Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Proper Scope height

Hey guys

I have a question regarding checking proper scope height. I have a sako forester L579 308win on which I mounted a weaver 4x38 in talley medium height rings. The rifle has factory sights on the barrel and there is about 1mm of clearance from the top of the rear sight to the objective bell on the scope. Bolt clearance is good as well.

A friend of mine tells me the scope is mounted too high, measured it is 1.75" from stock line to Center of the scope. I think this setup works fine for me.

Is there a method or technique for checking to see if the scope is too high like closing both eyes , shouldering the rifle and opening your eyes? I tried this but I kind of seems like there is a lot of room for error as far as consistent cheek weld etc. I told him I usually hunt with both eyes open and when I shoulder the rifle with both eyes open the crosshairs and scope seem to be at the proper height.

Thanks in advance
Dan

If you like the way it is now, it's the "proper height"

There is no set figure since there are too many variables in scopes and rings

I agree, it's good to go just like it is.

Too many people think that you mount a scope as low as you can. Not so in my opinion. The stock shape should dictate the height of the scope. Too many people shoot such a low scope mounting that they have to crawl the stock in an up and down fashion for a good sight picture. Most scopes in the 32-42mm range work best and w/the quickest sight picture w/medium rings. powdr

I have never used a bolt gun that needed more than lows. XLs work fine as long as the bolt handle doesn't rub the ocular bell.

good cheek weld will eliminate the "lot of room for error as far as consistent cheek weld etc"

I beg to differ. Get it as low as your checkbone will allow, but try to ensure you are looking through the optical center of the scope by backing you head off an looking to see if the light pencil is centered in the shadow.

You will naturally look lower through a scope from prone than you will off of a bench. This can and will allow parallax to bite you in the azz with a high mounted scope.

Different people's faces are shaped differently, so "lower is better" only applies if you can still easily see through the scope.

Only the shooter/owner of the rifle knows the proper height. It's right when he says it's right, and everybody else's opinion means squat.

I agree. When I was younger I would mount a scope on a hunting rifle as low on the rifle as possible following the theory of (whatever). Then I took up trap shooting where the shotgun has to come to the eye when mounted. Lo and behold common sense struck and my favored deer rifle got mediums. No more, "Hold still deer while I contort to get this all lined up."

Same with length of pull and the rest, fortunately factory or "standard" stocks fit me well enough.

Put it up to your shoulder like you're shooting quail. That tells you where you need to mount your scope.

I try to keep mine mounted low, but it is an individual choice, and fit.

I have heard on extreme cases where a scope would run out of adjustment at very long ranges pending the height of the mount.

dave

I bet there's not 3 out of every 100 deer shot from the prone. Even if I did shoot one from prone my medium mount will still give me a better sight picture than the low one. Just throw your gun up w/your eyes closed and then open them. You guys w/that low/low mount...I bet you have to adjust your head. Not that any of you would admit it. powdr

It depends on the stock. I have a Remington 700 Classic fitted with Leupold low dual dovetails and it's great for natural instant alignment.

As long as it fits well and comes up to the eye well, lower is better because it helps keep the center-of-gravity lower, for somewhat better balance and handling.

Here is an L579 with a 3X9X36 Diavari. It is mounted behind the sight in Leupold Medium Ringmounts. This works perfect for me.

If you are concerned give some different mounts a try and see how you like a lower mount. It's not wrong though if you like it the way it is. I like scopes as low as possible but I like a strong cheek weld. I shot shotguns a bunch growing up and I mount a rifle just like a shotgun because of it.

I installed a Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 in low Warnes on an RAR Predator in 6.5 Creed today. When I mount the rifle with my eyes closed and the full field of view appears in the scope when I open my eyes, I know that the scope height is "right" for me.

I have a friend who has a "lantern jaw" ala Jay Leno and uses only mediums and high to achieve "jaw weld". Just watching him shoot a rifle with any meaningful recoil, like a 338 Win Mag, makes me wince.

I have a sighting tube that mounts in lieu of the scope to determine line of sight with your sighting eye. It uses a small aperture opening looking down the center of the tube. You naturally mount the gun and adjust the sighting tube to determine the correct height. Too high or too low, and you cannot see through the tube. You then either make custom mounts, or you use factory mounts that are closest to the desired height.

Like already noted in the thread, a change in stock design can greatly effect the end results. I have reached a point in my life that I do like well fit rifles. Don't have tons of dollars burning holes in my pockets to hand make and custom fit everything, but I do take this into account when looking at over the counter rifles. Some combinations fit me extremely well, such as many of the Sako models, others do not fit me well at all. I am not one who is a card carrying member of the stock crawlers guild, and I tend to mount a rifle similar to how I mount an upland shotgun. When doing so, I want the optics to naturally fall in line with my sighting eye, without needing to fudge around.

Best

Unless it has a big objective, which I hate, I mount the scope a slow as I can and then make stock to fit that and me.

Low as I can go works best for me. Practice allows me to work out variances I encounter while using taller rings with 42 and 50mm bells.

Like Powdr said, it's all about what fits YOU. Low just to be low means a bunch of crawling at the worst possible time.

Because I like varminting, I use pretty high-powered scopes and try to get them as close to the bore as possible, which ends up needing medium rings for the most part.

I've had a couple I had to mount with tall rings just because, and what I ended up doing was cutting the stock and making a height adjustable cheekpiece. Or, laminating up some veneer to make it look like a military sniper thing a la Enfield. But eye presentation to the scope is more important than high or low or medium.

As others have said, if you like it, leave it. I used to mount scopes as low as possible, and on older rifles with stocks set up for iron sights it was the best way. But a few years ago I put a Leupold 2.5-8x on a very straight stocked bolt action in Talley steel detachable lows. Then I got another, higher powered scope for prairie dogs, so bought a set of mediums and put the scope in them. The mediums provided a more natural line-up of eye to scope field than the lows. Though the Leupold scope fit the rifle well in lows with plenty of bolt/barrel clearance, the mediums just fit ME better.