Of course the scopes could be mounted at these choosen heights because people prefer them that way. Not everyone likes the same thing and not everyone see's an advantage to mushing thier face into a stock to achieve a sight picture.

Terry

J.D., I have always mounted scopes as low as absolutely possible as well. Lately I have questioned myself a bit and started wondering why the low position. I am beginning to see that the low mounting position is not absolutely necessary for accuracy. I know that the American paradigm is that "cheek weld" low position, but it seems like a lot of the European shooters do not do things our way and make out fine.

I am getting more comfortable with my head being a bit more erect and it seems to work well for fast or running shots.

I am beginning to believe there may be more than one way to do scope mounting and have good results.

josh

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
Of course the scopes could be mounted at these choosen heights because people prefer them that way. Not everyone likes the same thing and not everyone see's an advantage to mushing thier face into a stock to achieve a sight picture.

Terry

Yea, those low mounted scopes and a good check weld really work well with a 375 H&H on up...a 458 Lott really makes your day with that kinda set-up

I guess every one is not built the same way nor have the same experiences....

To each his own. I find that I must raise my cheek an appreciable amount above the stock's comb in order to sight through most scopes, unless the stock has a Monte Carlo comb. As a result I make many of my own bolt gun stocks with Monte Carlos and of course all my own custom-stocked shotguns have very little drop at the heel.

If your heavy-recoiler jolts you a little too hard when cheeked firmly then I humbly suggest that perhaps your own stock doesn't fit you quite as well as you may have thought...

Thus far the heaviest kickers I've built have been one 8-lb Mauser 458WM, one 9-lb Mauser 458WM, one 5.5-lb Win 1886 45-70 and one 8-lb Ruger No 1 50-110. My 375s have been pussycats by comparison, you should try a 535-gr 45-70 @ 1700 fps from a 5.5-lb rifle sometime. Had to raise the weight on THAT one up to 7.5 lbs to tame the recoil down to a dull roar, the lighter weight was OK with the light 350-gr bullets but the big Lyman 457125s were brutal without the extra 2 lbs.

Prime procedure of good stock fit: close both eyes, imagine a 99-pointer or a 200-lbs-per-side tusker at close range, throw up your (empty) rifle aimed at the imaginary animal with all your muscles tensed in anticipation and your finger taking up all but the last ounce of pull, then open your eyes and see where you're looking. REALLY looking!

The results will vary with the person and the rifle or gun, but many if not most will be looking a little low with most arms. My own neck length and cheek structure mean that, for instance, with a Browning A-5 I'm looking dead into the rear of the hump. With most straight-comb rifle stocks I must consciously raise my head to see through the scope at all.

But apparently some of you guys' mileage varies somewhat from mine, so you probably need to keep on doing what you're doing and I'll keep on doing what I'm doing. After all, some of you are apparently paying some big bux for the high-mounted scopes so therefore you're entitled to get what you really want, right? I think so too.(Grin)
Regards, Joe

You sound like a guy who's formed most of his opinions shooting rifles off a bench. That's about the only place I've found low mounts to be of any advantage at all.

Terry

Actually, off the bench is about the only time that I can see where a raised head & body position would have any benefit at all, that is, less apparent recoil to the shoulder.

I do all my zeroing from field positions such as braced-sitting or across an improvised rest. Accuracy experiments are conducted from tripod with sandbags but zeroing and checking trajectories and practicing are done from field positions; my favorite for accuracy is the braced-sitting position with tight sling, it's good for field accuracy in the 1-1.5 MOA range.

My favorite rifle (now given to a good friend) is a Jaeger-built 1903 Springfield with Jaeger side mount for lowest scope mounting. I can remove the scope entirely off the rifle and replace it after each shot and still shoot 5 (yes 5) shots into 1-1.25 MOA from a field position. The cavity under the trap-door buttplate contains the staff for the Lyman 48 peep which gives very close to the same level of accuracy as the scope.

I don't think you can do those things with your preferred high mounting system. But, then again, you may not care about those things and that's fine, that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

Have you tried the system for checking your 'natural' eye position on your rifle yet?
Regards, Joe

quote:

Have you tried the system for checking your 'natural' eye position on your rifle yet?

No, I haven't. I've based my opinions on what works best for me with actual field experience using both setups. For me, I can get a quicker field of view and get the crosshairs on the animal faster without my face pressed into the stock. Not to mention it's a lot more comfortable to shoot. The only time I feel at any disadvatage is when I'm shooting groups off a bench but it's a hunting rifle so that's of little concern to me.

You made a pretty broad statment claiming most scopes you see here were too high for the people using them. I have enough real experience to know what works best for me. That's really my only disagreement with what you said.

Terry

Curious-- no one mentioned silver solder/brazing--

Some of my older German rifles that do not have dove tails have add-on mounts placed in this manner.

IMO, the differing opinions on how a scope should be mounted is testament to the fact that people are pretty darn adaptable. I've got rifles with bolt handles that barely miss the ocular, and rifles with scopes high enough that you could work the bolt with boxing gloves on, yet I seem to get by fine with all of them.

Just look at the average hunter, who buys a rifle off the rack, picks whatever mounts the store has that happen to fit, and proceeds to slay a zoo full of animals without knowing that he is shooting something less than ideal.

No one would recommend drilling and tapping for aluminum Weaver bases on normal square bridge Mausers ...

Insert Picture Here Of Prechtl Mauser 98
Double Square Bridge Magnum Action

The only way to go is German Claw mounts on one of those.
The integral square bridge does not have to be very high in order to be millable for claws.

See Johannsen Rifle

It is not even a matter of height of scope above bore.
German Claws may not be the lowest there.
It is mainly about being able to see the iron sights without having those irons ludicrously high.

However, aluminum Weavers on a Mauser-banner-double-square-bridge action would be a better setup than the afore depicted monstrosity.

Monstrosity

Or, do we just use a straight-combed, negative-drop stock, iron sights like on an M-16, and use the scope as a carry handle?

I cringe whenever I see anyone grab a scope tube like the handle of a suitcase.
Use scope as carry handle of rifle?

I'll tell one about human adaptability! While at Gander Mountain in WI, I got a work order for a 6-24 scope on a Rem. 742 with see thru mounts...I could not make this up!


As far as using a scope for a "carry handle" Well, I don't know..Never tried to do a chin up with the scope tube, but have picked up the rifle with same...either too pooped to bend over the extra inch...or it was just "there" and handy.

I've done a fair number of claw mounts and have never been asked to install the "look under" variety. These may have been useful in the days of 2X straight tubes..just don't work in the today's real world

I'm one that has to raise the scope up on any modern styled stocks. maybe on a traditional stock with more drop I wouldn't have to. on many rifles I have to really squeeze down to get behind the scope, something to do with my cheekbone/shape. a top notch stockmaker saw me handling a rifle at a show once and told me before I even got it to my face that the comb was too high for me.

on my win70 safari I went with the highest rings and also had to get new blades for the open sights.

I'm wondering about the soldering too. would silver solder raise the temp too high?

Red

Don't feel like you're the "lone ranger" I too, like a higher scope..do not like to "weld" my face to the comb...did that a couple times with a 458...saw stars!

Even a couple degrees in pitch will either force the comb to attempt to "climb" over your shoulder or tend to drop away upon firing.....pitch...the most overlooked stock fit measurement

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe:

Even a couple degrees in pitch will either force the comb to attempt to "climb" over your shoulder or tend to drop away upon firing.....pitch...the most overlooked stock fit measurement

Jim Carmichael wrote that zero pitch works well on big-bores. How do you feel on this?

J.D. you've summed it up nicely.

Each to his own I guess but in reflection, the firearm we most often associate with instinctive pointing is the shotgun. I don't see many heads held off the stock for competition or field use here. Field guns usually have low ribs and beads requiring the face down on the stock, and those competition guns having raised ribs always have the high monte carlo to match.

The other downside to high mounted scopes is the centre of balance of the rifle. Always seem top heavy to me and don't carry to hand well.

JDBrown: Pitch has so much to do with drop. With an almost straight line from comb to heel, zero pitch could work just fine.

However, if the heel is dropped and you still have zero pitch, the butt tends to slide down rom the shoulder upon firing...the more drop, the more tendency to do so.

As JDS says, most of the scopes illustrated on rifles in this forum are mounted too high. IMO they are also mounted too far back, especially the European scopes with their short eye relief. They look clumsy, slow down the handling of the rifle, and especially on hard kickers, can cause scope eyebrow.

On welding up scope mount holes, IMO it is better to figure out what mount the holes are for, locate on and use it.

I'll go low as on sightless barrels.
Ill suffer a higher scope when its needed to clear a boltH thats required to also look good[ on pricey rifles].

It's funny to watch people try to pass opinion as fact.

The nice part is, they make something for everybody.


Terry

quote:

Originally posted by TC1:
It's funny to watch people try to pass opinion as fact.

The nice part is, they make something for everybody.


Terry

TC1,

After seeing some of the gun's you have built - I would bet a lot of money that gun in the picture isn't your's!

Not mine, but I've owned some uglier.

Terry

First I make the bases with no dovetails.
These can be made cnc or manual with a vise on a rotary table. I use a cnc.
Start with a block of steel that is longer than the base needs to be by 1/2 inch the exra 1/2 will be how it is held in the vise.
surface the top and bottom. Being paralell helps.
Dill and counterbore the screw holes
Stand the part up holding it by the extra 1/2 inch of steel.
Cut the end view profile with the cut comp up .020 remove the steel by plunging the rough +.020 shape, plunging steel off is more efficient and less grabby than side milling. With side milling the part wants to get pulled out of the vise in the heavy cut that matches the front ring diameter from there things get ugly and you calmly place the junk part and the broken carbide mill in trash with extreme force.
After the Rgh profile is run, comp. down to actual cutter size and run a couple finish passes. There's your base.
load a millsaw, reclamp the base at the edge of the vise and saw it off.
screw it to your action
Repeat process for rear bidge.
Getting the numbers for the front ring is easy.
Just measure the diameter.
The rear must be plotted with a pointing device with the numbers recorded in relation to the y axis zero and the z axis zero. Rear Bridge On a Mauser, (about a 30 degree angle there is some variance between makers but all seem to be within a 1 degree tolerance which seems resonable connected by a about a .375R arc segment.
Plotting: Plott outside edge end of 30 degree angle y and z, record.
same for y and z at the arc segment angle tangency same on the other side of the tangency and the other end of the angle.
Four numbers in all.
These will be the numbers for the bottom of ther rear base. Doing this will greatly reduce fit time of the rear base. In fact I've found it to be slam dunk No fitting needed, although I always use some candlesmoke and 220 paper to perfect the perfect fit. It kind of levels off the the machine marks an make the most to acvailable surface area.

screw the receiver to your m-98 receiver fixture. Don't have one, (Make it happen)
(screw counterbores will be cut .050 form top of base prior.)

First cut .040 deep .792 wide. (talley ring width.)
second cut .100 from the .040 (incremetally)
.792 long .505 wide dovetail width top widest part.
Third cut .410 wide narrow cut ( inside dovetail ) use 1/4 doetail cutter
Fourth cut: Y+ Y- .250 .792 wide outside to outside with an 1/8 to clear the web left by the 1/4 inch dovtail cutter.
Bases can be made a little lower with taperd screws. I figure about 1/16 lower.


Timan
www.satterleearms.com

High scope mounting seems to go with the use of massive German made 30mm scopes that must have came from the same designer as the German Tiger tank. Not only do the ruin the lines of the rifle but the handling properties as well.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
High scope mounting seems to go with the use of massive German made 30mm scopes that must have came from the same designer as the German Tiger tank. Not only do the ruin the lines of the rifle but the handling properties as well.

Oh boy!

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
J.D. you've summed it up nicely.
Each to his own I guess but in reflection, the firearm we most often associate with instinctive pointing is the shotgun. I don't see many heads held off the stock for competition or field use here. Field guns usually have low ribs and beads requiring the face down on the stock, and those competition guns having raised ribs always have the high monte carlo to match.
The other downside to high mounted scopes is the centre of balance of the rifle. Always seem top heavy to me and don't carry to hand well.

Seems like I remember that a 2 3/4" 12 gauge heavy duck load will kick almost as hard as a 10-lb 458WM. Wonder how come some folks think the rifle's stock should be shaped differently?

Many years ago Finn Aagard conducted a test of iron sights, comparing the ghost ring peep against the wide vee-type English bbl-mounted express sight. IIRC he used the same 458WM rifle and fired as quickly as possible in an effort to find the fastest sighting hardware.

I'd bet that a similar test comparing the speeds of low- vs high-mounted scopes and buttstocks would put some new colors in some folks' paint-boxes. If you haven't tried both ways, how can you make an informed choice?
Regards, Joe