporter barrel

 

[LoonWulf]

I just did some measuring and math.
I have a 50 mm Athlon That's .2" smaller and total diameter on a varmint barreled rifle.
Using warne bases which are slight bit taller than Weaver's, and 0.97 rail to center line of scope arkin rings, I've still got .172" a clearance left between the highest part of the barrel and the bottom of the scope bell.
That equates to 4.4 mm of clearance.
I measured the loose savage sporter barrel I had on hand in comparison to the varmint barrel and The difference is about a quarter inch at the same point.

Thus with that long scope and tapered barrel Id put money that you get away with a Warne medium rings.....
That said a high would be a safe bet.

 

[JFrank]

I have a 56mm objective on a Savage 12
EGW picatinny rail
SWFA medium high rings works well

 

[P89DCSS]

30mm barrel with 60mm bell:
1.35" high rings (35mm) put the bell +5mm above the mounting rail (weaver or picatinny).
1.20" high rings (30mm) put the bell 0mm above the mounting rail (weaver or picatinny).
1.00" high rings (25mm) put the bell -5mm above (5mm below) the mounting rail (weaver or picatinny).
0.8" high rings (20mm) put the bell -10mm above (10mm below) the mounting rail (weaver or picatinny).

56mm bell adds +2mm to the above calculations. I bought 1" high rings for my scope with 30mm barrel, 56mm bell. My mount is a 10mm high pincatinny rail on a varmint profile barrel so I could have gone with the 0.8" but I was chicken.

 

[kmw1954]

So after watching more videos and searching the internet for information and actual rings I came upon this idea. Our local Walmart has some Weaver 30MM High rings in stock for only $15.00 so I am going to stop and buy a set just to try them and see how they fit. If they work out then I will order some better ones and throw these in the box.

As one of the videos I watched last night stated. What the Manufactures name them is irrelevant it's how they are measured and it seems no two measure the same. Heck on some of them I can't even find a measurement unless I'm looking in all the wrong places.

 

[P89DCSS]

I have Monstrum, UTG and generic and they all measure right at 1". Low, medium and high don't mean anything but I have found all 1" rings measure the same. 1" is the distance between the flats of the half ring and the rail screw center.

 

[LoonWulf]

I have Monstrum, UTG and generic and they all measure right at 1". Low, medium and high don't mean anything but I have found all 1" rings measure the same. 1" is the distance between the flats of the half ring and the rail screw center.

A lot of the generic (even the branded ones) tend to be really random with their sizing, never mind many if not most are made in the same place lol.

The range between the different "majors" and ring heights is USUALLY close enough you can say stuff like... "sporter barrel, and you should be ok with a medium up to 50mm objectives" and be right 95% of the time.
With the off brand/generics, they can be harder to gauge, usually tho they will err on the side if being taller than expected.

 

[kmw1954]

Looked at the dimensions for this scope and compared it to the Burris and if the rear ocular is to the same position the front objective will be a full 2" further forward. Barrel gets pretty skinny up there!

 

[P89DCSS]

A lot of the generic (even the branded ones) tend to be really random with their sizing, never mind many if not most are made in the same place lol....

I've only bought three sets of rings ever, all at the lower end of the market. They all line up nicely as if it's intended to be that way. I have two more sets of Monstrum rings coming this week. I wonder if they'll be random or will they also be consistent with what I already have.

Edit: I downloaded the latest Burris catalog and found that Burris measures scope rings just as I noted above. The same way Monstrum and UTG measures scope rings. Three data points refuting the idea the scope rings aren't sold with precise measurements. I did look specifically for dimensions before purchasing so I did exclusively select rings that included dimensions. The dimensions are available with some brands and those dimensions are accurate and comparable.

edit: Vortex rings are spec'ed the same way. Its clearly documented on their website.

 

[kmw1954]

Late last night I found that same Burris product brochure and yes the list the dimensions for their rings and while looking it is clear that the "High rings of differing models do not measure the same height. They vary from a low of .78" for the Medium plain ZEE Rings to 1.10" for the Medium XTR rings. In my mind that is quite a spread, .310"!

Also found this; http://www.mil-rad.com/scope_ring_calculator

 

[P89DCSS]

Late last night I found that same Burris product brochure and yes the list the dimensions for their rings and while looking it is clear that the "High rings of differing models do not measure the same height. They vary from a low of .78" for the Medium plain ZEE Rings to 1.10" for the Medium XTR rings. In my mind that is quite a spread, .310"!

As I said earlier, high, medium, low is meaningless. On the other hand, 1 " high is the same for all the brands I've checked. It never occurred to me to use terms such as "high" or "medium" and expect the term to be precise. Especially when the actual dimensions are easily found as you proved.

Also found this; http://www.mil-rad.com/scope_ring_calculator

With the actual dimensions (easily found) and your link there's no need to guess and nothing is "random".....

 

[kmw1954]

As I said earlier, high, medium, low is meaningless. On the other hand, 1 " high is the same for all the brands I've checked. It never occurred to me to use terms such as "high" or "medium" and expect the term to be precise. Especially when the actual dimensions are easily found as you proved......

Well I would not say easily found or I wouldn't be here asking questions. Now I wish I could find that same information for Weaver Rings,. I was always under the impression that the 1" was in reference to the tube diameter and not the actual scope height, as the 30mm is also in reference to tube diameter.

I am beginning to think that many of these ring height recommendations by the manufacturer are in belief that they will be mounted on a straight rail Picatinny that runs the length of the scope. Such as AR's or Chassis stocks.

 

[BigBL87]

I was always under the impression that the 1" was in reference to the tube diameter and not the actual scope height, as the 30mm is also in reference to tube diameter.

Your impression is correct. Unless a scope ring specifically states something about 1 inch referring to height, it can be assumed it refers to the tube diameter.

Not sure which weaver rings specifically you are looking for specs on, but I did find this.

https://www.weaveroptics.com/weaveroptics-learn/w-ring-charts.html

Their measurements are saddle height (i.e. to the bottom of the ring), so just add .5" to get the height to center.

 

[P89DCSS]

I didn't understand or believe the claim that everything is random. It never occurred to me to assume anything. When I went looking for the actual drawing of the specfic ring in question I didn't have any problem finding and understanding the drawing. The drawings are formatted just like my technical drafting class from freshman year of high school. When I mount scopes they fit without interfere. It really isn't difficult.

 

[kmw1954]

https://www.weaveroptics.com/weaveroptics-learn/w-ring-charts.html

Their measurements are saddle height (i.e. to the bottom of the ring), so just add .5" to get the height to center.

Just arrived back home from Wallyworld and was able to pick up that set of Weaver 30mm Classic HIGH rings and have measured them. Then after looking more closely at that Weaver chart it states which rings those measurements apply to and these Classic rings are not among them. The Tactical rings have their our separate chart too!

These Classic rings measure .750" base to saddle and 1.340" from base to ring center. so using the website I found last night and entering the numbers the calculation tell me I will have .59" of clearance when mounted.

 

[kmw1954]

When I went looking for the actual drawing of the specfic ring in question I didn't have any problem finding and understanding the drawing. The drawings are formatted just like my technical drafting class from freshman year of high school. When I mount scopes they fit without interfere. It really isn't difficult.

Agree completely only in that they do not make it easy to find an actual mechanical drawing with dimensions on it. I had to go hunting for them. Now that I do have the actual numbers it is quite easy to figure it out and compare. But to just compare one's HIGH to another HIGH is useless and arbitrary.

Once again, right printed on the package these rings state "FITS UP TO44mm OBJ LENS." Yet I have a 56mm obj lens and by the calculations they will fit and work.

 

[Skylerbone]

Easiest tool to use for such calculations if you don’t have all figures in front of you (or if you’re sometimes bad at math like me) is modeling clay.

A ball of it placed on the two bases, then add your scope and press evenly until you reach minimal clearance. You can now measure the depth of the clay, add 1/2 the scope tube diameter, and find your minimum ring height.
Play Doh works too but not as rigid, though available at Walmart for about $1.

The more technical way is to know the scopes external dimensions, approx. where it will sit for proper eye relief, divide the largest dimension; in this case the objective bell, and measure from TDC of the barrel at the rearmost point which will sit below the obj. bell up to level with the top of your bases. Subtract that from 1/2 your total bell diameter and the remainder will be what’s needed in ring height as measured from the bottom of the saddle. Clear? Yeah, that’s why I use clay.

 

[kmw1954]

Well folks after all this I really hope this scope shows up tomorrow, early! Though I doubt it will with the way FEDEX runs around here, Heck I haven't even seen a tracking update since it left OR. last Thursday,. But I do have those Classic Weaver rings to at least get a more reliable measurement and general idea as to how it is going to fit. Would really like it to be here early enough to mount and bore sight so maybe I can go sight it in in the afternoon. Otherwise it will have to wait until probably next Weds.