Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Trim ocular scopes for extra bolt clearance

I like a pretty low cheek weld and typically run low and extra low rings - with quite a few Talley LW’s.

Over the years, I’ve generally run Leupold VX II’s to VX 3’s on my rifles with bolt clearance issues with low mounted scopes. The ocular diameter on these scopes run under 1.5”, and I’ve got a couple of rifles with bolts that barely clear and still leave scopes a little higher than I’d like.

Anyone find good hunting scopes with smaller oculars than these? For me, good low light performance, good optics, good eyebox and eye relief are desirable. Spinning turrets are ok, but I don’t mind set and forget with a ballistic reticle at all.

Anyone find a better option?

Thanks,

DJ

It seems like the small ocular scopes are the ones with compromised field of view, eyebox and eye relief.

Maybe modify the bolt handle?

I’ve had zero problems with the exception of a couple of .22s, a Ruger 77/22 and an older CZ. Within that past few years I’ve scoped a variety of 90-degree bolt-actions, and with a bunch of scopes. Many don’t give the greatest cheek weld, but that's mostly about stock design.

Actions with 60-degree bolts help, but only one of my .22s has a low bolt.

I feel your pain. It always ticked me off that the Ruger M77s with their standard sporter stock have had limited low scope height capabilities. Due to the bolt throw angle/clearance even the Ruger's ring offerings are not very low. I actually considered bending the bolt and machining off the integral bases to place rings the height I wanted instead of what was forced upon me. I have always hated the idea of altering the height of the cheekpiece with a triad bag or something similar.

I have a 1950s Marlin bolt action rifle that was my grandfather's. I put a Leupold 2.5 compact on it and had to file off some metal from the top of the bolt handle to make it clear that tiny objective lens diameter.

Leupold Compacts used to have smaller ocular housings than the full sized Leupolds, and the full sized Leupolds were already about as small a diameter as what was available. I had 3 compacts through the years, and 2 have gone TU. I haven't mounted one on anything in years.

I, too, like to have scopes as low as possible. Instead of looking for scopes with smaller ocular housings, I've pretty well switched over to actions with lower bolt throws. Still have some 700's, but it always frustrated me to have a scope mounted higher just to clear the bolt.

Lately I've been going Tikka with Sportsmatch rings to the integral rail. Been exceedingly pleased with these rigs.

Browning X-Bolt has a 60 degree bolt throw. Should provide plenty of clearance.

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Sounds like the Leupolds I'm using are about as good an option as any.

I only have a couple of rifles where this is really a problem. One might be improved with a little bolt work, or it could just go down the road, but the other is a sentimental favorite, so it stays.

I've never used a stock pad/cheek riser to help with cheek weld, but maybe it's time to try one.

I reckon a guy could rig one, but I might try to find one with that holds a few cartridges, too.

Appreciate the input.

DJ

"I reckon a guy could rig one, but I might try to find one with that holds a few cartridges, too."

I use these and have been happy with them:

https://www.beartooth-products.com/collections/comb-raising-kit-gun-cover-cheek-pad-weld-piece-riser

According to the specs the SWFA 2.5-10 lightweight has a ocular housing about the same size as the Leupold compacts. I have a compact 2-7 on my L-461 and it is the only modern(?) scope I could find that would clear the bolt handle with low rings, I had a SWFA on order but cancelled it when I found a receiver for the L-461.

Thanks, cdg and Erich.

I think I’ll order one or two of those Beartooth stock packs with cartridge loops. The reviews look really good on those.

I’m also going to check out that SWFA 2.5-10 - a fraction smaller ocular might make lots of difference.

Appreciate it, gentlemen.

DJ

I have high cheek bones so most of my rifles need a buildup on the top of the comb even with low rings, some of the time I have to add pieces of Neoprene cut from old waders under the butt-bag. I use inexpensive ones ($15.) from Amazon, there isn't a lot that can die on them and some of my earliest ones have been on 15 years.





This one has been on since 2006, note the blue tape under it thats holding extra padding in place, still haven't gotten around to sewing it to the inside of the butt bag.

The Leupold oculars are about as slim as any. I use Talley X-lows often on Rem 700/M7 rifles and they just clear the bolt handle. My 660 even has a slight wear mark on the bolt handle from brushing against oculars (that bolt wobbles a bit more than a 700 during rapid cycling). For Rugers, I like a #3/#4 combo to get a 32/36/40mm Leupold down low and will often slip on an Uncle Mike's neoprene sleeve to make the comb more comfortable to my face. Balances out a magnum weight barrel a bit also, once you put 5-6 rounds in the cartridge loops.

Talley X-lows with Leupold/Redfield 1" scopes:










Rugers with #3/#4 combo, neoprene sleeve, and 1" Leupold scopes:

The old Redfield "Bear Cub" series is the smallest I've ever found, solved some bolt clearance problems on some vintage European rifles that I didn't want to modify in any way. Also the optics and tracking are darn good on the ones I've bought on Ebay.

So, why do so many "modern" scopes have an cylindrical ocular housing that looks like a soup can painted black?



Bruce