Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Scope ring height for model 99 rifles?

Hi folks,

I got a leupold one piece mount for my 300, upon which I'm going to mount a 2x-7x variable scope. I'm thinking of going with the "high" rings (0.40") rather than the minimum "medium" rings (0.27") called for by the 41mm objective diameter of the scope, since that should help the scope clear the rear sight and make loading/unloading a little easier.

Any rule of thumb wrt scope high on 99's out there?

Thanks,
Mike

The higher the ring the higher your head has to be on the comb of the stock. The fullness of your face and the drop in the stock will determine if it's a problem.

I use the lowest ones I can.

I have a 3-9X Compact w/ 33 obj. I used Redfield low rings with offset front ring. You can see how close the bell comes to the mount. It's about perfect for the amount of drop found in a 99 stock.

I like the low ones too on the older (lever safety) 99's. On the newer tang safety models there isn't much room for a thumb between the safety and the ocular bell on the scope, especially if a person is wearing gloves in cold weather.

You can get even lower with the Weaver bases.

I have Weaver bases and low Burris Zee rings on mine.Remove the rear sight and install a dovetail blank.

Picture helps a lot, thanks! I'll order the lower mounts. Thanks all for taking the time to respond.

Mike

another old thread revisited while researching...

Are the Leupold 'super low' rings too low?

Lever safety and likely put an older V2 32mm objective on it... One piece leupold base.

I have an older Leupold adjustable base with a 3.5 X 10 X 50 Leupold on my 1951 R "pig" gun. I went with the 50mm trying to gather as much light as possible and hunt as late as possible. That scope actually calls for low mounts. The front bell has a half moon cut out of it so it sits down on the barrel. Not quite what I'd recommend for a 99, but, on my R it doesn't look that bad. Poor pic from my old cell, but you can see the cut out. Joe.