Optimal scope height question..

I'm just finishing up a build I started over a year ago... Savage Target action tuned/trued by Fred, Bartlein barrel med. Palma taper in 6.5 Creedmoor in a Masterclass prone stock. Retirement and a move from Florida to Maine slowed down progress a great deal, now starting to get on with life- and finishing up this gun!
Mounting a Weaver T-36 on the gun, on a Bench-Source scope base with Kelbly standard height Panda rings... with a resultant height of the objective bell of the scope 3/4" above the barrel.... which I think is too tall.
The Panda short rings will only bring it down 0.2", leaving me still over a half inch off the barrel. Is that too high? Is there a problem leaving it at the height it is? Is it worth buying a shorter set of rings for only a .2" drop?
Opinions/advice appreciated.
Thanks!
Wes

Other than looks which would fall under the opinion catagory, im not sure there would be any issues.
Why not just shoot the thing and see how or if it affects your own opinion.

as close as you can possable get the scope to the barrel is best.

Ideally you want the bell of the scope to be as close fitting to the barrel as possible. The reason for this is because if you happen to cant the rifle at all, the closer it is to the bore the less effect (measured distance difference) the cant will have on changing the crosshairs relationship to the bore. I know, sounds funny and probably doesn't make much sense so here's a pic illustrating what I'm trying to say...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...t.jpg~original

The first two examples show a scope mounted with it's centerline 1.5" above the centeline of the bore. The third example shows a scope mounted with it's centerline 2" above the centerline of the bore. Note how far the crosshairs move off to the side on the second and third examples with the 5-degree cant. The green line better shows how much different the height makes in how much the reticle will move to the side by showing it in relation to the bore. On the second example you can see the green line still falls within the original bore, just way off to the right. In the third example with the higher mounted scope the green line is now dropping down into the wall of the barrel showing it's moved further to the right even though the amount of cant is identical.

As for new rings, the Benchmark bases are fairly tall and your scope has a 40mm objective so you need as low a ring height as possible. Ideally you only want about 1/8" or so gap between the barrel and the objective bell. Typically I recommend Burris Signature Zee rings, but they aren't offered in a Low height and with your tall base I think the Medium height would still leave more gap than is ideal. The Millet Angle-Lok rings are another favorite around here, and they have the added bonus of being extremely light weight and offer windage adjustment so you can keep your scope closer to it's optical center.

for some reason can't post pic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Baker

Ideally you want the bell of the scope to be as close fitting to the barrel as possible.

---

Pretty much what I thought.... now just how to go about best accomplishing that. I want to stay with quality rings and base... not too certain about the Millet's. I've seen some bad reviews on them.
Thanks for the replies- and all the detailed info... Have been out of shooting for many years, it's coming back to me!!
Wes

Hi J.Baker. You mentioned canted, but to me it looks like your illustration on the other scopes are also not centered... if you cant a scope, it does not necessadily mean it is not centered though isn't it? Im just curious as I am just learning and this is just a question not an argument.. thanks

Panda rings were mentioned, so I going to assume the base is a Davidson style. I would look at Harrel's rings.

Sorry, guys, I typo'd my initial post... it should have read "Bench-Source scope base"... I edited it to correct. Yes, you're correct- Davidson style base.
Wes

Warne steel rings

Anti cant devise.
Adjustable cheek rest.

What he said ^^^^^^ . but still, the anti cant devices only help a shooter hold level so as to reduce the effect of a scope that is mounted too high. The best solution is to limit the effects of canting as much as possible, (mount the sucker low!) then try to not cant it. Realistically, there is always some human error involved.

MarTay6, please add editor AT savageshooters DOT com to your allowed email addresses or change the email address associated with your account. This is the address the site software uses to send out email notifications to you for PM's and threads you have subscribed to, and every one is getting bounced back from your navy.mil address saying the address is restricted. Thx

Sorry about the email issue... I recently retired from DOD, thus my "@mil" address went away. Have updated my contact info.
Nice to come back to the forum now that the ruckus of resettling is somewhat calmed down! Not all the way... still many boxes to unpack!
Have a Masterclass stock with an adjustable cheekpiece on the gun, so that will help.
You guys have given me some options, I appreciate it. Surprised at how tall the scope mount base is.
Wes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarTay6

Pretty much what I thought.... now just how to go about best accomplishing that. I want to stay with quality rings and base... not too certain about the Millet's. I've seen some bad reviews on them.
Thanks for the replies- and all the detailed info... Have been out of shooting for many years, it's coming back to me!!
Wes

---

I've used Millet windage adjustable rings on a number of builds and have had zero problems with them.

Ended up buying (ordering) another set of the Kelbly's, the short Panda's... I like them, they're very well machined, and are about as low as I can go with any of the rings. The issue is not so much the rings as the base... which I'll just have to live with.
Thanks for all the advice here, I appreciate it.
Wes