Quick question, is height over bore still a consideration with long travel modern glass? I just mounted a 34 mm tube in high rings on my old shooter. It’s comfortable, but to my old Fudd eye it looks pretty dang high.
Scope height
- Thread starter CS Boomis
- Start date
I personally mount then low as possible. But it is not necessary. Check this out from MDT
.
The one place it does make a difference is if you are setting a rifle up for maximum point blank range. It will change your near zero point to sight in at. I like to set up rifles that use medium range cartridges like 300BO or 7.62x39 for MPBR. You can go here https://shooterscalculator.com/point-blank-range.php and play around with the hight over bore numbers and see how it changes.
If you are running 0 MOA rings or base (yes). But add a 20 to 40 plus MOA of cant then it’s no problem. Finger out how much extra you have left in the scope. Then add the appropriate amount of cant in the base or rings. I would do base before rings when adding cant.
I like em low as possible. My main concerns are clearance between optic and base and objective and barrel. Most of my scoped rifles have a 20-30moa base. My next consideration is cheek wield and my eye lining up with the crosshairs. But all that said I like em low as possible. Lol.
Here’s one I mounted yesterday. Lines up good with my cheek wield and clears everything.
Here’s one I mounted yesterday. Lines up good with my cheek wield and clears everything.
That’s the way I’ve always done it, as close to the bore line as possible while maintaining total clearance. Now days with all these stocks and chassis having adjustable combs I wonder if it was all much ado about nothing. I’m currently looking at 3.5ish above the bore. According to to the calculator it’s 53-260 some odd zero. Since it’s not a meat gun dialing dope is kind of the expectation.
@Cowcatcher, I see you got your EP5 in MOA. Are you resisting assimilation into the Cult of the Mil radian? I think faster in MOA myself, but the maffs on out there seems easier in mils.
I’m real curious to hear your thoughts on that optic.
I’m real curious to hear your thoughts on that optic.
conditionzero
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2023
- Messages
- 1,196
- Reaction score
- 3,487
- Trophy Points
- 113
Member
Staff member
Administrator
Fren
MOA is super cool at 100 yards.
I think if I had it to do over again I might go Mil. But I can only say that in hindsight. I could be wrong but I think the mil system would be better once I got Moa washed out of my brain. The problem is I own many Moa scopes. I don’t want a mix. Sooo for me to be happy I’d have to sell all my Moa variants and replace them with mil. That’d cost me quite a few hundreds in losses. So I just keep ordering Moa. This is my second ep5. I’ve had one on a Bergara b14r for a year. I can’t complain. I dial that 22 from 50 to 400 a bunch and the scope repeats. Also holding off the reticle works great. I get along with it.
Don’t worry all my scopes are MOA. I can dial out to 1k with them. I might try a mil scope the next one I buy.
Last edited:
I put everything at 1.5" over rail on anything with a monolithic rail...this means all gas guns and all bolt guns with a riser/adjustable buttstock and a chassis. Why? Because this is an actual standard by the military...namely Army and SOCOM. That means everything is easier to set up and line up. I don't use this height for ballistic calculation.
My model70? It's a mediumish height, with a Monte Carlo stock and no rail and super extra fudd-ish. It's for deer season and that's pretty much it so it has a lower sight height. IDC about it's height over bore either.
I don't pay attention to height over bore unless my scope centerline is like 6" above the bore...which is absurd and the same way I look at bore height. I leave the default setting in the calculator, and everything works out well past transonic and into sub. I can't ever recall a calculation error that was caused by height over bore. Most of the errors from shit like that disappears in the noise - WEZ.
WRT scopes, all new scopes are in mils - reticle and turrets. All my reticles except a few old scopes are mildot, TMR, or a mil grid like an H58/59/Tremor, etc. It's easier to do everything in a single measurement in 10ths and 100s vs fractions of an inch and yards.
I learned to use our M3A and Mark 4 Leupolds so I can still do that but once you go to all mils, life is easier by a mile.
FYI, a Mark 4 or M3A/Mark 4 M3 have measurements like this:
Turrets in 1/2 minute or 1 minute clicks; Mildot or TMR (mils; may get lucky and get a UCMC Mildot reticle by accident way different measurement); and a ballistic turret in yards or meters. So you have about three to five formulas to remember to calculate all your dissimilar shit for your hold.
I don't use MOA-based or MOA grid reticles and never will. Ever.
My recommendation if you are going to shoot long range a lot??? Get all mil-based scopes and learn to use them...minimum mil-based reticles. Sell the rest on OSA or something to the fudds. Get a Kestrel with AB on it and pay for the upgrade. Get a good-ish spotting scope with a Mil reticle. Get a good chrono. Get at least one of Bryan Litz's books. Last but not least, don't fall for gimmicks...it's easy to do. You have to be able to discern gimmicky bullshit from kit that actually helps out.
I use the standard of MOA for measuring group size. Most people on the planet do and look at it as a linear measurement to use as a metric for determining rifle/shooter accuracy.
That's all I got
Last edited:
It was Mil that killed Ken! That’s why I prefer Moa.
Tactical before tacticool. When GWOT was more like G What? They dropped two towers to try and stomp out the fuse they had lit. I got to thinking I haven’t had this out since I said I do. Last time I got half way serious even my dumb ass could put five in a nickel at two hundred with factory fodder. It’s a .308 in a long action. Except for the throat, bullet length is a non issue. It took some planning back then to put together what is off the rack now days.
That glass is higher than Jeff Spicoli, but I think I like it.
That glass is higher than Jeff Spicoli, but I think I like it.
You just had to reopen that wound, huh? Damn...I miss that guy.
This is kinda what I was blabbering about WRT height over rail. There is some actual research into the 1.5" standard. That's the optimum optical centerline height for a monolithic rail/cheekweld gun to be. People will argue to the ends of the age but there was a time when everyone was making every height of mount and ring and NV mount and running into all sorts of issues. So they kinda picked mounts and NV devices and got feedback that the best height on gas guns was about 1.5".
Anyway, high rings/mount on a fudd gun will be too high and you'll need to build a cheekweld, or get lower rings.
Anyway, high rings/mount on a fudd gun will be too high and you'll need to build a cheekweld, or get lower rings.
I could probably get by with a set of medium height rings, and I may do so depending on how things go. I know you’ll laugh your ass off, but these are locking lever QD rings by of all places UTG. I bought them half expecting to either throw them in a box and order something else or just go with a fixed ring. I really wanted the QD function more than anything. After I get a suitable quantity of rounds through it and see how they hold, I’ll report back. They definitely deliver above their price.
I can definitely see where establishing standards would make a weapons man’s life infinitely easier. With presets and known data you can rapidly configure preferences to requirements and get on down the road.
I can definitely see where establishing standards would make a weapons man’s life infinitely easier. With presets and known data you can rapidly configure preferences to requirements and get on down the road.