Scope ring height?

**70oldsracer** · 12-29-2017, 01:49 PM

What height scope rings are most people using? I have a short action savage with a 0 moa EGW rail and a 50mm scope. The bell is just about 3/8" away from the barrel, but the back of the bell is almost hitting the rail. I would like the bell of the scope to be closer to the barrel, but it doesn't seem possible with the rail. I have a medium height set of rings on there right now. They measure .380" from the base to the bottom of the scope. I was looking at the Burris XTR tactical rings, but the mediums are .500" from the base to the bottom of the scope and that will help me clear the rail, but put the bell even further away from the barrel.

**yobuck** · 12-29-2017, 02:41 PM

You could try moving the scope forward, but if it works for you just leave it as it is.

**70oldsracer** · 12-29-2017, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by yobuck

You could try moving the scope forward, but if it works for you just leave it as it is.

The scope is perfect for me right where it is, but the rings I'm using are crap. I just used them to figure out my set up. I like the Burris XTR rings, but they will bring the scope even further away from the barrel by almost an 1/8".

**Rollcenter** · 12-29-2017, 04:07 PM

Cut the overhanging/unused portion of EGW rail off, this would allow you to use shorter rings to lower scope without the back of bell coming in contact with rail.

**penna shooter** · 12-29-2017, 04:45 PM

Nice set-up....What model vortex is that?

**NicfromAlabama** · 12-30-2017, 01:17 AM

That is why I do not like extended scope bases. I have never personally had the need of moving my scopes further away. It has always been the opposite for me. Perhaps if I shot prone it might matter?

It seems that all of EGW bases are the extended type. I have been using the Warne bases since they are not extended. Low rings, even with 50mm scopes work OK for me. Like suggested, you can cut off the overhang or go with another non-extended base, and you will be OK.

**70oldsracer** · 12-30-2017, 11:40 AM

Thanks guys for the idea about trimming off the front of the rail. That should do the trick. I'm going to order a set of low rings and see how they work out.

**70oldsracer** · 12-30-2017, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by penna shooter

Nice set-up....What model vortex is that?

Thanks. That's the Vortex Diamondback, 3.5-10 x 50mm. Very clear scope.

**PhilC** · 12-30-2017, 01:10 PM

I had the same question when buying components for my new 12FV and flipped a coin on low vs medium rings. Found a good deal in the classifieds for XTR Tactical medium rings so that's what my rifle is wearing. So far so good.

**70oldsracer** · 12-30-2017, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by PhilC

I had the same question when buying components for my new 12FV and flipped a coin on low vs medium rings. Found a good deal in the classifieds for XTR Tactical medium rings so that's what my rifle is wearing. So far so good.

How far away is your barrel from your scope bell?

**PhilC** · 12-31-2017, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by 70oldsracer

How far away is your barrel from your scope bell?

I'll measure in the morning and report back.

**PhilC** · 12-31-2017, 10:30 AM

.572" from barrel. Scope is the Vortex Viper HSLR 4-16 X 44.

**70oldsracer** · 12-31-2017, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by PhilC

.572" from barrel. Scope is the Vortex Viper HSLR 4-16 X 44.

Thanks or the reply. I kinda figured it would be over 1/2" away from the barrel. The medium XTR rings alone give you 1/2" of space between the base and the bottom of the scope. The lows are a 1/4"
from base to scope. I'm going to have to try a few sets of rings so I get the scope as close to the barrel as possible, clear the rail and still be in a comfortable position for me. I cut off the piece of the rail that over hangs the front of the receiver and that definitely gave me more room so I can lower the scope.
]

**243LPR** · 12-31-2017, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by 70oldsracer

Thanks guys for the idea about trimming off the front of the rail. That should do the trick. I'm going to order a set of low rings and see how they work out.

That's what I had to do with mine,then just got rid of it all together. Puts the scope too high. I went to Burris steel 2 piece bases on all mine.

**70oldsracer** · 12-31-2017, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by 243LPR

That's what I had to do with mine,then just got rid of it all together. Puts the scope too high. I went to Burris steel 2 piece bases on all mine.

I was thinking about doing the same thing, but I like the look of the rail. What height rings are you using?

**Stuntjake912** · 02-07-2018, 08:43 PM

This is what I use it works great!!!

http://www.mil-rad.com/scope_ring_calculator

**243LPR** · 03-11-2018, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by 70oldsracer

I was thinking about doing the same thing, but I like the look of the rail. What height rings are you using?

Medium skeleton Weaver rings with objectives up to 50mm. Just got a 56mm Athlon so might have to go to high for that one. I know the rails look cool but I'd rather be comfortable. Might even have to add a Karsten.

**Stumpkiller** · 03-11-2018, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by 70oldsracer

What height scope rings are most people using?

As low as I gan get away with. 1.6" over center-of-bore to center of scope with my M11 & 40mm Objective scope.

**Robinhood** · 03-11-2018, 11:46 PM

243LPR, if you are not using a chassis with a tube you really don't need that much height. You can probably get away with something around 1.062 - 1.25 from top of rail to optical center. Subtract .670 from those numbers for top of rail to bottom of scope measurement.

**J.Baker** · 03-13-2018, 05:18 PM

This is my biggest complaint about so many of the popular rails on the market today. Why on God's green Earth do they make them to extend out over the recoil lug and/or barrel nut? The added length of one or two slots is just wasted space that increased the cost of the product, and makes it a PITA to mount them low because that extension results in interference issues with the objective bell as you've discovered. Seriously, it serves absolutely no purpose.

The extension isn't as much of an issue on longer scopes with a shallow angle objective cone like the Vortex Vipers and Gen I PST's or older Bushnell Elite 4200/4500's, but it's a nightmare when you have a shorter scope with a steeper cone angle like the Bushnell Elite Tactical DMR IIi or Vortex Razor Gen II HD. Larger 32-35mm main tubes just makes the issue that much worse as it further steepens and shortens the objective cone due to the smaller difference between main tube and objective diameter.

Every EGW and TPS rail I own has had the forward extension cut off with a hacksaw so that the front of the base is either flush with the face of the action or just slightly extending out over the recoil lug - just depends on where the cross slots fall. I then hit it with the grinder wheel or a fine file to clean up the sharp edges and smooth the face of the cut as needed to make it look nice. On the black bases I just use a Sharpie to cover up the bare aluminum after cutting.

Here's a TPS rail I cut down that isn't currently on a rifle. This one comes out about half way over the recoil lug.

Click image for larger version.

Name: TPS_cut_rail.JPG
Views: 60
Size: 49.8 KB
ID: 4654

Same rail on a rifle with Leupold VX-3i LRP 8.5-25x50 scope. Note this scope has a rather long main tube and objective cone with a shallow angle so it probably would have worked with a rail that hadn't been shortened. Leupold supplied the rings for that review as well, otherwise I would have found something a little shorter to lessen the gap between the barrel and scope.

Now here's a Bushnell DMR IIi mounted on the uncut EGW rail that comes with the Savage Stealth. I actually couldn't move the scope rearward enough to get proper eye relief with the stock fully extended, so I had to leave the stock collapsed a notch or two to get the proper eye relief at the expense of a proper length-of-pull. You can see the objective cone is as far rearward as possible without actually touching the rail.

**kcb38** · 03-13-2018, 09:21 PM

I put a PST 6-24X50 on my 10FCP with an EGW 0MOA rail and Vortex low rings and the bell just clears the rail (haven't cut it yet, but plan to). There's still lots of space between the bell and the barrel. More than I want, actually.

**NicfromAlabama** · 03-14-2018, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by J.Baker

This is my biggest complaint about so many of the popular rails on the market today. Why on God's green Earth do they make them to extend out over the recoil lug and/or barrel nut? The added length of one or two slots is just wasted space that increased the cost of the product, and makes it a PITA to mount them low because that extension results in interference issues with the objective bell as you've discovered. Seriously, it serves absolutely no purpose.

Yep, I can't stand the extended rails for that very reason. I use Warne steel bases since they are not extended.

**243LPR** · 03-18-2018, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Robinhood

243LPR, if you are not using a chassis with a tube you really don't need that much height. You can probably get away with something around 1.062 - 1.25 from top of rail to optical center. Subtract .670 from those numbers for top of rail to bottom of scope measurement.

I mount my scopes as close to the barrel as possible. I also run Butler Creeks and sometimes have to go to the next higher ring to clear the barrel.