Hey gang,I tried to put a new leupold 2.5x8 scope on my pre64 win.featherweight,i used the QR ,non -weaver typemounts with the little levers-2 piece bases.With the low rings my scope was way plenty/too much- high off the barrel but the bolt would hit the scope!if i go to a medium ring set to get the clearence, wont my scope be even higher off the barrel?could my bolt still hit the scope?Anyone ever had this problem?I thought every thing would receive a 2.5leupy scope with medium rings.......High rings no-way for me you can have them....
The leupold 2.5x8 is a 36mm objective,if i go higher i would have to have a 40mm objective to keep from being so high up from the bore or does this not matter?What is the limit you would have your scope up off the bore?i know they are very high with the see thru crowds mounts, but i never was a member of that club myself-Like forestt gump would say,Thats all i know about that...
Also i tried to mount the scope on my win.375h&h mag. with the low rings same QR type bases and it would work on her,but the scope was almost laying on the barrel,just barely could see daylight between them,is this normal/OK?Do i need a medium set of rings here?
Most scopes i have mounted in the past on other rifles never gave me this much grief.This is new territory,live and learn.
Also i tried to put the same leupold scope on a ruger express rifle with the medium ruger rings and the scope layed on the barrel/express rib and would not work,I sure dont want any high rings on a 36mm scope,soooo do i have to go with a smaller objective like the stright tube 1x5 scopes on the ruger express?What ringsize are you guys using on your rifles with these 2x8 leupy scopes ,I can see how everyone just keeps it simple and just use the leupy 1x5 scope but my bolt on the pre 64 featherweight would hit them with the low rings......Is this maybe a problem with the qr mounts and not necessary would i have this problem with hard mount bases and rings?Is there a difference between the QR styles and the standard hard mount rings and bases?
I have sucessfully mounted a 40mm scope on a featherweight with the medium standard hard mount bases and rings and i did have clearance on the bolt but not by much!Height off the barrel was normal looking and i could turn the adjustable objective easyly...imagine that!Wooo is me,oh wooo is me..........Think i will just shoot irons!Thanks in advance!

First, any amount of scope bell clearance above the barrel is plenty. I have one scope that has so little clearance that you have to shine a bright light behind it to actually see that it is not touching the barrel. It works fine.

It is usually the objective bell that limits how low a scope may be mounted. With some rifles, and the M70 seems to be one of them, the clearance between the bolt and the occular bell (eyepiece) is somewhat crowded. One solution is to get a scope with a smaller occular bell. I replaced a standard Leupold 2-7 with a Leupold 3-9 Compact for this reason (and was able to use the lower rings).

Without going into all the math required for an explanation, the higher the CENTER of your scope is off the center of the bore of your rifle, the flatter the EFFECTIVE trajectory of your bullet. Not enough to really matter in most applications, and it is a sort of tricky use of the optics to fool mother nature, but really does mean you won't be harmed optically by having a scope mounted in high rings.

At the same time, for true field handiness, the hieght of the scope rings does need to be appropriate for the amount of drop in each particular rifle's buttstock....so the scope comes up right in front of your eye when the rifle is shouldered quickly. That is pretty much impossible on most guns with see-thru rings which also allow you to use the iron sights with rhe scope mounted. (That's why the "see-thru" concept has come, been hyped, and failed three times in my 60+ years of active shooting.

For what I consider a good installation, you need to consider all of the following in mounting a scope...
1) clearance between the bolt handle & ocular lens
2)Clearance between the barrel and objective lens (it CAN get to be too little, depending on bell diameter and scope length, as barrels both expand when a bullet passes through them abd "whip" and/or "cycle" up and down. Not a lot of clearance is required, but I recommend at least 1/32 of an inch.
3)Amount of "pitch" & "drop at the heel" of the stock. Objective is to have the eye centered on the scope ocular lense when it comes up, rather than having to move the eye TO the scope.

Quite ften takes some thought and some experimentation to get it perfect for a particular rifle.

A good rule of thumb on scope mounting is to mount it as low as is physically possible. If you have reached that physical limit on your rifle, and it’s still too high, perhaps you might consider altering the bolt handle so you can get the scope down where it ought to be.

What Rick said. as low as possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
A good rule of thumb on scope mounting is to mount it as low as is physically possible. If you have reached that physical limit on your rifle, and it’s still too high, perhaps you might consider altering the bolt handle so you can get the scope down where it ought to be.

These days you might modify that rule of thumb just a bit to include the beginning modifier, "On a standard wight sporting rifle...." In the cases of many of today's varmint & target rifles if you mount the scope as low as you can, you will not easily be able to get your shooting eye down low enough to be behind and centered on the ocular lens. That is even more true on modern Mattel guns (Ar-15 & its clones) where, in the flat-top versions, one actually has to buy a 1/2" riser block to mount the scope base(s) & rings on, to get the scope high enough to see through.

These days you might modify that rule of thumb just a bit to include the beginning modifier, "On a standard wight sporting rifle...." In the cases of many of today's varmint & target rifles if you mount the scope as low as you can, you will not eaasily be able to get your shooting eye down low enough to be behind and centered on the ocular lens. That is even more true on modern Mattel guns (Ar-15 & its clones) where, in the flat-top versions, one actually has to buy a 1/2" riser block to mount the scope base(s) & rings on, to get the scope high enough to see through.[/QUOTE]

That’s very true in some respects. I bought my son a one piece base/ring unit to mount a Leupold scope on his M4 carbine in Iraq. The biggest problem with the M16 types is getting the scope high enough above the front sight so it doesn’t block your vison. It’s out of focus, but it is still enough to give you some fuzziness through a scope. If you put a scope on the collapsible stock models you actually need to raise you head off the stock to see through the scope. That’s why allot of companies are selling snap on pieces for a cheek rest on these models.

My point was that a scope should be mounted as low “as physically possible.†If three inches above the bore line is as low as you can get it...I guess that is as “low as physically possible†on that particular rifle.

Rick -

Most flat-top AR's do not come with front sights. The problem is that the srtocks are so straight you can't lean your head over enough to get a clear view through the scope if you mount it as low as is physically possible. Trust me on this one. I just went through this with my new Bushmaster flat-top and have witnessed exactly the same problem with ARs by Colt, Rock River Arms, SGW, and several other makers, in the hands of my shooting partners.

The old "low as you can get it" rule of thumb worked great on sporters from about the time of the M54 Winchester or Type C Springfield all the way through the 1960s, but one has to be careful with today's full figured, high-comb, straight stocks, especially on varmint & target rifles, not to get the scope too low to allow a natural head position when actually using the gun.

Best wishes,

Alberta Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Most flat-top AR's do not come with front sights. The problem is that the srtocks are so straight you can't lean your head over enough to get a clear view through the scope if you mount it as low as is physically possible. Trust me on this one.

That is the truth. I had the same problem with my flat-top Colt AR. The lowest rings would mount a 50mm objective Leupold on the Picatinny rail without any problem--lots of clearance over the barrel.

But I about broke my neck and cheekbone trying to scrunch my head down low enough to see through the ocular.

I ended up going with the highest rings I could get for the sake of comfort.

Excuse me, but the military flat-tops (M4’s and A4’s) have the standard issue tower front sight.

Rick, in this instance it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE MILITARY HAS OR DOES !!

The fact still is that is not a universally good policy these days with many modern rifles to mount the scope as low as you can physically get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Rick, in this instance it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE MILITARY HAS OR DOES !!

The fact still is that is not a universally good policy these days with many modern rifles to mount the scope as low as you can physically get it.

Go back and look at the start of this thread. The man is mounting scopes on bolt action rifles...NOT a straight stocked AR type. I made reference to the military M4’s because I was replying to the gentleman who mentioned how high you had to mount a scope on those weapons.

I see just as many AR type rifles for sale with tower front sights as I do without them so it is not accurate to say that all civilian AR’s have no front sights.

I did not say all or most civilian ARs do not have front sights. I said most flat tops (models of flat-tops) don't. The fact remains, YOU proposed the general rule that a person should get the scope as low as physically possible. With modern rifles, even bolt guns of varmint or target configuration that old rule of thumb often no longer works, as I tried to point out in a friendly, helpful, way.

Then YOU brought in your son's military issue rifle, using it to say that the front sight is usually the problem with ARs. Well, with most civilian flat-top medels, it is not the front sight, which most of them (most of the FLAT-TOPS, that is) do not come with, but the straight stock which is usually the problem.

At any rate, the young man who asked the question has probably gotten my point, so if you want to argue about it further, you'll have to argue with yourself.

Alerberta,

Every single manufacturer of AR type rifles that I have seen advertized sells flat top models with and without the M16 style tower front sight.

I don’t own an AR type rifle but I have several friends who do (both flat tops and handle types) and almost all of them have standard tower type front sights that came on the rifles.

Perhaps my statement would be more acceptable to you if I restated it by saying that one should mount a scope as low as possible, while retaining the ability to see through the scope easily with your particular rifle and holding technique.

Yes, Rick, with that modification I would agree with you.

Your friends must have all ordered the optional front sights which generally ARE available as an extra-cost option. Still, Just for information, most AR-15 flat-tops are intended for scope use or for Hi-Power competition-type use where a micrometer rear sight and an aperture front sight are added. As such, most of the individual models of flat-tops come with no sights at all. Then the shooters pick and choose what type sights they put on, depending on the use(s) to which he rifle(s) will be put.

Among the high-power competition shooters, where those mouse guns are starting to dominate the field out through 600 yards, that can be a really pricey proposition as a top-of-the-line rear micrometer sight and a top-grade "ladder" front sight with a variety of inserts, together with an infinetely adjustable iris and corrective lens, can pretty easily run $600 just by themselves. It appears, BTW, that they may soon dominate all the way out to & including 1000 yards once the 90 gr. .224 match bullets take hold in the market. Of course, that will be in iron-sight, across-the-course guns, and the "Match Rifle Class", though probably never in "F Class" or 1,000-yard BR.

I think most shooters are overly concerned about scope height.

European scopes have been mounted high for over 100 years, to clear safeties and bolt handles. They adapt the scope to the rifle, not the rifle to the scope.

Most American rings have about 1/4" difference between the low and the high. I've never heard of anyone missing a deer by a 1/4." Prairie dogs, maybe.

Slightly higher rings allow for less neck strain, while still providing a proper cheek weld.

I learned to shoot using iron sights (Army), and prefer scopes with a post & crosshair reticle because it duplicates the iron sight front post. Since all of my scopes are 4x and less, the front sight is usually visible in the lower part of the scope. If everything is mounted properly, the front sight will always sit behind the post of the reticle. This lets me know that I am always using the same sight picture.

My time with the M16 was way before flat tops were invented. We were issued little Weaver scopes that attached to rail that attached to the carry handle. The scope was so high you didn't even see the front sight on the rifle.

Personally I do not like my scopes mounted as low as possible. Give me medium or high rings depending on where the comb is and how the rifle feels when it comes to my shoulder. i like to shoot offhand with my head up and comfortable. I shoot guys rifles who have high combs and low mounts and it is very uncomfortable and those guys don't shoot them well either. I find nothing more uncomfortable than having to jam your cheekbone into the stock and hunch all up just so you can see through the scope, not a very comfortable way to shoot and it dosen't help with the recoil on bigger guns.

Oscar makea a couple of good points. The Russians, who have won at least as many Olympic off-hand shooting events as any other country, have always trained their competitive shooters to shoot with their head in a natural, fully erect, position. The Brits, who also have won more than their share of international shooting events, do likewise.

Physiologically, the optic nerve does not seem to function as well when the head is cranked to one side or another.

Also, in shotgun shooting, most all of the shooting schools teach the shooter to bring the gun up to the eye, not the eye down to the gun.

So there is a lot of historical asupport, based on decades of trial and error, in favor of mounting the scope at a comfortable height. One caution is that of course one should still be able to touch the tock with some part of the shooter's head, so that a shooting position can be found (and remembered by the subconscious mind) which is repeatable by feel without slow, conscious, thought.