Scope mounting for dummies

[AStone]

Or ... mounting this scope back on my rifle would be easier if I wasn't such an idiot. :banghead:

Seriously, I spent two hours this afternoon (not counting breaks) trying to get a Leupold rimfire scope (VX-1 2x7x28mm) back on my Remington 597HB after shipping. I had successfully mounted it in Oregon last month, and sighted it fairly well, but since I had only one hard-shell case for two rifles, I took the scope off so it would fit in the case with the other. I shipped the scope separately.

This afternoon, I started trying to put it back on. Keyword: trying. I finally got it on, but as dark fell, I realized that the rail must be backwards, because the scope is sitting way too far back -- stupid far.

Why did it take so long? I have three rails for it: 1 that was used on a separate rifle that I no longer own (why did I keep that?), a second that came on the rifle (Picatinny that this scope won't fit on; ring clamps are too narrow), and the rail that came with the scope. My first mistake was mistakenly putting the Picatinny rail back on (right number of screw holes, checked internet pictures showed me it was the "right" rail), then concluded it's physically impossible to get the rings on it ... with a memory flash of "Oh, yeah, that's what the gun dealer told me and why I put the other one on to use the rings that came with the scope."

Doh and duh.

All of this is compounded by not having a decent work bench or a gun rest on it (I'm visiting friends) so trying to do all this while sitting on a swinging bench by the pool in fading afternoon light, and using a crummy allen wrench set that ... caused headaches (I'll spare you the story).

So, finally, I got the right rail on (2 screws instead of 3, but it worked), and the ring bottoms on. Ah, yes, much easier. But the problem: the rail is not symmetrical front to back. So when I laid the scope into the ring bottoms, it was clear that something was still wrong.

So I snugged it enough to keep the scope on it, put it into the case, cracked open a beer and prepared for dinner (chips first as I type this) followed by a movie (repeating Hell on Wheels season 1 for my host who has not seen it). I'll finish it tomorrow.

No doubt it'll have to be bore sighted again.

Live and learn.

Once I get it mounted, I'll buy another case; ain't taking it off to ship it back north again in late spring when I go home.

 

[AStone]

Part 2.

No more posts yet. Maybe I'm the only scope mounting dummy on Earth.

Or at least, no one else wants to admit it.

I didn't take any shots of the fiasco this afternoon -- just wanted to move on to dinner (which was tasty). Maybe tomorrow before I reverse the rail.

But I did find this image resulting from a search on "Leupold rimfire scope mounted". It's not identical to mine except that it's asymmetrical with a long extension on one end.



The long extension beyond the ring belongs in front -- like this image -- not in the rear like I mounted mine.

I did so because it seemed first time that I had not mounted the scope far enough back. My eye still wasn't close enough upon cheek weld. So I convinced myself -- some rational thing -- that putting the rail on with the extension to the rear would be better.

Oops.

Question. I used the Leupold supplied rail because the rail clamps on the rings that came with the scope were not wide enough for the Picatinny. The gun shop owner wanted to sell me a set that would, but I chose to use the stock rings, partly because I thought maybe they were best (suggested by their inclusion with the scope) and partly because I didn't want shell out extra bucks just then.

I'm wondering if I should have gotten different rings to use the Picatinny rail. It does mount to the receiver with 3 screws instead of two. Maybe more secure.

Opinions welcome.

 

[RainDodger]

I only have one comment - isn't the scope going to be rather high if you use that mount, which is generally used on ARs? Standard rings on your Remington would keep the scope lower and closer to the bore. Just my observation, but I don't know your rifle.

 

[AStone]

RainDodger, thanks for your comment. My intention here is to learn more about how to properly mount a scope. I haven't really used a scope since I was a kid, and didn't really understand what I was doing then. So I'm seeking more education. I looked around for a sticky or a good post on this topic, but didn't see one, so ... here we are.

When you say "that mount", I assume you mean the one in the image in my post #2, right? If so, I agree. It's not at all like the one I have. I was just looking for any image that would illustrate what I meant by "extension beyond the front ring". That's what I put on backwards yesterday. But I can't find an image of the rail that came from Leupold with the scope --- I'll take some today and post later -- so I just found a poor example on the Internet.

The rails that I have -- the Picatinny (PT) that came with the rifle (see image below, and note its front-rear symmetry) and the simpler one that came with the scope -- are both much lower, and reasonable for a rimfire.

So my question becomes -- is one preferable to the other? If the PT is the best option, then I need to order a new set of rings that will fit it and this scope.

 

[rcmodel]

That is not a picitenny rail.

It uses standard Weaver type rings from any manufacture.

Like these:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1477113938/weaver-top-mount-weaver-style-rings

It should work perfectly fine.
But not with .22 type tip-off rings.

They fit the 3/8" groove on the receiver so you don't use a base at all.

Like these:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/14...f-ring-mount-4-screw-cap-3-8-grooved-receiver

rc

 

[AStone]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Thanks, RC.

OK, several questions ... during the course of my afternoon (late lunch is next).

First off, it's really useful for me to know this is not really a PT rail. I bit for an author naming it that way -- kind of -- in this review.

The HB’s receiver is drilled and tapped, and comes with an accessory Weaver/Picatinny rail already attached in addition to being grooved to accept some scope rings directly

I'm doing a search on Weaver v Picatinny, and beginning to understand the difference. I get it. OK. Here's a decent pic for compare and contrast. I see both similarities and differences. The one that came with this rifle is similar to the one on the left, but longer.



I'll post a pic of my rifle next -- already clicked it, just need to adjust size and upload it -- so you can see the rail I have on the rifle now. Just a note: on the Rem 597 HB, there are no ridges for a scope built into the receiver. There will have to be a rail of some kind on it (attached by three machine screws into the tapped holes) for the ring clamps to attach.

Or am I missing something?

 

[rcmodel]

But, but, but!

I can see the tip-off grooves on the receiver under the rear of the base in the photo of your rifle in post #4.

What's the difference?
See this about that.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=...y_Rails__Weaver_Rails__What_s_The_Difference_

rc

 

[AStone]

As promised. Here {below} is a pic of the improperly mounted scope.

Please trust that I know (at least) that this isn't right; it's positioned far to much to the rear. I hastily got it to this point last evening just before dinner -- struggling with tiny screws in dimming light w/o a rifle rest (doing it on my lap) and have not yet altered it -- pending advice in this thread. It just wanted to make sure I had at least the right base/rail, and that the clamps would secure it.

Again, this base/rail and the rings are the ones that came with the scope when I purchased it about 7 years ago. It never made it onto the rifle I bought it for, now sold.

My questions remain:

1) can I save some bucks and make this set up work, or would I be better off buying another set of rings to use the other base/rail that came with the rifle?

2) is the base/rail that's on it now backwards? It seems intuitively to me that it is, but I can find no directions or images to guide me.

I'm also very open to suggestions about positioning the rings on the scope, and positioning the rings on the rail. That is, I'm trying to develop a more intuitive sense of where the scope should be relative to the receiver. I know -- or suspect -- that will be influenced by my eyes, but there must be some generalities.

Thanks for the education. Perhaps I won't remain a scope dummy much longer.

 

[AStone]

But, but, but!

I can see the tip-off grooves on the receiver under the rear of the base in the photo of your rifle in post #14.

Ohhh! Interesting. I see what you mean.

Going to the other room to get the rifle now -- will stop for lunch along the way (stomach is growling impatiently). I'll report back in a bit ....

 

[AStone]

Bingo!

Ok. RC, good call! I got it.

Scope is now on with Leupold rings clamped directly to the grooves in the receiver w/ no additional base.

That I didn't perceive that's what the receiver grooves were for in the first place is further evidence that I am ... er, was a scope dummy. [ETA: But I don't feel too bad, because that fact escaped even the gun shop owner that sold me the gun. He advised that I put the Leupold base onto it in the first place so I could use the rings that came with the scope.]

It also clicked for me why Remington included the extra weaver base: it's wider than the machined grooves for those who want to put a different scope on it with wider clamps. Check. It is after all a heavy barrel, more likely to be purchased by target shooters (not my main use of this gun).

So with this mounting, I'm super impressed by how low the scope is. Much more natural sighting. I'm still working to position it right, and that will take some time. But the hard part is done now.

Actually, I'm going to remove the scope one more time --- just down to the lower rings (leave them clamped on) so I can put the base mount screws back into the receiver. Then I'll put it back on.

Pics to come ....

 

[rcmodel]

Good deal!!

Glad I could help.

rc

 

[AStone]

Comments? Suggestions?

I'm still not completely sure about the optimal placement.
This feels pretty good for now -- but that may change when I get to the range.

 

[rcmodel]

Looks too far back to me.

Position it as far forward as you can and still see a full field of view when shouldering the gun..

That right there would probably be too far back shooting from the prone position, or any awkward shooting position you might find yourself in.

Try laying down on the floor in a shooting position and see where your eye is in relation to the eyepiece.

rc

 

[AStone]

Your suggestion makes sense. I'll try that -- especially the prone idea.

And like you, intuitively, it feels too far back. Same as it did last night. Yet, sitting here on the patio (keyword: sitting), it seemed to offer the best field of view -- meaning widest, with less outer blackness (what's that called?).

But I'll play with it more tomorrow. Going out for dinner next -- first time eating out in Florida. Burger seems likely -- jonsing for one with beer.

Thanks for your tutelage, RC. Much appreciated.

 

[Lr_athlete32]

A few suggestion's...

1) try loosening the scope rings so that the scope can move within them and move the scope as far forward until it encounters the adjustment housing. Back the scope off a little as not to tighten down on the slope connecting the tube and adj. Housing.

2) while doing the above, move the scope rings to the forward most rail on your rifle. Remember to align your reticle with the center bore of the rifle, this can be done many ways but for rimfires I prop the rifle on a table and center the bottom part of the reticle standing at about 2 feet of eye releife to campar against the rifle.

As rcmodel said, I also use the prone position for eye releife.

 

[rcmodel]

+1

It isn't that critical for a .22, as it won't hurt you much to get hit in the eye with the scope.

You do it with a high-power rifle?
There will be blood!!

Might as well learn proper scope mounting eye-relief from the get-go before you make that same mistake on a hard kicking rifle.

rc

 

[AStone]

^ Reading. Studying. Will practice..

 

[AStone]

OK, guys, day three. Sunday afternoon. Putzing with it a bit more, exploring some options and positions.

First, I moved it forward as you suggested, and aligned the reticle vertically as best I could. (I'll do better later, including Athlete's suggested 2' adjustment.) For now, I'm just exploring the best positioning front to back.

Indeed, the prone position demonstrates something important. Wow. That pushes this puppy scope right up against my eye, and blacks out the perimeter. (Still seeking the name of that phenomenon: when the outer perimeter of the scope goes black, reducing the field of view by 1/2 or 2/3, like a little vision tunnel -- what's that called? Anybody know?

But here's the thing. I don't know that I'll ever shoot this rifle prone. In fact, I've never been a prone shooter. I don't remember the last time I did. (Maybe I should add that position to my skill set? At 65, I'm not feeling strongly about that.) I usually shoot standing, sitting, or kneeling, often with a rest (anything from a bench at the range to a limb to a rock or a walking stick, or clamping to the side of a tree with my hand, etc).

So, my eye relief is much longer there, and to get a full field of view, the scope needs to be further back unless I crane my head forward on the stock to get a good cheek weld. That feels unnatural.

However, this is a good time for me to review my cheek weld, etc. I've never gotten formal instruction in rifle shooting. Never had a mentor. Just learned it myself. If I'm doing it wrong, it's not too late to correct it.

Advice welcome. I'm also going to search instruction articles and videos.

This is very fun.

 

[Lr_athlete32]

The best way I have found for adjusting eye relief at a standing position is to close your eyes and shoulder the rifle as if you were about to shoot. Once you have found the most comfortable cheek weld/ head position, open your eyes and adjust the scope for any black tunneling (never have come across a name for it) you see.

Also, prone position is really only useful to those with bipods trying to shoot accurately at longer distances.

Side note: the black edge is very useful to make sure the rifle is pointed where the scope says it is and not canted while shooting. This does not apply for red dots however as they are designed to move in the tube and not change the poi. (When target shooting, I sometimes check the black edge but do not incorporate it into my regular eye relief view).

 

[lobo9er]

RC is right I tried a cheap scope with out lots of eye relief on a mossberg 500 and I was lucky I had rubber scope caps on 2 in the nose. didn't learn the 1st time lol.
looks like your on track now though!

 

[rcmodel]

Prone, or hunkered down behind it on a bench is about the same eye relief.

If you set it standing up, you will get hit by a high- power rifle sooner or later.

Better to set it right for bench or prone, then adope to it standing.

rc

 

[Lr_athlete32]

I agree rc, but only with higher power rifles is this neccissary witch is why I initially recommended the prone position but realized any recoil from a .22 would be negligible for a scope with good eye relief as this one has.

 

[rcmodel]

As I tried to point out in post #16.

Better to learn how to do it right on a .22 then do it wrong again on your first Hi-power rifle.

rc

 

[AStone]

I'll be scoping my .30-30 -- highest power rifle I own, or will ever own -- so I take your point. .30-30 is a relative pussy cat, but I'm going to do this right, and learn here.

 

[Clark]

Look at the grief I have gone to, making parts on the mill, to get the scope tube center closer to the 22 rifle bore center, compared to what can be done with parts from Brownells.