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):
Amazon.com : Vortex Optics Pro Riflescope Rings : Sports & Outdoors
These look pretty nice also:
Hunter 30 mm Rings