scope base nut clearance

I just got my bushnell elite scope! I am using EGW 1-Piece Picatinny-Style Base and Burris 1" Xtreme Tactical Picatinny rings. The nuts that tighten the base of the rings into the base are very close, the front one actually touches the ring when tightened. Here is a pic of what I mean

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/...7016cd78b2.jpg

Everything is nice and tight, after I take up the slack in the system and tighten it. My eotech fits the same way on my ar15, as far as taking up the slack, so I guess that's normal?

Is this something to be concerned about? I chose those two items (rings and base) because I wanted picatinny mounting, for scope mounting options, and have seen others with the exact same set-up. It seems like there should be more room for tightening to the base.

I like the 12 screws, it seems to hold very securely without over tightening. I usually put some locktite on those screws but I don't see the point in this case.

I can't wait to sight it in tommorrow! The scope that was on it was an inexpensive bsa, that was not weather resistant. The elite is a big step up for me, I think I made the right choice of scopes for my needs!

I'll take a pic later of the whole setup to get opinions on my choice of ring placement.

Hmmm....something wrong there. Is the washers missing? (between the crossbolt nut and the base body)

If so, add a washer.

I wondered about that, it did not come with washer. I will add them! Thnx!

I have some black fiber washers that fit fine. The nut came off, but it looks cone shaped on the inside. Should I have some kind of bushing or something? It didn't come with any washers. Here is a pic.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2753/...4605558484.jpg

Think your rings came with the wrong nuts????

I don't have a set of XTR's with me.......can somebody else check their's???

I tried to find more info. I saw some pics of all of them side by side and you can't see visible washers. I'm wondering if there was supposed to be a cone shaped washer that would be less visible?!? It doesn't make sense that the bearing surface would be changed to have less surface area instead of more surface area.