Rings and rings and more rings...

[mazda3gun]

This possibly should be in 'Help Me Decide', or could potentially end up moved to there. Anywho....

I've got a 110 .30-06, with a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40 BDC, a Weaver one-piece base, and too low of rings. I've tried every kind of re-position config imaginable(moving the scope, diff rings, contemplated trimming the base) but it all comes back to needing taller rings which I don't have. The obj bell hits the end of the base and the ocular is only a hair, literally, from contacting the rear of it.
What's currently attempting to be used are Millett Angle-Loc 1" rings, they're just too stinkin low!:frusty:

I'm considering the Weaver 6-screw Tactical rings, Weaver Grand Slams, Burris Solid Steel CZ Style rings, Burris Zee Signature rings, and anything 1" Med. Height and matte black around $50.

What I need are 1", Med height, matte black rings that won't make me feel like I've spent too much money.

[thomae]

Have you read this?
http://www.savageshooters.com/showthread.php?30048-Help-in-answering-the-question-quot-What-Height-Scope-Ring-should-I-use-quot

[mazda3gun]

Yes I have, thanks thomae.

BUT, I don't have all those numbers available at the moment, since I'm at work, to plug into the calculator.

[barrel-nut]

Skip the Weaver six-screws, and check out these:
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/1548810257/burris-1-xtreme-tactical-picatinny-style-rings-matte

The crossbolt on the Burris rings is much stronger than the Weaver's. I have several sets of these and love em.

[mazda3gun]

Thanks barrel-nut! Those may be just the ticket.

Anything to get my scope off the rail so I don't throw away $200...

[barrel-nut]

FWIW, I've had to lop a little off the front end of a rail before in order to make a 50mm scope sit where I wanted it to. Also ground a small U-shaped notch in the forward-most end of the rail top to make a little more clearance. It's almost unnoticeable once the scope is mounted. I would think that if you go with the XTR's, you'd be okay with the lows if you are mounting a 40 mm scope.

[mazda3gun]

The ocular is still too close, even if I trimmed the objective end which is where the real issue is. I can take a picture of each end and you'll see what I'm working with.

I'd rather be safe than sorry. This is what I get for wanting a rail with options lol.

As for difference between height of rings, there's roughly a 1/4" difference between the low and medium heights I've looked at. That won't throw off cheek weld too bad and can be addressed with a pad under my riser.

[AZ_GUN_NUT]

I run a set of Burris Zee medium height rings on my Rem 700, Weaver rail and a 50mm obj scope with Butler Flip caps. Works perfectly for me.

[mazda3gun]

Right.

With what I plugged into the ring calculator thomae linked, I need at least 0.9" of ring height(from the center of the scope to the top of the base mount) to get 0.86mm of clearance, that's with the mount+bbl taper set at 0. I need to get a more precise measurement of that to see if low rings can possibly work at a 0.75" height.

Then again, I can just take it the gun shop and make them do all the work:eyebrows: and get a bore sight while I'm at it. Wish I had a micrometer...

[AZ_GUN_NUT]

Well you've got three choices, run with the low rings you currently have which as you stated aren't doing the job for you, get a set of medium rings, or get a taller rail to compensate for the low rings.

You won't notice the difference going with medium rings as far as cheek weld and actually might find it more comfortable.

[mazda3gun]

A taller rail wouldn't work...the scope is touching the rail as is. I guess you meant shorter.

Regardless, looks like some taller rings are in order.

[mazda3gun]

Scored some Burris Zee Mediums and they worked great!

Along with about $100 in ammo too! All in all, a good day at the lgs. Had 22 on hand as well. $4.99 for 50, but they had it!

[AZ_GUN_NUT]

Scored some Burris Zee Mediums and they worked great!

Along with about $100 in ammo too! All in all, a good day at the lgs. Had 22 on hand as well. $4.99 for 50, but they had it!

:third: