Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Which forever scope mount ?

I don't understand why anyone would continuously change scopes on. Given rifle unless one goes tits up..


A 3-9 ish or straight 6 in DD mounts will work for 99 percent of whatever you come across in the field....unless your stick...he's used to coming across little boys faces

Wow!

.472" - .392" = 0.08"

If you can discern 8/100th inches...you should be shooting iron sights.

But, I get the PREFERENCE thing. I have a friend who has worn the same raggedy old cammo tee shirt for over 15 years because, as he says, "it makes a difference."

The rail has nothing to do with continuously changing scopes. And continuously changing scopes would not be in keeping with the topic title.

I think the difference mentioned comes from (?):

.610" - .472" = .138"

If you read through the entire thread you will that's exactly what one poster dated his use for a rail was.

So you've decided that your one brand of 20 moa rail is the same as everyone else's?

I've been using EGW 20 moa bases which are barely any taller than the flat bases. You have to look pretty closely to see the difference; the angle is very small and doesn't require much change in height. The fact that somebody makes a taller 20 moa base doesn't mean they are all that way.

Yeah, you're probably right.

Since when is EGW making a low 20 moa rail for a Bighorn Origin?

I don't know anything about a Bighorn Origin. Just saying that a 20 moa rail can still make for a low mounted scope. I don't like high mounts either and wouldn't use a rail mount if it meant a high scope, but it doesn't have to if you choose the rail and rings carefully.

I don't care if a guy prefers a dual dovetail mount or whatever; my point is simply that you can do a very low scope mount with a rail, if you want to.

I really like them. I was using Seekins' rails for 700's, and switched to these. I've also used Nightforce, Talley, crappy Weaver, USO, Precision Armament, EGW....and probably forgetting some. I really like the Leupold now.

I pair them with TPS Super Low 30mm rings. Same height as low Seekins.

Weaver Backcountry with TPS Super Lows....just as an example.



Here's Seekins/Seekins - same model 2.5-10x42:

Picatinny 1913 spec rail has a height specification. Other rails do not though they can have Picatinny spec slots.. We all know that right? Nothing wrong with two-piece slotted bases either.

Maybe. I'm just using the posters numbers.

I'm not interpreting the entire thread on what one poster dated

I dated twins once...but each one was not in two pieces...each one was one

Those super lows look tall to me. I guess super low, low, med, high, and extra high have no standardized meaning. Each manufacture sets its own dimensions within a given range?

.820". Same as Seekins Low, I believe. Not sure why they can't make them lower??

The APA 0.75s might get you a touch lower.

Yup you are right about that. Low means different things to different companies, sometimes even within the same company and just different ring models.

In 257's first pic above, a guy can put that front scope bell almost touching the barrel with the right set of rings and trimming the excess front of that rail (or using a rail section without the extension). As shown in the pic, that setup is about the highest I'm willing to tolerate, and much prefer it to be lower than that.

They aren't the best available, but extra low Weaver rings will put the scope low enough that I've had to mill away part of the rail to clear the erector housing. IIRC, the PRW Leupold rings are pretty low too. I normally just shop around for whatever height I need for a given setup and am not stuck on a particular brand.

Good points.

For me, the take away is that for whatever base/ring combination you want to use, one has to do their research...and expect a learning curve...if not open to the experience and advice of others.

Thanks for the discussion guys,

GB

SK Skulptured rings and bases. Tough stuff for done right the first time.

10, 20, or 30 MOA over the length of an 8" base is only 0.0022" per MOA with a 12" long scope centered on the base the rear of the scope would be 0.00166" higher, and the front 0.00166" lower... (again per MOA), wouldn't make a noticeable difference in the consideration of ring height. If you would normally us lows, use lows. If mediums, then use mediums. won't make a damn bit of difference.

Phil