How much is too much. . .

[RR 314]

. . .when it comes to distance between scope and barrel? Leupold Mark 4 rings and 20 MOA rail leave about 1/2" between barrel and bottom of scope. Cheek weld is fine as is but I have always tried to get the scope closer to the barrel. Will probably max out shooting at 1000 yards or so. Still waiting on replacement firing pin assembly and wondering if I should get lower rings or give it a whirl as is? What do the long-range folks say? I know a lot of the benchrest boys have them significantly higher than this but thought I would ask here. May need to put a bubble-level on it either way. :-) Thanks in advance.

[canny]

That's probably ok but I wouldn't want it any higher. As long as your cheek weld is correct and your line of sight is centered on your optic then you are fine. I have med Mark 4 rings with Mark 4 20MOA rail with a 4.5-14x50mm Mark 4 and I have less than 1/8" gap between bottom of OBJ and top of barrel. That is with scope covers on.

[RR 314]

That's probably ok but I wouldn't want it any higher. As long as your cheek weld is correct and your line of sight is centered on your optic then you are fine. I have med Mark 4 rings with Mark 4 20MOA rail with a 4.5-14x50mm Mark 4 and I have less than 1/8" gap between bottom of OBJ and top of barrel. That is with scope covers on.

I will see how point blank and near and far zero are as is. If not acceptable, I guess I will have to get new rings and simply buy another 34mm scope to put on an AR or something with these rings. Cant let rings just sit in the safe being unused.

[kcnatural]

I have always been told less is better but a lot of scopes are way up there. Especially on AR precision rifles or bolt rifles with some of the chassis systems. I guess it doesn't matter all that much. Just look at some of the precision rigs out there.

[trophy8]

It'll be fine but I'd go lower if possible.

[hoythitman]

I try to be less then 1/4". Current rifle is about 1/8"

[RR 314]

Thanks. May go with different rings. Looks like US Optics may be the way to go. Seems like most of the 34 MM offerings in the rings I prefer are higher than what I need.

[trophy8]

Seekins....

[howabouttheiris]

In general, you should keep it as low as possible.

A slight cant can be significant, especially when shooting at distance and you have 200+ inches of elevation dialed in.

Within reason, a bubble level will erase most of the issue... since for a long range scope and a bull barrel you are already more than an inch over center bore.

My rifle is less than 1/2 inch over the barrel, but with a 50mm bell and thick barrel, I am already 2" over bore!

I really never understood how much, until you look at something like the riddle used in some competitions where you must shoot a distance like 300 yards with your rifle canted at 45 degrees...... ugg the math.

[Zen Archery]

What is your goal? If you don't need to push distance then I'd lower it. If you are stretching out to 1k then you probably need the base with the rings. You didn't mention the caliber. Flatter shooting calibers (.270, 6.5's) may not need high rings depending on your load (assuming you are hand loading). If you do plan on pushing a grand I would def. get a bubble. Again depending on the caliber spin/drift becomes more of an issue at a certain point.

[RR 314]

What is your goal? If you don't need to push distance then I'd lower it. If you are stretching out to 1k then you probably need the base with the rings. You didn't mention the caliber. Flatter shooting calibers (.270, 6.5's) may not need high rings depending on your load (assuming you are hand loading). If you do plan on pushing a grand I would def. get a bubble. Again depending on the caliber spin/drift becomes more of an issue at a certain point.

.338 Edge. I anticipate using the gun at 400-1000 yards--perhaps a tad further. Will get a bubble for certain and am going to see about lower rings. Matt, will look at Seekins. Thanks to all.

[Horitexan]

If you can achieve a proper cheek weld, it will shoot just fine at distance. The height of the scope, in relationship to the top of the barrel is meaningless other than a achieving a proper and comfortable/natural cheek weld. The only other advantage to sitting as low as possible is really for short range shots. The higher the centerline of your scope is above the centerline of your barrel, the more vertical distance the bullet has to travel to reach your point of impact, at the distance you zero your rifle. So, if you sight in at 100yds and then take a shot at 50yds (using the center of your crosshairs) the bullet will impact low at (approx) 1/2 the distance between those 2 center lines. This is pretty over-simplified but it illustrates the advantage of having your scope sitting as low as possible for a hunting rifle where short shots are also a possibility. If the whitetail of a lifetime just happens to pop out at 40yds and your scope is WAY up high and zeroed in at 200yds (or further), you're going to impact WAY low if you don't compensate. In a, likely, rushed scenario many people will forget to make this compensation. That's why, traditionally, hunters have sought to mount their scopes as low as they can.

Looks to me like you could go a step lower in your ring height. I prefer NightForce or Talley but have also been pleased with some TPS rings I've put on the kids' rifles.

I have always been told less is better but a lot of scopes are way up there. Especially on AR precision rifles or bolt rifles with some of the chassis systems. I guess it doesn't matter all that much. Just look at some of the precision rigs out there.

They HAVE to be higher on AR platform or chassis systems in order to achieve a proper cheek weld, because the stocks sit so much higher. That's the only reason you see scopes sitting so high above the barrel on them.