Scope placement question

[stillquietvoice]

Step off is the same as off set where the ring is positioned a short distance from where the it attaches to the mount.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Hello Bfh_auto,
I had previously mounted the scope and found that at it's rearmost position in the rings, it was the best view for me and the stock, so I told him to put it there. The gunsmith also held that view and left a gap before he locked her down. I am not familiar with the term step-off mounts, will look it up. There was no real thought in the combination of the scope and the mounts other than price and the quality they are supposed to have, so it is my mistake in not choosing more appropriately. I (distant future), wish to have iron sight and quick detach scope mounts installed. Still have not made the time to take it out and sight it in............

My understanding was the gunsmith didn't like where you had it. And he was going to set it "properly". Kind of like the package deal rifles that have a scope set where the factory feels is correct.
The mounts I use are similar to this.
As long as they don't have elevation built in. You can flip them either way to keep away from the bell or turret. One of mine actually has a bigger cantilever than these do.

 

[usaral63]

If that was my rifle I'd simply shim the bases...............if that's your optimum location for the glass it will work and with proper shim stock be virtually unnoticeable.

 

[rhtwist]

Yes I got it now, thanks. For now it appears that the current position is quite adequate for use. Hopefully get to the range soon!!

 

[rhtwist]

Hello and those in the photo look possibly exactly like the ones I have installed. The front mount with the ring to the rear. That is where the interference comes in with the objective bell and the front of the scope ring. The difference from where it is mounted and my proposed position is less than 1/8" and I don't feel it make that much of a difference. Still have to shoot it in!!!

 

[rhtwist]

The height of the scope is okay, it is that the scope is positioned a bit to far forward for my ultimate comfort. One day I may put a smaller recoil pad,,,,,, Thanks for the input.

 

[rhtwist]

If that was my rifle I'd simply shim the bases...............if that's your optimum location for the glass it will work and with proper shim stock be virtually unnoticeable.

I would have to shorten the stock, or maybe put a thinner recoil pad on it. Or an original steel Winchester buttplate....... maybe not.

 

[usaral63]

Kinda doubt you would have to modify your stock. All you need do is gain minimal (non touching) clearance.....figure the amount you need to raise that optic and do both front and rear bases............Brownell's carries shim kits that have a lot of choices.

 

[rhtwist]

Kinda doubt you would have to modify your stock. All you need do is gain minimal (non touching) clearance.....figure the amount you need to raise that optic and do both front and rear bases............Brownell's carries shim kits that have a lot of choices.

I am unsure about how raising the scope will help my not having the optimum eye relief. My rings are integral to the mount bases. Sorry not catching on.

 

[nettlle]

I tried shims once. Truly did not like them and will never try shims again. Shimming has nothing to do with eye relief. You are going to have to belly up to the bar and get a Picatinny scope base. Certainly a better option than altering the stock.

 

[usaral63]

Frog: Not talking 'bout eye relief.......talking about scope bbl CLEARANCE......he needs to raise that glass if it's touching the bbl!

 

[rhtwist]

Hello and thanks Frog. The picatinny is the ultimate adjustability solution, it seems. Will try it the way for now anyway. May not be a problem............

 

[rhtwist]

Hello usaral63,
I got the idea now, thanks!! The objective lens bell is not hitting the barrel. Where the 1" scope flairs out to the objective lens size is the part that was touching the front of the front scope ring. The scope, because of the increasing diameter could not be moved rearward any further. As mentioned, it may be within the range of not a problem.

 

[Bill M.]

My main hunting rifle has iron sights and I have never even though about using them. I like the scope mounted as close to the bore as possible for the fit to me on my guns. So the one piece base is in the way of the iron sights. I would never, never use one of the "iron sighters" mounts that put the scope way to high. I am not familiar with the QD scope mounts and do not know if you can actually use the iron sights after removing the scope? All in all I am willing to take my chances with a good scope solidly mounted and no iron sights. If the scope gets damaged I will just have to get to point blank range or hunt another day. I have see rifles dropped and the front sight get damaged but the scope was okay. For a hunting rifle I had rather put my cheek on the stock and be looking at the center of the scope than to have it higher and iron sights as a backup and I would have to carry a screwdriver to remove the base.

 

[rhtwist]

Howdy,
Certainly understand your point of view. I too would not want the see-through mounts. Thinking about it now, the picatinny rail is fairly low and the sight would have to be seen over the top, once the scope and rings/mount is removed. I saw some that were perfect, from Germany IIRC. Made for Dangerous Game hunting, and cost more than half of the rifles cost......
More want than probably need, so for now it is what it is {;-)