Scope Height.

B

Blindstitch

New member
I like a lot of military rifles but in most the bent bolts aren't bent enough for good clearance. I'm planning on swapping scopes on a Winchester U.S. Model of 1917 and it looks like I have some room to play when adding a 3-9x40.

Right now it has Leupold see through rings on it. The specs say 1.44 of an inch to the center of the scope.

Leupold tall rings are 1.14 to center and Medium are .89.

I don't think I have the clearance for medium rings but would it even be worth switching rings to the tall ones lowering the scope .3 of an inch.
 
would it even be worth switching rings to the tall ones lowering the scope .3 of an inch.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go to the trouble for that small amount, but I wouldn't leave any
"see-through" mounts on anything.

If you can, take it to a gunshop where you can try the different heights to see which is the lowest that will work while still giving you bolt clearance.
 
Most military rifles are not and were just never designed to be scoped. Isn't just the bolt handle either. Although with the Pattern 17 it's primarily that the rear sights need removing.
Anyway, think in terms of a 20 or 32 mm front lens. Or go with high rings.
"...wouldn't leave any "see-through" mounts on anything..." Absolutely.
 
Ergonomically and for normal range performance lower is better. The stock design, your body and shooting position will determine the optimum scope height. In this case you cannot get low enough. And most definitely 0.3 inches matters!

If it is not too late and if you have the money and if the rifle design will allow, (whew) I recommend a 3-9x32. With good optics, there is no reason to suffer a 40mm objective for 9x magnification. Also, better quality scopes will have smaller ocular diameter.

Once you get your scope, you can use the old penny trick. Put a pair of stacks between scope and receiver and measure the stack that works. Or improvise on the theme.
 
I'll have to try that penny trick. The scope I intend to install is a Nikon Prostaff that's on sale this weekend for $99. Currently the tasco 3-9x40 that's on it looks like the magnification ring is what might cause the clearance problem.

On the other hand I have a Barnett crossbow that might be getting new rings due to quick remove screw/nut coming lose (it had blue loctite on it) after my last hunt. I think it takes medium rings so I might just play around and see if I get clearance.
 
The lower the better
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.

In reality it doesn't matter all that much, the most import thing is that the scope height is such that you can get a good cheek weld. If it is still in a military stock, they have a pretty low comb, and that means the lower the better just for eye position.

However, generally speaking, a lower scope will give a slightly flatter trajectory* at ranges closer than your zero range, and a higher scope will give a slightly flatter at ranges beyond your zero range.

If past experience is any indication, this is where people who have never heard this and can't be bothered to run the numbers and see for themselves call me an idiot and say I don't know what I am talking about.

*On edit: To be clear, I mean perceived trajectory. The trajectory of the bullet does no change, obviously, but the relation between the bullet path and the line of sight from the scope does, and a higher scope can flatten it out beyond zero range.
 
Last edited:
The lower the better .... the most import thing is that the scope height is such that you can get a good cheek weld.
Click to expand...

emcon,

Correct, I did not say in general, I meant for the rifle in question. You cut those three words out of context. I specifically said "for this rifle" .

For a proper silhouette rifle with a high comb intended for offhand shooting the scope is higher than anything the OP is looking at. You will see position rifle have adjustable combs. But we are talking about a 1917 here. I dont even know how you get a scope on a 1917. Then I dont care either.

For an extreme, take the Ar15. those scopes live best around 1.5 inches high. The butt stock is crazy high and high works.

The trajectory observation does make sense and is interesting if you take out some graph paper and draw it out. Dont see how will help the OP, but; it might be(probably is) a consideration if building a gun from scratch for 1000 yard shooting. Then today with laser range finders, and pocket computers - I cannot say.
 
fourbore said:
You cut those three words out of context.
Click to expand...

I was actually quoting the post above yours, and quoted the whole thing.

Every time this subject comes up, someone posts "Lower is better" and that is nonsense. It may be better, it may not, there are too many variables to make that blanket statement. Scope height, like every other damn thing in shooting, is a compromise.

In the OPs case, we don't know if lower is better, because we don't know what stock is on the rifle. If it is the original military stock, then yeah, lower is probably better. If it has an aftermarket sporter stock with a higher comb, or he is using a cheekpiece of some sort, then depending on those variables, that may not be the case.
 
All ballistics programs (including freebies like Strelok) require you input scope height and it will calculate your dope accordingly.
As mentioned it's all about relaxed/natural cheekweld with correct eye relief when the rifle is shouldered. You can "get there" with rings, adjustable comb, or stock pack (which can be foam padding and duct tape)...or combination of them.
 
But we are talking about a 1917 here. I dont even know how you get a scope on a 1917. Then I dont care either.
Click to expand...

Simple unmount the old scope and add the new. Yes I know what you mean. Someone else already did the hard work over 50 years ago.

 
I have a 1917 sporter and I have no issues with bolt clearance but my rifle has the original dogleg bolt handle. I really love your stock, it was very well thought out. You might send your bolt off to Accu-Tig and have a new bolt handle installed to improve your clearance.

Here is my scope and mounts.
 
Last edited:
.
In reality it doesn't matter all that much, the most import thing is that the scope height is such that you can get a good cheek weld. If it is still in a military stock, they have a pretty low comb, and that means the lower the better just for eye position.

However, generally speaking, a lower scope will give a slightly flatter trajectory* at ranges closer than your zero range, and a higher scope will give a slightly flatter at ranges beyond your zero range.
Click to expand...

These are wise words from emcon5. The montecarlo style stock was originally designed for a proper cheek weld with open sights, and open sights historically have sat on top of the bore. Therefore, when scoping a "classic" rifle with Montecarlo stock, the lowest riglngs you could get to work on the rifle were the best in terms of providing a proper and comfortable cheekweld. Further, "classic" scopes weren't all that great so the long-range advantage of higher scope rings was a moot point.

Today however, with the affordable quality of glass relative the scopes available 50 or 80 years ago, high rings allow you to zero a scope out to significant distances....1000 yards or more.

So, if you have a classic Monte Carlo stock and are shooting 500 yards or less, the lower the better. But if you have a different stock style, or want to shoot long range, high rings are better.
 
Taylorce1,
Now that's a nice stock and setup.

The scope arrived today and I want to mount it up bad but deer season isn't totally over here. Not sure I want to carry my muzzleloader or crossbow when I could reach out and touch deer with the rifle.
 
[QUOTEor want to shoot long range, high rings are better.[/QUOTE]

Please elaborate as to why you believe elevating the scope above the bore more than required for clearance, is an advantage :confused:
 
You know that there is another end of the equation to work with regard to sight plane: raise the comb. There are several different products that will get this done. I used Beartooth Products Comb Raising kit on a rifle stocked for irons and now wearing a 3x9x32 scope. Works great.
 
tobnpr said:
Please elaborate as to why you believe elevating the scope above the bore more than required for clearance, is an advantage
Click to expand...

Like I said back in post #7, less perceived drop past zero range.

For a .246 140 AMAX @~2800 fps with a 100 yard zero, and a 1.5" sight height, you have ~171" of drop to 800 yards and 311" to 1000. With a 2/5" sight height, and the same 100 yard zero, you have 164" of drop to 800, and 302" at 1000, so roughly a minute less perceived drop.

The trajectory of the bullet does not change, obviously, but the relation between the bullet path and the line of sight from the scope does.

For a LR target shooter that spins the elevation knob, it is not a big deal, but for a varmint hunter, it is an advantage, particularly with a rifle with a lot of drop. If you want to see some examples, look at this thread from 6 years ago.
 
Yeah, and with your head flying around in the air because you can not get cheek weld, you will miss what you are shooting at regardless. I do not mind turning knobs. I also do not mind holdover.
 
Yeah, and with your head flying around in the air because you can not get cheek weld, you will miss what you are shooting at regardless. I do not mind turning knobs. I also do not mind holdover.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything useful to contribute?
 
Yeah, and with your head flying around in the air because you can not get cheek weld, you will miss what you are shooting at regardless. I do not mind turning knobs. I also do not mind holdover.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything useful to contribute?
Today 12:39 AM
Click to expand...

I think that was useful- it puts forth his opinion ( which I also hold ) that one can not make accurate, repeatable shots, and certainly not with any sort of speed, without a good cheek weld...... the foundation of accuracy is doing the same thing, from position, to sight picture, breathing, trigger squeeze, to follow through, with a gun and load that perform the same way every time ..... if you have a random head position on every shot, you may expect random holes in the target....... and if you think that you can find the exact position by movin' your head around until you have a sight picture that you like .... that takes time, and adds a flinch factor: since your face is not in contact with the stock, it won't recoil with the gun as a unit, but set there until the stock smacks into it during recoil......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top