[Rimfireraptor]

I have this model 52 for close to 20 years and have never shot it. I now wish to turn it into a 95% target gun, 5%hunting. Looking to shoot everywhere between 25-30 yards and long range & silhouette. Mostly 50 & 100 bench to see how far she will go. Bought a Hawke 6-24x56 30 SF thinking she would go on it but after looking it over it looks like it may not work, but if it does will need a serious cheek rest pad. I know the bolt handle issue is a problem on these but once I started the process I had no idea of just how frustrating
it was going to be. If..... if the scope doesn't work out on this gun it's really no big deal as I wish to get another high end .22 for strictly target and most of them come with the 60% handle. I am looking to mount a tactical variable scope with as much magnification as I can get (26-36) with focus & parallax down to the 25-30 yard range if possible and all the other bells and whistles (return to zero, locking, (lite reticle if option) if possible, great glass) I would say $1000 would be my limit.

The Hawke in the picture has a 30mm tube and front 56mm objective which clears the barrel by about a 1/4" with the burris bases and 8 glued pennies atop... but the bolt handle is VERY close and tough to see if she'll actually clear the bolt to use. SK was going to make the split bases and rings for this gun but when I sent him the pic she stated "won't work, get a different scope". Actually this setup "might" clear as is and I would just have to use a cheek rest pad as she is high but not sure if having like this is a realistic look/approach. (opinions pls) Just for reference the 8 glued pennies are .450 in hight. Owner at SK told me to do the penny trick and let him know as he can determine height by # of pennies. If I did go with SK then I would have to remove the burris bases. If things work out would SK be a good option for bases & rings or just stick with burris and ??
So, I'm not really sure what to do. Since this Hawke has a 30mm tube does that mean I must switch back to a 1" tube as I would assume it would have a smaller ocular lense which is really where the problem arises. Do they make other high magnification scopes with 30mm tubes like above that have a smaller ocular lense ? Granted the 56mm objective on current scope is big but she clears by 1/4 but if I had to downsize that end of the scope to get things to fit I would.

I just don't know who how much of a scope I can put on her to get her to clear the bolt handle and barrel.

If setting this scope up this high (like in pic) works should I go with it or does it look out of place ? It's really just the rubber ring on the ocular end of the scope that is close, not the tube. If it weren't for those rubber turning knobs the scope tube would clear easily and could be dropped down somewhat.

(lastest picture) I JUST MOVED THE SCOPE AS FAR FORWARD AS I THOUGHT THE RINGS WOULD ALLOW AND MAYBE THE BOLT HANDLE WILL CLEAR THE RUBBER KNOBS AND POSSIBLY ALLOW THE SCOPE TO DROP A SMALL BIT. Would anyone happen to know what rings (heigh) might work for the burris bases I have. I would like to get and assemble to see if my problem is not longer a problem.

Does anyone have any specific scopes they feel might better help the above problem. Would love to put a scope on her with the specs like the one I have ..... I just don't know
if it's possible.

I sure hope someone can help me.

 

[Milo 2.5]

You may be pioneering putting a 56mm objective scope on a sporter. You can definitely come down some, but if the bolt will not operate, you are kind of hosed. If you run rings that high, being it is a sporter stock and not the monte carlo version like some or all Browning made ones had, I wonder if you are going to end up with a wonky cheek weld.
You can't just slide a scope forward or back and expect it to work anywhere, sure you know this, but by first pic, I am not sure the scope is back far enough.
Grab one, or 2 of your rifles and measure the distance from the back of the butt plate to the scope eyepiece, you will find they may be extremely close in distance. Check the distance here. I am wondering if that front base being extended may not bite you.
If it was my rifle, and I needed to run that optic, I would opt for a picatinny rail from EGW and start there, my .02

 

[usmc69]

A Ken Viani 52 mount is what you need. That is if you can find one and feel like paying for it. Best mount out there, but Ken quit making them quite a while ago.

 

[Toomany22s]

95 % off the bench , imho you dont need a cheek weld, you need a good rest and front & rear bags.
As for hunting, well thats not going togo that well with that set up.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Here is the one I had, little guy on the right took it away from me. Leupold bases and rings, 3-9 Rimfire, AO. Good pic, just not of the rifle.

 

[Rimfireraptor]

Milo, yeah, a pioneer using the 56mm objective..... I like it..... and I agree the 56mm has roome to come down, but we have to see if bolt will clear. So..... I called Burris today and tech said go with Burris #420582 extra high Signature ring in 30mm matt which are 1.02 height. Not sure how or where they take that measurement. I doubt it's the height of where it attaches to the base to the bottom of the scope because I only have 8 pennies inbetween there which only measures .450 So, I thinking of ordering a pair just to see what it will look like and if it will clear bolt. If I have a ton
of room the next small set of rings (high) are .8 in height so about 1/5 of an inch lower. As far as comment you thing scope needs to come back more ....... compared to "Tomany22's" model 52 pic, my scope if farther back. "toomany22's".nice pic....What scope and ring/mount setup do you have. I was hoping to hear from others with optional HP scope selections that would be a tad smaller in dia but with high magnification. I'm not done yet, will keep pursuing till the puzzle comes together. Will keep everyone posted, thanks

 

[Milo 2.5]

Milo, yeah, a pioneer using the 56mm objective..... I like it..... and I agree the 56mm has roome to come down, but we have to see if bolt will clear. So..... I called Burris today and tech said go with Burris #420582 extra high Signature ring in 30mm matt which are 1.02 height. Not sure how or where they take that measurement. I doubt it's the height of where it attaches to the base to the bottom of the scope because I only have 8 pennies inbetween there which only measures .450 So, I thinking of ordering a pair just to see what it will look like and if it will clear bolt. If I have a ton
of room the next small set of rings (high) are .8 in height so about 1/5 of an inch lower. As far as comment you thing scope needs to come back more ....... compared to "Tomany22's" model 52 pic, my scope if farther back. "toomany22's".nice pic....What scope and ring/mount setup do you have. I was hoping to hear from others with optional HP scope selections that would be a tad smaller in dia but with high magnification. I'm not done yet, will keep pursuing till the puzzle comes together. Will keep everyone posted, thanks

I put a NF 2.5-10x32 on a Kimber Super America, with a pic rail, and just bought a Weatherby XXII bolt gun, I'm in a conundrum like you at the moment, not quite the same.
For all the glass that is out there, finding the perfect scope at times seems all but impossible, lol. If Leupold would free up some elevation in their turrets, about perfect for these guns, but they are too limited for me.
Good luck, love that rifle ! !! !!!

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

Keep in mind you can move the scope back just to the point where the ocular or power ring does not interfere with the bolt retracting (it appears that scope would not present a problem mounted back a bit). You would likely have to remove the scope to remove the bolt for cleaning, but that's why they make bore snakes. I think I would rather do that than have the scope perched up there like it's on stilts...but that's me. I did just that on a full stock repro build awhile back.

P.S. Upon further examination, your front scope base will not allow you to move the scope back, unless you use an offset rotary dovetail ring. Not impossible

 

[Rimfireraptor]

Keep in mind you can move the scope back just to the point where the ocular or power ring does not interfere with the bolt retracting (it appears that scope would not present a problem mounted back a bit). You would likely have to remove the scope to remove the bolt for cleaning, but that's why they make bore snakes. I think I would rather do that than have the scope perched up there like it's on stilts...but that's me. I did just that on a full stock repro build awhile back.

P.S. Upon further examination, your front scope base will not allow you to move the scope back, unless you use an offset rotary dovetail ring. Not impossible

Well I ordered a Extra high set of Burris Signature Zee rings. 1.02 measured from top of base to middle of scope. Will see if it works (clears bolt). If not, the Burris tech said there might be
other taller rings out there by Weaver, Leupold, etc that just might be tall enough. If not then I have no choice but to choose a different scope. I'm just wondering if going from a 30mm tube down to a 1" scope will help the cause ?? Like I said, it's not the 30mm tube that is the problem, it's the rubber knurled ring that is the issue. If I could get that "ahead" of the bolt handle I'd be golden. Will let everyone know what it looks like when I get the new extra tall burris rings.

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

The problem will be finding front and rear 30mm rings for a rotary dovetail that are offset enough and high enough. But there are more ways to skin a cat. You can also jettison those bases and use some nice steel Weaver-style Warne bases for more ring options, or you can use the Talley bases, which will open up more fore and aft options. I ended up making bases to get the scope down as much as possible and using Talley rings.

 

[Rimfireraptor]

The problem will be finding front and rear 30mm rings for a rotary dovetail that are offset enough and high enough. But there are more ways to skin a cat. You can also jettison those bases and use some nice steel Weaver-style Warne bases for more ring options, or you can use the Talley bases, which will open up more fore and aft options. I ended up making bases to get the scope down as much as possible and using Talley rings.

hmmm..... very interesting, I have heard of Talley but they are new to me. At one point I was going to have SK make the bases and rings. Good tip, will see what I can see with the Burris rings coming and that will either work or give me an idea of what I need to do from there. Gotta put this puzzle together..... somehow....

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

S&K is an excellent option, and they will make just what you need. They're just a bit spendy, but not really much in the overall scheme of things.

 

[Rimfireraptor]

The problem will be finding front and rear 30mm rings for a rotary dovetail that are offset enough and high enough. But there are more ways to skin a cat. You can also jettison those bases and use some nice steel Weaver-style Warne bases for more ring options, or you can use the Talley bases, which will open up more fore and aft options. I ended up making bases to get the scope down as much as possible and using Talley rings.

Hey Teddy Bear Rat, since this is new to me..... how will changing to a weaver-style Warne bases open up more option after removing my current Burris. Can you elaborate. I'm assuming that my goal (at least with this scope) is to try to move scope forward enough to clear rubber ring on ocular which is the widest part of it and get that part of the scope as close to without hitting the bolt handle. Is that our goal ? If push comes to shove I will buy another scope as I can use this one for my next .22 which will have the 60 degreee bolt handle. Once I receive the Burris extra tall rings we will know exactly where we stand and can make decisions from there. Thanks

 

[Milo 2.5]

Once I receive the Burris extra tall rings we will know exactly where we stand and can make decisions from there. Thanks

This right here is where you need to be, get the rings, see where you stand. Shelve all this until then, lol

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

Okay, so, that front scope base, with the rotary dovetail hole hanging out in front of the receiver ring, you can see how a ring installed there will require the scope to be moved forward for the bell to clear, and by so doing, that fat ocular is right over where the bolt handle needs to move, just the opposite of what I was suggesting. When those bases were made, having the front ring forward of the receiver was a desirable thing, because scopes were longer then. This presents a problem with the shorter, fatter scopes of today. The Weaver bases do not extend forward and can usually be flipped to give a bit more mounting latitude fore and aft. Additionally, there are myriad 30mm rings available in myriad heights to allow you to fine tune the fit of the scope. A picatinny rail would have even more fore and aft latitude, but most of the rings that fit the Weaver and picatinny rail are butt ugly and very massive looking, as is a picatinny rail itself. Still, mounting that scope rather defeats any hope of aesthetics anyway...understanding beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

The Talleys will have far fewer options, but they will look better and provide a bit of fore and aft latitude.

Your penny spacers are perfect for determining the minimum height of ring and base you can use with that scope. They will also give you the dimensions you need to provide S&K, if you go that route. S&K can make different height bases and rings, so you'll have to mix and match to determine what looks best to you: more base height or more height in the rings. Keep in mind that the S&K uses one-piece, projection-less rings that are very sexy, but that look might not really match that scope. Here are some on a petite 1885:

I also built a 52 Sporter with an original 52C action and stock with a Lilja barrel and faced a similar problem trying to mount a scope as low as possible but still clearing the 48F rear sight. If I removed the sight, I knew it would become lost when I'm gone. I went with steel Warne Weaver-style bases, and experimented with various ring heights, finally settling on these gloss Burris rings. I even used the offset inserts feature in these rings to gain that very last bit of lowering. You can see the ocular clears by mere thousandths of an inch:

I went with the 4-12x50mm Leupold to try to avoid the scope looking so highly perched over the rifle. If that were a 40mm objective, it would look even sillier. As it stands, I'm very pleased with this.

FWIW, the nicest looking Weaver style rings I was able to find were some made by Vortex. Most Vortex rings are chunky, faceted beasts completely out of place on a sporter, but these look rather sleek (not sure they are available in 30mm):

Vortex Optics Pro Riflescope Rings

Buy Vortex Optics Pro Riflescope Rings at Amazon. Customer reviews and photos may be available to help you make the right purchase decision!

www.amazon.com

These look pretty nice also:

Hunter 30 mm Rings

Hunter 30 mm Rings

vortexoptics.com

 

[Rimfireraptor]

Okay, so, that front scope base, with the rotary dovetail hole hanging out in front of the receiver ring, you can see how a ring installed there will require the scope to be moved forward for the bell to clear, and by so doing, that fat ocular is right over where the bolt handle needs to move, just the opposite of what I was suggesting. When those bases were made, having the front ring forward of the receiver was a desirable thing, because scopes were longer then. This presents a problem with the shorter, fatter scopes of today. The Weaver bases do not extend forward and can usually be flipped to give a bit more mounting latitude fore and aft. Additionally, there are myriad 30mm rings available in myriad heights to allow you to fine tune the fit of the scope. A picatinny rail would have even more fore and aft latitude, but most of the rings that fit the Weaver and picatinny rail are butt ugly and very massive looking, as is a picatinny rail itself. Still, mounting that scope rather defeats any hope of aesthetics anyway...understanding beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

The Talleys will have far fewer options, but they will look better and provide a bit of fore and aft latitude.

Your penny spacers are perfect for determining the minimum height of ring and base you can use with that scope. They will also give you the dimensions you need to provide S&K, if you go that route. S&K can make different height bases and rings, so you'll have to mix and match to determine what looks best to you: more base height or more height in the rings. Keep in mind that the S&K uses one-piece, projection-less rings that are very sexy, but that look might not really match that scope. Here are some on a petite 1885:
View attachment 372273

I also built a 52 Sporter with an original 52C action and stock with a Lilja barrel and faced a similar problem trying to mount a scope as low as possible but still clearing the 48F rear sight. If I removed the sight, I knew it would become lost when I'm gone. I went with steel Warne Weaver-style bases, and experimented with various ring heights, finally settling on these gloss Burris rings. I even used the offset inserts feature in these rings to gain that very last bit of lowering. You can see the ocular clears by mere thousandths of an inch:
View attachment 372274

View attachment 372275
I went with the 4-12x50mm Leupold to try to avoid the scope looking so highly perched over the rifle. If that were a 40mm objective, it would look even sillier. As it stands, I'm very pleased with this.

Nice lookin 52 Sporter. You scope doesn't look out of place and since the windage turret is basically in line with the ejection port on gun the scope has a balanced look. The more I look, the more I feel that my best route might be to have SK custom make a set of bases and rings to just allow the bolt to clear..... this way I can move the scope fore and aft to get it where it belongs. I noticed on your gun the rings look tall because they are carrying all the height since they are mounted on short bases, whereas on my gun the Burris bases already have substaintial height which allows for a shorter ring height look. Like you said, balance out how you want the proportions between base and ring heights. Funny thing is I DID show Brian at SK my "penny pic" and his reply was to try to find a different scope which confuses me as I don't understand why he can't make a base similar in height to the Burris currently on my gun and then just make rings that will clear. Unless he just has preset standard sizes for bases & rings for a 52 I don't understand why he can make it fit. He's a machinist, they can make ANYTHING fit, right. Teddy, I can understand your comment on my scope defeats any hopes of aesthetics but you have to realize I wanted a true tactical scope with lots of magnification and light. I suppose I could have gone is gloss black if they even made it in that finish but my options were limited. I most likley will just leave this scope on for a year or two just to see what the gun is capable of doing then replace it with one more asthecically appropriate for a sporter. Will keep you posted of progress.....

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

For a quick and dirty, I would say that cheap Weaver bases and extra high 30mm Weaver-style rings will get you there. That will get you shooting, and you can tweak from there. "Extra high" varies from maker to maker, so measure the height from the receiver top to the scope bottom, with your pennies there, and you should be able to determine the ring dimension you need with standard Weaver bases. There are literally hundreds of 30mm Weaver-style rings out there, and they are usually pretty cheap, so trial and error shouldn't cost much.

I would think S&K would be able to fix you up, if you tell them you are committed to use that scope.

 

[SageRat22]

I'll probably just confuse the discussion, but I like a scope to compliment the look of and balance with the rifle. That means gloss scope with a gloss blued rifle, of a size that doesn't overwhelm things and mounted low enough to get some kind of cheek weld on the comb. The 52R is a challenge because of the high bolt lift which as you've shown whacks the ocular end of the scope. My suggestion is to use a good compact scope that has a smaller diameter ocular assembly that builds in some bolt clearance. This is my 52R with a Leupold Compact 3x9 AO EFR mounted with medium Talley rings and bases. Everything clears and I think makes a very useable combination.

 

[TEDDY BEAR RAT]

No confusion. I think most of us agree with matching scope to rifle. I don’t even use 30mm scopes; they just look wrong. But even my not-so subtle digs have not dissuaded the OP ., so I’ve just tried to offer solutions.

 

[Rimfireraptor]

No confusion. I think most of us agree with matching scope to rifle. I don’t even use 30mm scopes; they just look wrong. But even my not-so subtle digs have not dissuaded the OP ., so I’ve just tried to offer solutions.

I have to admit, I have to agree with Sagerat22 and Teddy regarding the looks...... but I am hell bent on seeing just how far I can take this sporter, group wise and need some serious magnification to do it. However, as I have stated, once I have accomplished that task.... for no matter how long it takes, a summer, maybe two...... I will rid the 52B of that tactical monster scope and put something on it that should be on it..... i promise. That is one fine looking rig you have there Sage..... I am unfamiliar with the "R" model. Wonder how bolt clearance between a B & R compare ? I noticed you went with the vertical rings...... was that by choice or because Talley only makes vertical rings to match their mounts. (I think) ? Thanks for the posts and pic