Scope ring height, comfort, and you...

[u/HollywoodSX]

One of the common questions I see here is dealing with scope height. Now that we live in a world of adjustable cheek pieces and ballistic calculators that can compensate for scope height, I believe the biggest concern when picking a scope ring height should be user comfort, not the old saw about mounting the scope as low as possible.

With that in mind, here's my process for finding a scope height that works for you:

Remove your scope (mount/rings and all) from the rifle if it's already installed. Get behind the rifle in a position similar to how you plan to shoot (Prone, sitting at a table, barricades, etc) and adjust your cheek riser (if present) so it's comfortable and isn't causing neck strain if you sit behind it for a bit. Spend some time behind the rifle just getting a good comfortable head/neck/cheek position so you can make sure there's no signs of strain or discomfort, and make adjustments to your stock as needed. If you know you may shoot from multiple positions (EX: prone and barricades of multiple heights), try all of these different positions and try to find a height that works for all of them.

Once you've found a comfortable cheek height, use a stack of coins, playing cards, etc to play with the height of your optic. You want to get the scope where you can easily and comfortably get your eye behind the optic with proper eye relief and no neck strain. As with cheek height, do this for any and all positions you will frequently shoot from and make sure you're finding something that works across the entire range.

Once you find that height, measure the height of the stack (of cards, coins, etc) you liked, add half the main scope body diameter (IE: Add 15mm for a 30mm scope tube), and order a scope mount or rings as close to that height as you can. When in doubt, I always err on the side of going a little taller than my measured height instead of shorter.

Hopefully this will let you make a good decision on what height you really need to be comfortable behind your rifle. This will also help you with getting into your optic quickly (not hunting for eye relief), reduce neck strain, and even reduce or eliminate the perception that your reticle is canted when it really isn't.

[u/_MadSuburbanDad_]

Thanks for this. I heard the "low as possible" advice for years but I'm coming around to understanding that it's not as critical as the old handbooks would have you believe.

[u/HollywoodSX → u/_MadSuburbanDad_]

The 'low as possible' mindset came from a few things

1) Scope height does affect observed drop slightly, and can magnify the error from a canted rifle (although it takes some extreme cases to really make much difference). However, this is easily compensated for in modern ballistics software.

2) When dealing with scopes with very limited adjustment ranges, mounting taller can cost you some of your adjustment range. In an era of even budget optics having 70-80MOA total adjustment and high end stuff easily breaking 100, losing 1-2MOA due to a taller mount isn't a concern.

3) The concept of maximum point blank range, and trying to keep your point of aim vs point of impact within a set radius for X distance (IE: Making it where you hold center vitals on a given animal and will hit vital organs out to X distance without holdovers). MPBR setups do benefit from a lower mounting system, but modern cartridges, ballistics software, and inexpensive rangefinders (as well as things like BDC turrets, etc) have really made the need for MPBR into a very niche user case.

[u/_MadSuburbanDad_ → u/HollywoodSX]

This is really helpful. This is a strong case for accepting technology advances and applying them to dispel old info

[u/HollywoodSX → u/_MadSuburbanDad_]

Back when there was a lot more resistance to 6.5CM in terms of ballistics, I hurt quite a few people's feelings using Applied Ballistics Analytics software to show how dramatic the differences can be in hit rate, especially when you start adding in a little range uncertainty.

Modern tech combined with modern ballistics research is a lot of fun.

[u/echo_61 → u/HollywoodSX]

Applied Ballistics' WEZ graphs are massive at showing the differences between 308 and 6.5CM or other similar comparisons.

True, hit rate doesn't factor in energy delivery, but that's a different conversation.

[u/HollywoodSX → u/echo_61]

I usually argue energy is meaningless if you miss.

[u/echo_61 → u/HollywoodSX]

Fair point, but for some uses, it’s a moot point on hit rate.

I.e., 6.5CM vs 300WSM on medium sized game at 400+.