Thorton Flattop
Member
putting a 6-20x50 scope with butler creek flip open covers on a tikka t3 super varmint .223...should i use high or extra high mounts?
high or extra high
- Thread starter Thorton Flattop
- Start date
- Status
Abel
Member
High.
Naybor
Member
High.
Get the ones where you can also use the iron sights for close in game. You get the best of both worlds this way.
Get the ones where you can also use the iron sights for close in game. You get the best of both worlds this way.
Thorton Flattop
Member
no iron sights ....thanks for your help...have a good new year all...
Coal Dragger
member
Get the lowest rings possible that will still clear the objective bell without contacting the barrel. The only caveat to that is to make sure and take a spent shell casing with you to ensure that the windage turret will not interfere with ejection when you mount the scope.
A 50mm objective should be able to clear in a set of medium rings and bases in most cases, unless the actual objective bell diameter is really really over sized for say an adjustable objective. As low a mounting as possible is desirable in order to keep recoil strain on mounts and optics to a minimum, additionally the lower mounting promotes a better and more consistent cheek weld on the stock which will usually result in better more consistent shooting.
The advice to get see through rings is perhaps the worst I have ever heard, all those manage to do is set your scope so high up that you can't get a good cheek weld. Additionally the extra height typically makes for a much weaker mounting since the leverage between rifle rings/bases and scope is longer and easier to torque under recoil. Another downside is the fact most are made out of the cheapest aluminum available and they are weak to begin with to mount a normal sized scope in, much less a large objective high magnification unit that is going to have some weight to it.
A 50mm objective should be able to clear in a set of medium rings and bases in most cases, unless the actual objective bell diameter is really really over sized for say an adjustable objective. As low a mounting as possible is desirable in order to keep recoil strain on mounts and optics to a minimum, additionally the lower mounting promotes a better and more consistent cheek weld on the stock which will usually result in better more consistent shooting.
The advice to get see through rings is perhaps the worst I have ever heard, all those manage to do is set your scope so high up that you can't get a good cheek weld. Additionally the extra height typically makes for a much weaker mounting since the leverage between rifle rings/bases and scope is longer and easier to torque under recoil. Another downside is the fact most are made out of the cheapest aluminum available and they are weak to begin with to mount a normal sized scope in, much less a large objective high magnification unit that is going to have some weight to it.
unwise11
Member
High, Depending what type of base medium would work, I have seen it, but if you want a 100% sure, go high.
huntershooter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 1,058
Heed Coal Draggers advice...
hdbiker1
Member
There is a formula that will get you close. (Height of the front of the base to barrel) + (height to center of the rings) - (1/2 the actual outside diameter of the objective bell and cover) = a positive number will tell you how far off the barrel you will be for a straight barrel. The amount of taper you have will add more clearance.
if that particular 6-20 happens to be the simmons whitetail 6.5-20x50AO you will for sure want high, or possibly higher mounts. With standard weaver basses and split rings HIGH just gets me enough clearance to get decent eye reliefe on my remington 700 sps 7mag.
Thorton Flattop
Member
thanks to all for your help...went with high ....and it works.......
Thorton Flattop
Member
Loon Wolf....how did you know what brand of scope......must have read my mind....
- Status