Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > Other Rimfire Guns > Savage/Stevens


Please support RFC by supporting our sponsors!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:21 PM
AzizaVFR
US Navy Disabled American Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2008
Location: 
Red Rock, AZ
Posts: 
985
TPC Rating: 
73% (7)
Send a message via AIM to AzizaVFR Send a message via Yahoo to AzizaVFR
Proper ring height determination

There has been a great number of posts regarding which rings to buy for Brand "X" scope. While every single scope on the market has a different sized objective bell, it is seems to be massively confusing which rings to purchase. Not every manufacture uses the same measurement values for low, medium, high, and extra high classifications. This post is to help alleviate some of the major confusion.

Here are a set of pictures to denote two different medium ring sets. They are the Warne Permanant attach and the Burris Zee.
3/4 view


Front:


Bottom:


Mounted on a Picatinny rail for my Mark 22/45:


It is not very difficult to figure out the height for the set of rings you wish to purchase, in combination with the bases you are using once you do two crucial measurements. The Savage 93 and Mark II have the same diameter receiver and base height from the factory. The height of the stock bases are 0.141". It is measured at the thinnest portion between the receiver radius and the top of the base. For a Ruger 10/22 using the factory rail, it is 0.310" from the top of the base to the top of the bull barrel.

If you do not have a good digital caliper, may I suggest this one for a modest investment. Please choose whichever one you feel like purchase, just get one. You can usually find the dimensions of the objective from the manufacturer or from sites like MidwayUSA. You want to measure the largest part and most rearward part of the bell. It is the piece you are trying to have enough clearance to operate.

Simmons 4-12x40AO


Tasco 6-24x44AO:


Setting a goal of .125" separation between the lowest point on the scope and the top of the receiver/barrel is preferred. You want the scope to be as close as possible without touching while allowing the adjustable objective (if your model has one) and lens covers to function properly.



Here is the formula: (Base height + ring height) - (Objective bell diameter/2 - Tube diameter/2) = Scope clearance.


The goal is to solve for the ring height. I will use the Bushell Elite 3200 4-16x40AO as an example. The specifications are:
Objective bell diameter: 53mm (2.087")
Tube Diameter: 1.000"
Stock base height: 0.141"
To work out the bare mininum ring height you have run (Objective bell diameter/2 - Tube diameter/2)- Base height. It looks like this
(2.087/2 - 1.000/2) - 0.141 = 0.403"
Add 0.125" to give the proper clearance and you need a ring height of 0.528". To get the correct measurement, the height is taken from the smallest distance between the scope tube and the base of the ring (where the ring sits on top of the bases). You could vary this figure plus or minus .050" depending on preference. Using my favorite brand of rings, the high Warne Maxima Permanent-Attachable rings are 0.525" high, giving me an affective scope clearance of 0.122" I am partial to this ring set since there are no exposed bolts to snag, use two bolts to put tension on the base, and they have a very clean appearance.

To help you make a very quick decision as to which height to look for, I have included the following values: stock bases, 1.000" scope tube and 0.125 clearance"
Objective size:........... 1.800 1.900 2.000 2.100 2.200 2.300 2.400 2.500 2.600
Suggested ring height:.... 0.384 0.434 0.484 0.534 0.584 0.634 0.684 0.734 0.784
If you are working with a 30mm tube, you have to factor in a tube diameter of 1.181" diameter. Here are the suggested heights:
Objective size:........... 1.800 1.900 2.000 2.100 2.200 2.300 2.400 2.500 2.600
Suggested ring height:.... 0.384 0.343 0.393 0.443 0.493 0.543 0.593 0.643 0.693
I hope this allows you to make a more informed ring purchase for your Savage. Sticky this.

Last edited by AzizaVFR; 05-19-2008 at 05:14 PM. Reason: Adding pictures and additional information
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:35 PM
razz

Join Date: 
Oct 2007
Posts: 
142
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Thumbs up

Good post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:38 PM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
You have it figured out pretty well. I ended up making a spreadsheet so I could consider the variables of different rings and different base height options besides the factory 0.141" or so ones. It was a good thing because I changed my scope choice at the last minute and it was easy to scramble and make the necessary changes in rings and bases - and I had to change both.

The only complicating factor that I see missing beside the alternate base height options, is that some scopes are long enough that the objective fits out over the step down in the heavy barrel. You gain about 0.060" clearance if the objective fits there.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:57 PM
Johnc1960

Join Date: 
May 2008
Posts: 
48
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Great work and thanks to both Aziza and Ron!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:20 PM
AzizaVFR
US Navy Disabled American Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2008
Location: 
Red Rock, AZ
Posts: 
985
TPC Rating: 
73% (7)
Send a message via AIM to AzizaVFR Send a message via Yahoo to AzizaVFR
Ron, you are right. That step down can come into play if the bell can be set forward 4.5" of the front base. Most of the really high magnification scope might be able to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:25 PM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzizaVFR View Post
Ron, you are right. That step down can come into play if the bell can be set forward 4.5" of the front base. Most of the really high magnification scope might be able to do that.
Your 4.5" has me wondering, but I just locked up my guns for the night... I'm sure I measured 4.20", but then I replaced my bases with Weaver #68's, so that may have changed things from the stock bases.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-16-2008, 11:34 PM
Johnc1960

Join Date: 
May 2008
Posts: 
48
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Aziza,

Those Warne rings are nice. I like the clean lines and the hidden fasteners. What a contrast from their quick disconnect rings! It looks like from your calculations my rings should be Warne part # 202M.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-17-2008, 12:15 AM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
The issue I have with the Warne or any other vertically split ring is how do you lap or epoxy bed them?

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-17-2008, 03:32 AM
AzizaVFR
US Navy Disabled American Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2008
Location: 
Red Rock, AZ
Posts: 
985
TPC Rating: 
73% (7)
Send a message via AIM to AzizaVFR Send a message via Yahoo to AzizaVFR
You will not need to epoxy the Warne rings. They are stout. Trying to recall from memory, since I am in Minnesota waiting on a flight back to California, the rings are wider than the Burris. The mounting involves a key going into the slots of the base and rings. This prevents them from moving with recoil. Here are a couple of more comparison pictures







I like them for how they mount. To put them on, you put the halves over the scope tube and just get the screws started. They will be loose enough to fit the bottom over the base and recoil key. Once you have placed them on the bases, start tightening the lower screws only. Before the rear screws are completely tightened to 65in/lbs, I pulled the rings forward, engaging the recoil key against the rings and bases, then finish tightening them. Here they are mounted to my wife's 10/22.



With the rings securely mounted to the bases to where they cannot move, the scope can still slide back and forth so you can set your eye relief. In my case, I used my shooting kits to set the rifle in my shooting position, then moved the scope back and forth until I had a perfect sight image. The scope was marked for that distance. It was moved to my cleaning stand so I could level the rifle, then the scope. After everything was in alignment, I tightened up the top screws to 20in/lbs.

One difference I have seen between the Burris Zee rings I initially bought and the Warne were the lack of machining marks in the scope contact area in Warne. On my .308, I have a set of $240 rings and bases from Talley. I am thinking of switching them out for Warne bases and rings.

Last edited by AzizaVFR; 05-19-2008 at 05:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-17-2008, 09:41 AM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
As I understand it the purpose of lapping or epoxy bedding is not to improve the strength of the rings, but it is to put the front and rear ring in alignment with each other, so the scope is not distorted by the rings when you tighten them down. There are some photos here which show the issue.

http://www.centerfirecentral.com/lapping.html

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-18-2008, 02:07 PM
Doodaddy's Avatar
Doodaddy
Team RFC
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Apr 2008
Location: 
West Monroe, LA
Posts: 
938
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Team RFC Since: 
Sep 2013
Team RFC To: 
Sep 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron AKA View Post
As I understand it the purpose of lapping or epoxy bedding is not to improve the strength of the rings, but it is to put the front and rear ring in alignment with each other, so the scope is not distorted by the rings when you tighten them down. There are some photos here which show the issue.

http://www.centerfirecentral.com/lapping.html

Ron
The vertical split with the Warne rings would prevent lapping?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-18-2008, 06:13 PM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doodaddy View Post
The vertical split with the Warne rings would prevent lapping?
I guess you could lap them if you tightened them up so the lap is somewhat loose, and then keep tightening as you lap them straight? The epoxy method may work too, with a bit more clean up. Just seems simpler to just have a bottom half to fix and then have the top half self align with the bottom.

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-18-2008, 10:49 PM
Doodaddy's Avatar
Doodaddy
Team RFC
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Apr 2008
Location: 
West Monroe, LA
Posts: 
938
TPC Rating: 
100% (2)
Team RFC Since: 
Sep 2013
Team RFC To: 
Sep 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron AKA View Post
I guess you could lap them if you tightened them up so the lap is somewhat loose, and then keep tightening as you lap them straight? The epoxy method may work too, with a bit more clean up. Just seems simpler to just have a bottom half to fix and then have the top half self align with the bottom.

Ron
True, I guess it will be a tad more tedious this way.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-19-2008, 02:53 PM
AzizaVFR
US Navy Disabled American Veteran NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Mar 2008
Location: 
Red Rock, AZ
Posts: 
985
TPC Rating: 
73% (7)
Send a message via AIM to AzizaVFR Send a message via Yahoo to AzizaVFR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron AKA View Post
Your 4.5" has me wondering, but I just locked up my guns for the night... I'm sure I measured 4.20", but then I replaced my bases with Weaver #68's, so that may have changed things from the stock bases.

Ron
Now that I have made it home, I was able to measure the distance to the stepdown in the barrel. It is 4.62" from the center of the slot in the front base. At least that is what it is on my BTVS.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-19-2008, 04:49 PM
Ron AKA

Join Date: 
Jan 2008
Location: 
Canada
Posts: 
2,599
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzizaVFR View Post
Now that I have made it home, I was able to measure the distance to the stepdown in the barrel. It is 4.62" from the center of the slot in the front base. At least that is what it is on my BTVS.
Ok, I measured from the front of the front base, not the slot.

Ron
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.

Privacy Policy

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2013 RimfireCentral.com
(855) 896-2464
(317) 296-7914

x