scope as close to bore as possible.

[PT1911]

so I often see guys coming into the gun shop asking how to get the scope higher off the rifle so they don't have to "lay" on the rifle in order to aim. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make them understand that the closer the scope is to the bore, the better off they will be... I understand that there are a couple extreme exceptions to this rule, but I think it is an important concept to convey. Perhaps I am just annoyed by small things, but I see this misconception far too often.. Just today a guy wanted rings for a 40mm scope that would get the scope one full inch off the bore (at the base of the rings) :banghead::banghead::bangheadn a heavy barrel .22. He already had "super highs" on the gun, but still fealt he had to "lay" on the gun. This was the MAKO .22 which already has an aggressive cheek rest. anyone else frustrated by this sort of thing, or am I just too annoyed by something that is unimportant?

 

[Funderb]

I wish I had some nice low profile rings. Will you send the ones you take off their rifles to me?

Yeah, well, you know what benjamin franklin said,
"Some people in this world are just beyond help."

Nah, i just made that up, but it works.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Actually I have heard that Ben Franklin quote. He was talking about Pelosi.

 

[dagger dog]

Those rifles that have the very high rings installed are usually target or varmint rigs which are shot from rests or some kind of device(bipod, sticks) used to steady the front of the stock.

The design of the stocks on these type rigs are straighter than hunting type stocks with less drop at the heel, and it makes the shooter raise his head for sight (crosshair) alignment, so higher rings are needed.

IMO a lot of the high ring syndrome, was brought on by riflemen being introduced to the AR style straight stock, then when these type rifles with the very high iron sights are scoped it results in the same head positions.

On the other side is the typical American style hunting rifle a stock with more drop at the heel requires the scope be set lower.

The use dictates the style,heavy brush can be caught by the scope, eastern style hunting,the weight of higher rings and larger objective bell scope equals more weight which you don't want when trying to out manuver game in the open country of the west.

I think we are seeing Darwins theory of natural selection in progress with todays shooters. In another 500 years that generation of shooters will have necks like turkeys or maybe ostriches.

 

[Rembrandt]

....the high ring syndrome, was brought on by riflemen being introduced to the AR style straight stock.

When you consider that most rifles were designed at a time when scopes were the exception and not the rule, it's not surprising to see so many cobbled up installations. Had those guns been built with scopes in mind from the outset, stock configurations would have been quite different.

AR's, as most military arms that were originally designed for open sights, is a good example of ill fitting ergonomics when scoped. This is especially true when using longer target scopes. Sometimes can be difficult to get them mounted low enough.

Scopes on bolt actions often get raised higher in order to clear bolt handle.

 

[redneck2]

It is IMPOSSIBLE to make them understand that the closer the scope is to the bore, the better off they will be...

"Better" is a relative term. Maybe it would suit your needs more closely, but not theirs.

If it's impossible to get a good check weld or hold the rifle correctly with low mounts, I'd raise them also.

Other than magnifying the effects of canting the rifle, I can't see a significant downside. The bullet will still have to start out from the muzzle upward to compensate for gravity.

Just a thought. You may want to re-think who's being stubborn here. I kinda look at it this way...

It's their money and their gun. They can do as they wish. Of all the wrongs that need righted in the world, this one falls pretty far down on the list.

 

[lipadj46]

I do agree that as a rule of thumb you mount the scope as low as possible. Usually you pick the lowest set of rings that will allow the scope to clear the action and/or bolt and get the scope back far enough. While I guess there are cases where a person may need higher rings for a proper cheek weld (maybe they have a giant cranium?) but I have never actually witnessed it. I would say 90% of scoped firearms I see the scope is mounted too high.

 

[dakotasin]

i like my scopes down on the rifle as tight as i can get them, but that's just me.

however, rings, bases, scopes, and their mounting is indeed a personal decision, and the fit should be tailored to each individual and firearm. in fact, it is not 'better' to have the scope high or low. there is no good reason to mount a scope low (or high) if it causes an uncomfortable fit or requires continual head shifting to be able to see thru the scope.

to answer your question, you are annoyed for no good reason, and the fit is important. you shouldn't force your bias on your customers when it comes to custom fit of anything, especially ring height.

 

[lipadj46]

I think most people do not understand (or care) that they need a good cheek weld when shooting with a scope. This is one of the reason you hear so many saying they got hit by their scope because their cheek is not firmly planted on the stock. Many shooters just don't care to learn the fundamentals. Honestly a high mounted scope is fine but you need to then use a proper comb riser or pad and you do not see that very often.

 

[PT1911]

Just a thought. You may want to re-think who's being stubborn here. I kinda look at it this way...

having some sense is not being stubborn... it is not hard to justify mounting a scope as low to the bore as possible, the lower it is, the better your zero will match the trajectory of the bullet at more than just your zeroed range... the higher the scope is mounted, the more the gun is restricted to just the distance being zeroed. As I said, I understand that there are the extreme exceptions of long range shooting, and in an AR type situation where low rings are not possible, this is not applicable. in a hunting rifle or a .22 however, the lower the BETTER. Not because I think so, but because gun will not be restricted to its,say, 50, 100,... yard zero. In no way am I trying to be stubborn here. Just a few weeks ago, a fellow THR(er) was inquiring about this issue due to the fact that he had maxed out his scope adjustments (at a very short range). Some of the advice he was given was to add "shims" to raise the scope even higher than it was. He had a difficult time understanding bullet trajectory and the benefit of actually lowering the scope.

 

[SwampWolf]

PT1911, you are exactly right. And is there anything worse than the so-called "see-thru" rings?

 

[Zak Smith]

Here is a typical .308 load swept from 0.75" SOB to 2.5" SOB, 100 yard zero for all setups.

_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0      25      50      75     100     125     150     175     200 | YARDS
0.75              0.350 2700 >   -0.75   -0.08    0.28    0.31   -0.00   -0.67   -1.71   -3.15   -4.99 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 0.34" at 64.92
1.0               0.350 2700 >   -1.00   -0.27    0.15    0.25   -0.00   -0.61   -1.59   -2.96   -4.74 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 0.26" at 69.56
1.5               0.350 2700 >   -1.50   -0.64   -0.10    0.12   -0.00   -0.48   -1.34   -2.58   -4.24 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 0.13" at 78.72
2.0               0.350 2700 >   -2.00   -1.02   -0.35   -0.00   -0.00   -0.36   -1.09   -2.21   -3.74 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 0.04" at 87.73
2.5               0.350 2700 >   -2.50   -1.39   -0.60   -0.13   -0.00   -0.23   -0.84   -1.83   -3.24 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 0.01" at 96.59

The biggest difference is the influence of the physical offset at extreme close range (ie, 25 yards and closer).


Getting a stable, solid, and comfortable cheek weld is more important to good markmanship than minor ballistic differences.

 

[06]

Different rifle uses dictate different setups. I have see throughs on most of my deer rifles that have iron sights. Scope heights have never posed a problem with me. My bulls are down low because of the way I like to shoot. If you keep proper eye relief distance you won't get the semi circles on your eye brow. Just to be the "devil's advocate" a moment imo one could stand on his head and fire if he had proper sight alignment and trigger pull. Scope height IMO does not bother my accuracy if sighted in properly. wc

 

[benzy2]

having some sense is not being stubborn... it is not hard to justify mounting a scope as low to the bore as possible, the lower it is, the better your zero will match the trajectory of the bullet at more than just your zeroed range... the higher the scope is mounted, the more the gun is restricted to just the distance being zeroed. As I said, I understand that there are the extreme exceptions of long range shooting, and in an AR type situation where low rings are not possible, this is not applicable. in a hunting rifle or a .22 however, the lower the BETTER. Not because I think so, but because gun will not be restricted to its,say, 50, 100,... yard zero. In no way am I trying to be stubborn here. Just a few weeks ago, a fellow THR(er) was inquiring about this issue due to the fact that he had maxed out his scope adjustments (at a very short range). Some of the advice he was given was to add "shims" to raise the scope even higher than it was. He had a difficult time understanding bullet trajectory and the benefit of actually lowering the scope.

I would think the opposite to be true. If you have a +/-1.5" point blank range I would think a scope sitting at 1.5" off the bore would have a longer point blank than one at 1.0" off the bore. This is shown with the chart posted above me. Up close you may be off a bit more but anything outside of the real close stuff allows for a much longer point blank zero. The bullet has to rise more to get to the line of sight, which will push the range at which the bullet first crosses the line of sight farther out. Then you get another 1.5" of rise above line of sight which would be the same for both(or real close), and the drop again to 1.5" below line of sight(again which would be real close). Maybe you could explain exactly how in the trajectory a lower mounted scope helps instead of just that is does? I don't follow your logic and would love to see what you mean.

 

[Zak Smith]

Let's define point-blank-range (PBR) as the maximum distance the bullet is within 2.5" (in this example) vertically of the point of aim. If we have two rifles, one with a 1.0" SOB distance and one with 2.5", the 2.5" setup has a further PBR (and a further zero):

_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0      25      50      75     100     125     150     175     200     225     250     275     300 | YARDS
1.0               0.350 2700 >   -1.00    0.35    1.38    2.09    2.45    2.46    2.09    1.33    0.16   -1.45   -3.51   -6.04   -9.08 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 2.50" at 113.05
2.5               0.350 2700 >   -2.50   -0.85    0.49    1.50    2.17    2.48    2.42    1.96    1.09   -0.21   -1.96   -4.19   -6.93 | drop (inches)
                                  elevation maxima 2.50" at 133.41

 

[PT1911]

I simply mean that if one were to make an imaginary line straight out and slighly down from the cross hairs (in order to intercept the line followed by the bullet trajectory) eventually the two will intercept at the bullets true zero. the higher the scope is mounted the the greater the downward angle necessary in order to achieve this true zero (excluding extreme distances). Although the true zero will not be effected, the accuracy at distances before and beyond will suffer more than those or a lower mounted scope.

I say all this knowing that in many instances it is possible to zero at one distance and actually have two zero distances (such as a .223 supposedly zeroed at 25yds is also zeroed at 300(?)yds, even so, the accuracy at distances surrounding true zero suffers with a higher mounted scope...

test this with two identical guns one with a low mounted scope the other with high mounted, zero at whatever distance you like I will say 100 yards. then shoot at 25, 50, and 75. then, if the caliber allows, 150, and 200, the lower mounted scope will show greater consistency in overall accuracy at all ranges, especially with a flatter shooting cartrige.

 

[Acera]

There are so many threads about gun shop guys on here, I can see where they come from. If the guy asks for advice, offer it. If he knows what he wants, why argue with him or assume he does not know what he is doing?

Sell the man what he wants, and don't insult him while doing it.




Take a look at your own tag line, some one asks a simple question, then gets called an idiot and moron, wow, that tells me a lot about you.

 

[benzy2]

No. That isn't really true. If you are shooting very close, inside 25 yards, with say a 100 yard zero then yes the effect is more dramatic but who zero's for 100 and expects to shoot within 25 yards? Beyond that initial very close distance the opposite of what you claim happens, especially the farther out you go. The higher the scope is mounted the farther you can shoot past your zero range and still be relatively close to point of aim with a point blank zero.

 

[PT1911]

There are so many threads about gun shop guys on here, I can see where they come from. If the guy asks for advice, offer it. If he knows what he wants, why argue with him or assume he does not know what he is doing?

Sell the man what he wants, and don't insult him while doing it.

I insulted nobody and did nothing but attempt to help him as best I could, but seeing as he already had rings that would allow for a 58mm scope while using a 40mm scope there was nothing I could do to assist him.. I understand what he wants.. the ability to shoot without putting his face to the gun (cheek weld.) such situations only make me wonder where such things originate or it there is any sense behind them and thus I asked here... If this is not a place to acquire knowledge, share stories, share opinions, and ask questions then what is its purpose?


also, I see nowhere in my original post where I was insulting anyone... if someone doesnt know something there is no shame in that.. it is when you know better and do something anyway that you deserve ridicule...

 

[Zak Smith]

Although the true zero will not be effected, the accuracy at distances before and beyond will suffer more than those or a lower mounted scope.

Accuracy is orthogonal to aiming point; thus, accuracy is not affected. My AI 308 is just as accurate if the scope is 2" SOB or 4" SOB.

However, if you mean to say the POI is lower than the POA (ie, more "off" the line of aim) past the zero (first and/or secondary zero) with a higher SOB distance, my first ballistics chart proves that false. The 2.5" SOB case has 1.75" less drop at 200 yards than the 0.75" setup.

 

[84B20]

Having been a photographer most of my career I am very familiar with the concept of parallax. The difference between what you see through the top (viewing) lens of a twin lens reflex camera like an old Rolleiflex camera or Mamiya C330 and the bottom (shooting) lens.

There was a bar that showed in the ground glass that moved as you focused to mark the top of the frame. It is probably the same with a scope; the more you move the scope away from the barrel the harder it would be to correct the difference.

 

[Zak Smith]

50-yard zero, typical .308 load, 1" SOB and 3" SOB.

This should put to rest the myth that a low SOB is advantageous ballistically.

 

[PT1911]

that is an impressive chart zak, but it is only further proving my point.. as your chart shows the speed (distance) at which accuracy is lost. with a 50 yard zero, the closer mounted scope is much more accurate at ranges between 0 and 125 yards.. if this scale were moved out the same would be true of a 100 yard zero... this chart proves that the higher the scope is mounted, the higher the peak of the bullet trajectory and thus the farther effective range... however, if you were to zero this gun at 50 yards (308, not sure why) then you are missing at the surrounding distances by a much larger margin with the higher scope than the lower mounted scope.

The one inch maintained its effective zero longer and was closer at surrounding distances, that is the point I was making...

I am not refuting the information in this chart... it is actually very good info, however it is showing two very different things in relation to the original zero.

 

[Zak Smith]

First, the charts have absolutely nothing do with accuracy. They indicate the trajectory which is orthogonal to accuracy.

Secondly the "flat region" of the trajectory is there for both cases, for the 3" case, it's just from approx 125 to 175 yards, because it has a 50-yard zero. Obviously you need to adjust the zero to be appropriate for the trajectory you want, given your SOB.

The data in post #15 proves that with an optimal zero for a maximum point-blank range (given an acceptable vertical spread), the larger SOB distance has a longer point-blank range. If you want a longer point-blank range, a higher SOB distance gives you that. The whole point of a "point blank range" is to maintain the "effective zero" (given some vertical error parameter). Thus, the higher SOB provides a longer PBR and a longer "effective zero."

Anyway, if we look at 1" zeored @ 50 yards and 3" zeroed at 100 yards, it looks like this

 

[benzy2]

If absolute minimal distances need to be dead on then a high scope is a disadvantage. Anything outside that and the taller mounted scope allows you to shoot farther without having to adjust your point of aim. The only place the lower scope mount benefits is within the first 50 or so yards and really in that mainly within the first 25. Beyond that close distance a higher mounted scope pushes the distance you can hold dead center without missing the target farther out. That is what point blank range zeroing does for you. It sets the zero as far out as possible to never let the bullet travel a given distance above or below point of aim. If you have a +/-2.5" range, meaning the bullet never travels 2.5" above point of aim or 2.5" below point of aim the higher scope pushes the zero farther out there and is only outside of the point blank range in the first 10 yards or so. For the hunter who doesn't want to worry about adjusting for distance a higher scope mount will give him a longer range to keep the bullet within the allowed +/- range determined and allow him to take a longer shot.

After rereading this thread a bit I was wondering, Zak, if you could run the numbers on a .22lr between a 1" and 3" SOB with a 50 yard zero. I wouldn't doubt that at very close ranges, like the difference between 25 yards and 75 yards on a 50 yard zero, that the lower mount would do better. For a .308 a 25 yard shot doesn't happen all too often but 1911 has stated multiple times that the guys were using .22lr and I doubt many of them would be shooting to 200+ yards where the benefits of the higher scope shine on the .308 loads you have shown. I think that this may be more a use for the caliber problem than an absolute max point blank. I have also always considered max point blank variation on a rimfire to be no more than 1" since I figure at 50 yards I would be doing everything right to hold 1" groups offhand and allowing another +/- 1 inch would put me at the edges of the vitals.