Why are scopes mounted so dang high?

[canny]

All the time I see guns and scopes that costs thousands each but often it looks like there is an inch of space between the obj and the barrel. I've always followed the train of thought that scopes are to be mounted as low as possible without touching.

Is this a new thing in some circles or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dc1986]

It's probably for long distance shooting. If your scope is limited on adjustment you can add a 10,15, or 20 moa base to help you out. I like mine to look normal though.

[bphillips]

It's probably for long distance shooting. If your scope is limited on adjustment you can add a 10,15, or 20 moa base to help you out. I like mine to look normal though.

That would just put the objective at a downward slant and actually closer to the barrel

[dc1986]

Without seeing the guns, and a 1" gap, it could be the wrong rings were used. Those moa bases are taller in the back though. BPhillips is right about the front. It's late and I should go to bed.

[bphillips]

Without seeing the guns, and a 1" gap, it could be the wrong rings were used. Those moa bases are taller in the back though. BPhillips is right about the front. It's late and I should go to bed.

Yea my bet is someone mounted it themselves and got rings too tall

[cattlelackranch]

Why are scopes mounted so dang high?

It really depends on the stock and shooter. The optic should be in a natural line of sight with a good cheek weld that is easily repeatable. Some custom actions have a built in picatinny rail on the receiver and it's hard to find low enough profile rings to put the scope low on the barrel. That's why you see more stocks with adjustable cheek pieces. It's to raise your head up to scope level.

Scope height in relation to barrel axis has no correlation to accuracy.

A closer fit to the barrel does have a "cleaner look" though.

[canny]

It really depends on the stock and shooter. The optic should be in a natural line of sight with a good cheek weld that is easily repeatable. Some custom actions have a built in picatinny rail on the receiver and it's hard to find low enough profile rings to put the scope low on the barrel. That's why you see more stocks with adjustable cheek pieces. It's to raise your head up to scope level.

Scope height in relation to barrel axis has no correlation to accuracy.

A closer fit to the barrel does have a "cleaner look" though.

Some of these are too high for me to believe that they are a natural line of sight without building up the comb with a stock pad. It's a wrong choice of rings most likely, but it just makes me kinda shake my head at why some folks will spend soooo much money on rifles and scopes and not have them matched up correctly. Just funny I guess


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mchildress]

I agree just enough mount to keep the scope off the barrel. I want to lie down and get in bed with my rifle.

[sendit]

Here is an outstanding example of a scope mounted a wee bit high to my liking. Maybe that's all the seller had on hand to pair the scope to the rifle.

http://discussions.texasbowhunter.co...d.php?t=652510

[howabouttheiris]

I've gotten comments on my scope height being too high on here.

For me it is a comfort issue. With C5-C6 issues in my neck, my flexibility is horrific.

Scope canting is the best argument against a high scope, and I attempt to minimize that with an external scope level.

I understand that it is not optimal, but my long range performance is decent.

[howabouttheiris]

My boy's Balcones Canyonlands buck .... with scope height photo.

Savage .308 with 30" barrel.



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

[Sika]

If the rings are too low, you won't be able to mount the scope. If the rings are too high, you'll have to take your face off the cheekpiece or add a cheek pad.
In the example from the classifieds, with the picatinny rail, it would be better to use a lower set of rings.

[DirtyDave]

Most people just dont know W-T_F they are doing. Simple as that. Never taught the right way, or even the basics.

Fitting your weapon to you is no different for a Bow, Shotgun, or Rifle. The most basic thing is to mount the weapon with your eyes closed. Open your eyes and see how far off you are. Its the same thing for your Peep sight, Scope height, or Shotgun stock.

Some people shoot a rifle their whole lives and never hear the term "cheek weld". Its the same principle as having a consistent anchor point when shooting a bow.

As for a 20 MOA base being the culprit, the angle is not enough to make a drastic difference in height. Its almost unnoticeable to your eye. 20 MOA = .00582 @ 1 INCH, so a 6" long rail is only .03492" difference from front to back

[sendit]

My boy's Balcones Canyonlands buck .... with scope height photo.

Savage .308 with 30" barrel.



Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I think Savage screwed up going with that stock design on the model 12. They should have had Boyd's or whoever made them raise the comb. Always thought it was dumb for it to come with a Choate cheek riser installed with a wood screw.

Liked the M12 enough to buy one but I quickly made some hardware to make the stock adjustable tp my liking. My 56mm NightfForce is still a tad higher than it needs to be sitting in NF rings and 20moa base but I can adjust to shoot prone or off a bench.

[UltraMax]

I go as low as possible but when I upgraded my rings and base it was .200 higher than my original rings/base combo. Leupold doesn't make low rings in the mk4.