Can scope rings be too low for prone?

But if by "in line" Mark Means parallel to the spine, that is not impossible, though it is not the prone position I was taught.
Yes, in line as in parallel. Not colinear.
Thanks Unclenick. Not what most were taught, including me. But it is what is taught now in the mil schools, Sniper schools and civilian precision rifle classes. It is a little "less" comfortable and takes more work to get the NPOA figured out, but it is well worth it.
 
The instructor wasn't able to help you diagnose your problem?
He was, but the class (although good) was not a one on one mentoring session and time was limited.

We fiddled with the scope's position and the eye relief, but since I was away from home I didn't have the option to try higher scope rings.
 
Pistoler0,

I am having a bit of trouble visualizing what you are describing. I can tell you that some rifle stocks have an adjustable rest under the toe of the stock to raise it to level with a bi-pod (Choate varmint stock, for example). The comb of your stock may be too high and cause interference with getting your head low enough. Your bipod's minimum leg height may be too tall and you need a shorter one (testing with the bipod folded or removed and using stackable sandbags as the front rest will tell you. That's an experiment you can conduct in your house (after the following Jeff Cooper's dryfiring admonition to clear the weapon and lock all the ammo in a box or drawer that is in another room).

If you get a photo from the side and from the front of the gun and send it to a stock maker, they may be able to tell you right off what is happening.

For the spine alignment argument, I think something is being lost in translation. Unless I am missing something, to get the bore line coincident with the spine, you would need to line your spine up with the target and then rest the rifle's butt on your forehead, letting someone else with a dental mirror report to you when the sights were on target. Trickshot stuff. But if by "in line" Mark Means parallel to the spine, that is not impossible, though it is not the prone position I was taught.
Unclenick,

thank you for the post. Yes, the instructor let me borrow a much shorter bipod than mine, and that seemed to help.

<<I am having a bit of trouble visualizing what you are describing>>

I know, it is hard to describe. As my cheek rests on the cheekrest (which has been adjusted in height so that the eye is in aligned with the scope), my right eye needs to "look up" into the scope, and in doing so it becomes fatigued and the overall position is very uncomfortable. I'll try to take a few pictures and post, and see if that makes it clear. Maybe they will help somebody in diagnosing my prone position discomfort.

I had never done much shooting prone before, all my rifle shooting had been from the bench at the range, and I didn't realize how much the position of the eye in relation to the scope changes for different shooting positions.
 
Last edited:
I had never done much shooting prone before, all my rifle shooting had been from the bench at the range, and I didn't realize how much the position of the eye in relation to the scope changes for different shooting positions.

Which is just one reason that eyebox and parallax are major considerations in the selection of an optic, especially when shooting past 400 yards, when it is not just for a straight line sport. The traditional sports, like Benchrest, F-class, even High Power allow the shooter time to adjust and get into positions. When shooting field precision (NRL, PRS, CD or long range hunting) such luxuries are not afforded and thus the demands of the equipment and the fundamentals are magnified. Sadly, too many shooters never get off the bench, even when practicing for hunting. Kudos for taking the steps.
 
Back
Top