Scope Height

jeepfan

Happy to be here
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
63
Location
Granville County
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
First and foremost I am a hunter. I mostly whitetail hunt but a trip out west is not out of the realm of possibility. I don't target shoot except to prepare for hunting. I've always mounted my scopes as low as possible. I do this for two reasons. I want the best cheek weld I can get and I want the line of sight and bore as close as possible. I'm 5'7" with short muscular arms so I need a stock that is 13.5-13.75" LOP. That means I also need my scope mounted further back than most people of larger build. That being said here are two of my rifles. After careful consideration this is how the scopes are mounted on them.

The first is a Bergara B14 Hunter (not HMR). It's the Hunter so no raised comb option like the HMR. The scope is a Vari-X III 50mm (1" tube). I have a picatinny 0 moa rail but could not use it because the bell hit the end of the rail because I had to move it rearward to get the eye relief I needed. Didn't feel like grinding off the end of a $60 rail. The bases are Leupold Dual Dovetail and the rings are high (.900). It's mounted as low as possible as you can see. Even so it is high enough that I have had to add a kydex riser to raise the comb.
IMG_2183.JPG
The next rifle is a Browning A bolt. The scope is a VXR which is 30mm tube and 40mm objective. The bases are also Leupold dual dovetail and rings are medium (.770) height. This is as low as I can go and not have the bell hit the base since I have to have it more rearward than most people. While I could have used a rail for this setup (lowest rail rings are around .735-.750) the cost of a rail and good rings would have been nearly $200 and the cost of my set up was around $50 from eBay. Even though this is pretty low I might still need some comb lift. Haven't been to the range yet.
IMG_3987.JPG

So, I have a question. Am I off base here or is the best option to have the scope as low as possible because I see some tactical long range set ups where it seems like they have no regard to the height but they also have an adjustable comb. I assume that it is less critical for rifles with adjustable comb and extreme long range shooting.
Screenshot_20190505-184919-1-660x338.png

kg3g6rxce7311.jpg

0f4516a60a5059dedcf11aa76d4e5cfb.jpg
 
Last edited:
Your best option with your stocks of choice is to have it as low as possible so you are comfortable but as far as accuracy it doesn't matter. The scope doesn't know how high it is above the rifle and doesn't care. Put scope height in the ballistic program and you will get your data. Doesn't matter if it's 1.5" or 2.5". The shooter being able to get behind the rifle is what is most important.
 
Low as possible all day every day! If I can get the scope within an 1/8 inch of the barrel, I'm happy. I don't care for the chin weld myself......

There are probably some that don't know any better or don't want to hassle with it, so they get tall rings, so they know it will fit. Some manufacturers include a one piece mount like shown in the 3rd and 5th picture, and I think they are usually 1.5 inch height for the same reason. They don't want to deal with customers swapping mounts, they just include the tall one because it will work with most any scope.
There are some rifles that are difficult to get a low scope..... the M14/M1A comes to mind.
 
how about shooting prone? don't higher mounts help with that a bit?
and if you're going for extra long range, don't forget about that moa offset that cost an extra 1/3 degree of clearance too. that's gotta be almost 2/100 of an inch over the length of a scope... so you better add half inch just to be sure :)
Or maybe some people just get rings for 50mm scopes when 30mm would do because they either don't know any better or prefer the "chin weld". bigger is better, right?

Technically it doesn't matter how high your scope is or how far off to the side either - you just have to do the math if you want to hit accurrately. some math is harder than other math.
 
Height does not mean anything. It's about where it sits for the shooter so they can get a good cheekweld, eye relief and sight picture. The whole low as possible comes from old hunter thinking as that like the OP have stocks with no adjustable comb height and need them low. People with adjustable combs or stock packs or modern stocks without low sloping cheek areas like old hunting stocks can have the scopes higher as for some it's actually more comfortable for the scope to be higher to shoot in different positions and also with scopes with larger objectives.

Again as far as accuracy it doesn't matter how high or low the scope is. It only matters to the shooter.
 
So I ran a ballistic calculator with different scope heights of 1.5 and 2.5. Difference is negligible as far as I am concerned. I still don't care to see them mounted sky high even on the rifles with adjustable comb but I guess it's personal preference, not my preference though. Post a pic on social media with a really high scope and you will still draw a lot of comments about it being high. I'd like to find a hunting profile stock with a high comb or adjustable comb for my A bolt. I guess my kydex riser isn't too bad.
Screen Shot 2020-03-22 at 5.24.00 PM.png
 
Put a stock pack on it. It helps raise the height and puts some cushion between your face and the stock also.

Manners stocks have higher combs even with the hunting style.

And yes it is a lot of personal preference with face structure, neck flexibility etc. I don;t like my scopes super high but I also don't like them stuck to the barrel. That's my highest on a boltgun and only because I have a few barrels for that action which are heavier contour but it's very comfortable to get behind for me in the prone and also many other positions.

fd2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
I've thought that you want the scope axis as close to the bore axis as possible. I don't remember exactly, but I thought it had to do with reducing the amount of deviation between the two axis over the trajectory of the bullet. Allowing better compensation for errors in distance estimation?? Something about a longer "kill window"? If you're using a rangefinder or otherwise know your distance and you can dial your scope, it shouldn't matter. If you're shooting in the field and guesstimating your distance, it might. This falls under the, I do this for a reason, but I don't remember why.
 
Last edited:
Yes if the scope is higher and you cant the rifle you will get more of an error at longer ranges but that also comes down to the shooter knowing how to shoot and making sure the rifle is level when taking the shot. The scope height is very low on the things to worry about in taking a shot.
 
I prefer the scope as low as possible for a good cheek weld.
I have held a few guns that the scope/sights were too low for my eye to line up. The distance from my pupil to the bottom of the cheek bone may be further apart than most. I can’t get my eye low enough on a Benelli M1 or a Browning Citori, if I try I have a purple cheek.
 
I've thought that you want the scope axis as close to the bore axis as possible. I don't remember exactly, but I thought it had to do with reducing the amount of deviation between the two axis over the trajectory of the bullet. Allowing better compensation for errors in distance estimation?? Something about a longer "kill window"? If you're using a rangefinder or otherwise know your distance and you can dial your scope, it shouldn't matter. If you're shooting in the field and guesstimating your distance, it might. This falls under the, I do this for a reason, but I don't remember why.
I had a 17mach2 and this was very critical with it. I was using it to shoot squirrels and it was important to get the scope as closes as possible to the bore.
 
The trajectory is what it is and as shown above the scope height very minimally changes the adjustments in the scope to adjust for trajectory. Scope as close to the bore is an old myth that refuses to die.
 
Another factor is stock design with its comb. Take a look at a European Bavarian stock with its drop, compared to a American stock or a inline stock like a AR15. On a AR10/15 the fix sights were set at 2.5" above the bore due to the inline stock/comb design. In pictures 3 and 5 above they are using a one piece detachable mount made for the ARs height. The stock design determines how your head rests on the comb and you can see the sights.


CD
 
I've thought that you want the scope axis as close to the bore axis as possible. I don't remember exactly, but I thought it had to do with reducing the amount of deviation between the two axis over the trajectory of the bullet. Allowing better compensation for errors in distance estimation?? Something about a longer "kill window"? If you're using a rangefinder or otherwise know your distance and you can dial your scope, it shouldn't matter. If you're shooting in the field and guesstimating your distance, it might. This falls under the, I do this for a reason, but I don't remember why.
All it really does is mess (highly technical term) with your point blank range, i.e. the range you can make an effective kill shot using the center of the reticle (no holdover or turret spining).

For example using the ballistic tables above, if you need to hit within 3" you can do so out to 200yds with the scope mounted 2.5" high, but you would miss at that distance with it mounted 1.5" high. The reason is with the scope mounted higher the bullet is traveling at more of an upward angle to reach the sight/scope axis at the zero range (100 yds) so it continues upwards farther downrange than it would if it was initially traveling at less of an upward angle with the scope mounted closer to the bore. It keeps that elevation advantage for the rest of its flight downrange as can be seen in the tables.

Of course it doesn't really matter because you can play with your PBR by adjusting your zero range and/or cartridge load. I don't know what caliber was used for those tables but I would have zeroed closer to get more bullet rise to split the difference (3" or less above and 3" below the sight/scope axis) for a longer PBR.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom