I'll be following this thread, but to learn. I'm sort of in the same boat. I've just recently (last few months) been easing back into the world of scopes (since kid hood decades ago) after decades of slavish dedication to iron sights (but good one: ghost rings and Tech Sights). But my aging eyes have now demanded magnified glass, so ...

I've worked my way up (over those few months) from a Monstrum Alpha 1-4x20 (sold), then to a Vortex Crossfire II 2-7x32 Rimfire, to -- as of an hour ago -- a Bushnell Rimfire 3-9x40 with an illuminated reticle.

After comparing the Vortex and Bushnells side by side, I mounted the latter on Dearth. I think it's a keeper. (Sig line photo updated accordingly.)

I know only this about ring height (from a fair amount of reading). For .22LR, the conventional wisdom seems to be that it's best to keep the scope as close to the receiver as possible to minimize the arc of the bullet.

But I'm finding there's a lower limit to comfort, especially with my aging neck with some arthritis there. My current rings are Monstrum 0.8" height on a picatinny rail. The Vortex seemed to work well with them.

But I also have a set of 1" height Monstrum, and this 8mm larger objective on the Bushnell seems to be calling for the taller rings.

So I'll see what the experts have to say.

 

I ordered a set of medium Weaver Grand Slam rings. I have a feeling they'll be about right for my situation. If not, I'll return them. My concern was the rear sight. It can be folded down but it's still higher than a plain barrel.

 

Tactical Innovations/Pike Arms has reversible 10/22 rails in standard, 1/2", or 3/4" height in different colors.

I kinda collected them (the anodized ones not the current Cerakoted ones) for my airgun use; their scope rings and rails, that is.

Dearth sir, always go by comfort

 

I use Vortex medium height rings for mine and it works well.

 

One of the problems encountered sizing scope rings is everybody that makes rings has low, medium and high, with an occasional extra low and extra high. Scope bases are in the same category
The problem is everybody has a different dimension for L/M/H.
I use the 1/2" Pike/Tactical Innovations base with "medium" Burris rings, to get adequate clearance with a 3X-9X Droptine Rimfire scope. The same rings work with a Bushnell 4X-12X AO, with just enough room to clear the 0.920 Green Mountain barrel.

 

The concept of mounting the scope as low as it can go is primarily based on the fact that reducing the distance between the boreline and the scopeline minimized the amount of elevation adjustment needed to zero the scope , which allows more adjustment for distance, and lets the shooter shoot at closer targets. And if youve ever shot prone then youll always appreciate a low mounted scope. Also the cheek weld as a third point of contact does add stability for offhand shots. Todays scopes have much larger occulars , ecen the lpos, i wear corrective lenses , i need to be square to scope for the least distortion. I dont shoot prone. I dont shoot close. So i mount high.

 

I had low mounts on mine when I ran a 3-9x40. However I didn't have the iron sights on it so medium may be necessary.

 

you might consider another aspect or perspective to the matter.

i have found that it is optimal to mount the scope such that you achieve a very comfortable, reliable and repeatable point of aim.

By that i mean that the rifle must fit you comfortably, repeatedly and well.
When you mount the rifle your eye effortlessly and immediately focuses through the scope without seeing any shadows or rings from offset alignment.

Certainly the objective shouldn't touch the rifle barrel or be too close to the heat source and one should assure safe distance from your eye to the ocular of the scope.

The height of the scope to the rifle bore, while a very real consideration (as nicely described by Toomany22s) is for me of secondary importance. Angled Scope rails (or shimmed or adjustable rings designs) can help with scope elevation issues should you pursue longer range shooting.

One way to determine requisite height is to mount the scope on your rifle and adjust the height with playing cards or coins till you accomplish the desired position….scope ring manufacturers almost always publish these values so you won’t have to deal with trial and error (shipping and returns).


It’s very much worth the time and effort to get the rifle to fit you, to get comfortable with the rifle.
Adjust the comb, the recoil pad and the scope till the fit and sight plane is just right. After having done this a couple of times now it only takes me 10 or 15 minutes to set up a rifle and scope. Then of course comes reticle alignment to a plumb line.

just a thought

 

One way to determine requisite height is to mount the scope on your rifle and adjust the height with playing cards or coins till you accomplish the desired position….scope ring manufacturers almost always publish these values so you won’t have to deal with trial and error (shipping and returns).

@learning , can you please expand and clarify that paragraph, please? I'm not able to visualize that idea yet. Cards and coins where? I get the idea of thin -- stack another coin, only change the height a tiny bit ... But don't know where you're stacking said cards or coins.

 

I'll add that any low, medium, high, etc rings are different heights depending on manufacturer. There's no real "standard".

 

Another here that agrees with the philosophy that every shooter is physically different and fitting the optic to the rifle to be in a more natural comfortable position as the shooter shoulders the rifle is to a degree more important than the actual scope height over the barrel.

It seems some people only think the scope is correctly mounted if the clearance between the optic and the barrel is only a couple of pieces of notebook paper in thickness of clearance but just like not everyone needs the same length of pull on the stock not everyone can get in a natural shooting position with the optic mounted that low.

I do agree that the lowest mounting height you can be naturally comfortable with is actually the best so there is no you need to use this height ring with this rifle and scope combination.
Yes there may be this is the minimum height ring you can use with this rifle and optic with this size objective lens to clear the barrel does not mean it is actually the best for you to use.

 

You stack the coins under the scope tube on top of the rail if uses or the receiver.
Once your coin stack is tall enough to provide the desired clearance between objective lens and barrel remove the coins and measure the height of the coins.
Really best to use a set of calipers to get the precise height but it is not a requirement if you just need to get close.
This will give you the ring height needed from the rail or receiver to the bottom of the tube.

Most ring manufacturers will supply this measurement on their packaging and in their specs.
Just make sure this is the dimension you are looking at for the rings height specs.

And if anything and your measurement is slightly different than the ring height specs go with a set of rings a tenth of an inch taller rather than a 10th lower to play it safe.

 

I usually use a calipers but this is a fantastic idea.

 

Ah, bingo. Yes, now I get it. Thanks. That's simple and brilliant.

After an hour or so this afternoon putsing around with it, trying various holding strategies using the tripod, letting my cheek slide along my (slightly elevated) comb to "slide into" a good sight picture, etc, all with my Monstrum 0.8" height rings, I'm liking them pretty well.

But I'm eager now (in the next few days) to try out the 1.0" height rings I have. When I'm changing them out, I'll try your (you and Learning's) coin trick. I have a bunch of dimes and pennies, and they'll be on a picatinny rail (fortunately pretty flat and wide). So I'll see what that technique suggests for height.

I'll report my findings ... maybe even snap a photo or two.

 

OK, here's a question for the scope height/.22LR trajectory gurus. The question is related to the effect of ring height on trajectory ... since as I understand it, the higher the scope is mounted, the steeper the trajectory becomes. (But experts, feel free to correct that if I'm wrong, or put some finer points on it.)

Some background before my question. Bear with me, please: I haven't tried to explain this to anyone but myself, and this is my first time writing it.

I'm not sure yet where my zero is going to wind up, i.e., at what distance I'm going to zero, especially with the new scope. Last warm season -- my first with a scope in decades -- I was playing with 25 and 30, just to see what this rifle would do with Mini-mags, SV and Subsonic.

I started that process with my first scope (other than a red dot) on Dearth: a Monstrum Alpha 1-4x20. It was a cheap place to start, especially for learning how to sight with a scope (again).

It quickly fell behind my distance needs; it just wasn't adequate for me beyond about 25 yards.

So I sold it on Ebay (for close to what I paid for it -- got it on sale) and bumped up to the Vortex Crossfire II 2-7X. Big improvement. But now I'm with the new Bushnell 3-9X, and I think it's where I need/want to be for my type of shooting: 20 - 75 yards, some paper (including some USBR targets just for grins), some spinners, and -- hopefully -- some squirrel heads and roughed grouse.

But back to zeroing. Right now, given the ranges that I want to focus on next year -- 20-75 yards -- I want to explore zeros at, say 30, 40 and 50 yards.

In the process of making decisions about where I zeroed (and where I will zero next), I've been studying this trajectory chart for a couple of months.

I've modified it a lot in a photo editor. I'll get back to that in a minute.

The original chart was created for a 36 gr Mini-mag HP, and I want to focus mainly on 40 gr SV and Mini-Mag for next year. And it's comparing zeros at 20 (blue line), 25 (red line) and 30 (green line) yards, and I want to explore beyond 30, up to 50. It's labeled as using "1.5" optics". I'm not sure what they mean, but I'm guessing that the ring height is 1.5". I'll never be that high.

And if my understanding is correct that a scope mounted higher will increase the steepness of trajectory, the trajectories represented on this chart may be relatively extreme for my situation.

So the chart isn't perfect. Yeah, I get it. But it'll do to lay the groundwork for my question.

I've modified the chart from what I found on the Internet. All of the vertical red lines, the colored circles (around specific points on trajectory lines), the colored rectangles (in the bottom table) and the big red numbers (10, 15, 20 ... 60, 70) are mine (added in a photo editor).

I added them to help me focus on understanding the trajectory at those zero ranges, to see where is it zero first, then second after the trajectory peaks. I've tried to visualize what a 50 yard zero would look like (since the Bushnell's BDC reticle is factory set for a 50 yard zero with a hypersonic round, like Mini-mag or Velocitor. I'm sure it'll work with different, shorter zeros, but the calibration will be different. I intend to explore that.)

OK, so imagine that my set up is the same as used to create the graph. I zero at 25 yards (red line). It'll be on at 25 (obviously) then again at 50, and hits a trajectory peak (+0.19") at 35 and 40.

Finally my question. Approximations are fine.

Imagine a chart that I create for my shooting that's similar to the one I posted above. Imagine that I create that chart for a 30 yard zero with my 0.8" rings. Then I switch out to 1" height rings and re-zero at 30 yards.

How much will the trajectory arc change? Will it be steeper by only 0.1", 0.2", 0.25", 0.5", or ...?

My sense is with that little change in scope height, the change in trajectory will be very minimal, maybe even trivial. But that's totally just an intuition based guess. I have no experience to back it up.

 

sorry Dearth, but as there are so many variable, such as ring height, barrel droop, scope base to receiver fit (Rugers were known to have a hump) etc, you can have all the pre-printed graphs and charts you want...you still have to go out and shoot your groups (preferably at the yardage you think you'll shoot at the most) with the rifle and chosen ammunition yourself..and then create your own chart from there..

I have a few pairs of rifles that are built with the same parts (with the only difference between them being the colors of the parts used) that shoot entirely different ammo's best, so even using two identically built rifles will get you different results...

 

sorry Dearth, but as there are so many variable, such as ring height, barrel droop, scope base to receiver fit (Rugers were known to have a hump) etc, you can have all the pre-printed graphs and charts you want...you still have to go out and shoot your groups (preferably at the yardage you think you'll shoot at the most) with the rifle and chosen ammunition yourself..and then create your own chart from there..

Oh, sure, sure. I know that. I understand it well.

Again, I'm not looking for exact specifics, just generalities, approximations (0.1 vs 0.5 would be very little vs a substantive amount), and using a hypothetical similar set up to what that graphic used. I'm confident that something can be said about that ... even though I 100% agree that to get specifics for however I set up Dearth, I'll have to do the testing myself.

And I look forward to doing that ... in the warm season, after black fly season (meaning starting in late June).

But for now, just color me curious to get some idea of what to expect.

 

Dearth, we're having construction done...if i run to my cell phone and run ballistic formulas I'm likely to be speaking several octaves above what i presently speak at. otherwise i would absolutely do this for you.

you can run these exact scenarios on most ballistic calculators...here's a free link: ShootersCalculator.com | 22LR CCI Mini-Mag 40gr

When the ask about Sight Height they are referring to the distance between the center of the optics and the center of the barrel....you'll have to measure that on your set up. it's really easy to do.

 

When the ask about Sight Height they are referring to the distance between the center of the optics and the center of the barrel....you'll have to measure that on your set up. it's really easy to do.

Ahhh ... then that's what the author of the chart that I posted above means by 1.5" optics. OK, I'll measure mine, and try out the app ...

... tomorrow though. Right now, I'm eating an extended dinner while I watch a bunch of packers run rough shod over some cowboys, and later want to watch what happens when some lions take on some rams. (Go lions!)

 

My way of thinking is mount the optic as low and close to the barrel as possible that still allows you to comfortably and naturally get behind the scope with a good sight picture and eye relief.
As far as the distance to zero again my thinking is that at a 50 yard zero for the most part I am in the middle of the effective range for a .22lr out to 100 yards.

Look at any chart and you will see more drop or holdover needed the further out towards a 100 yards you get with less shift inside of 50 yards.

I think that taking the time to know how an individual rifle shoots your chosen ammo at zero distance and closer and further distances is more important than worrying about using a chart.

When I think about these types of scenarios for me its for out in the field more than off of a bench and then I am going to concentrate on the types of ammo that from a cost standpoint I can stack back deep that will get the job done and is fairly easy to source.

For that job I generally rely on CCI ammo, its affordable, I have tons stacked back and it is available about anywhere that sells rimfire ammo.

For myself I doubt very seriously I would be stacking back as much $14+ a box of 50 rimfire ammo or at case quantities as I would the $4-$5 boxes of CCI which a lot or most of my stash was at a much lower price point than that.

Like anyone else playing with attempting one ragged hole groups is fun and I actually waste too much money on guns which are far more than ever needed for field gun accuracy but my main focus is on affordable minute of squirrel head!

 

I think that taking the time to know how an individual rifle shoots your chosen ammo at zero distance and closer and further distances is more important than worrying about using a chart.

Again, yes, yes, yes and yes. I know I know.

But charts created under one set of circumstances can still be useful to beginning to form an opinion -- a hypothesis, an expectation to be tested -- about what might happen under a different set of circumstances, yet one can't get to specifics in the 2nd case without doing the experiment.

Look, back in the day (late 1970's through 1980's), I was a field research biologist/ecologist. Before setting up a field experiment, I would (because this is standard practice in science) carefully research everything that had been done in similar studies (to the one I had in mind) to see what had happened in other situations. I'd read volumes of published studies and pour over tables and charts to see what had happened before, knowing that until I performed my own study, I would not know for my particular species in my particular set of ecological conditions what I would find. (An MS in probability theory and statistical analysis in addition to my training in biology and ecology helped a lot with that.)

But those reports, tables and charts were nonetheless very useful to me in planning my work. Always.

I'm hard pressed to believe that similar benefit can't be had from ballistic charts.

 

Thought I'd toss in my 2 Pesos, the scope mentioned by the OP would probably be fine with a pair of medium rings. That said, as others have stated, you need to go with what works for you on your firearm. During my 'learning time' on scope mounting, I gave up worrying about being as close to the bore line as possible and now start with a set of high rings for most of my mounts. If that does not work, it gives me a reference point and another set of rings is acquired. The parts box for sights and mounts now has several sets of rings that I can use for fitting, now. The better manufacturers make their measurements available, look them up and save them.
Good luck.

 

I used to follow the 'conventional wisdom' of low as ya can go....but then I had a whiplash type neck injury.
Btw,,Imo, one doesn't need a 'cheek weld' on a 22rf. And I dont shoot prone, No Way!
I have high rings on most everything target 22 or air rifle. The less, and light, contact I have, and the less I have to strain to get properly behind the scope, the better my hits and scores.
And I dont feel obligated to put on a cheek riser either, all I may reference the butt with may be a light touch of my chin.
Imo the big objective lens scopes requiring a much higher mount to clear ob. lens and barrel is what started me to these conclusions. Hits/scores improved, whats not to like?
For me it was 'head up, scores up'

 

"1.5" optics". I'm not sure what they mean, but I'm guessing that the ring height is 1.5". I'll never be that high.

That's the height of the scope from the center of the bore. (Which is calculated from the dimensions of the receiver, the height of the ring, half the height of the barrel diameter, (radius) and half the diameter of the scope).
If you draw a straight line from the -1.5" mark, to the "0" point, you see that the path of the trajectory crosses the line of sight at 2 points. By changing the distance you sight in, you change the point of impact at "X" yards. The actual parabola or curve of the trajectory remains constant at any distance.
If you mount the scope 1" above the center of the bore, it has the effect of rotating the curve of the trajectory clockwise, increasing the apparent drop.
If you mount the scope 2" above the center of the bore, it has the effect of rotating the trajectory curve counter clockwise, decreasing the apparent drop.
The shape of the curve never changes, but the there are effects that change time of flight +/- and the height of the POI at the mid point of the trajectory, which also plays into apparent drop at 100yds, which is why crackedcornish's statement below is important.

.you still have to go out and shoot your groups (preferably at the yardage you think you'll shoot at the most) with the rifle and chosen ammunition yourself..and then create your own chart from there

You don't actually know until you you put in the time to verify the numbers calculated or pulled from a drop table. I gave up drop tables years ago. Even when you chronograph the load for exact, (or nearly exact), velocity numbers, all the other effects are rarely on the money for every other effect. The longer the shot, the greater the error, .22LR, .300 Magnum, whatever. If you haven't tried the shot at the longest distance you will pull the trigger, you're hoping and guessing.

 

Ok, two hours later.

I just switched my rings from my 0.8" height set to 1". I also put on the Magpul 0.75" (tallest) comb.

Bottom line: for now, at least, I like it a LOT. It's very much -- really noticeably -- more comfortable than with the lower rings. I feel no -- zero -- strain in my neck. A light cheek weld gets me almost instant good sight picture without having to bend my neck over. I'm going to leave it like this for a few days and see how it treats me.

I tried the coin stacking thing. I used dimes ... or tried using dimes. I removed the top pieces from the rings so the scope was just sitting cradled in the lower half of the rings. Using the flattened bottom part of the turret center (what ever that's called), I stacked dimes under the scope with the lower (0.8") rings in place. I couldn't quite get 4 dimes in there, but there was room for more at 3. So I called it 3.5 dimes.

According to the omniscient internet, dimes are 0.053" thick. So that's 3.5 x 0.053" = 0.1855".

But I couldn't balance the scope comfortably on the dimes without other support, and didn't want to risk dropping it. So, I switched out the ring bases to the 1" height, added scope and secured it. 8 dimes fit under the turret center perfectly. 8 x 0.053" = 0.424".

So putting the larger rings on added 0.424" - 0.1855" = 0.2385", or rounding off, 0.24".

When looking at the rifle with its (now) high riding scope, a few days ago, before reading this thread, I'd have said, "That looks too high." (See the two images, and compare them with the image in my sig line that had the lower rings.) But now I'm trying to be OK with it and just give it some time.

But I wonder how that's going to affect trajectory at the distances I'm going to focus on (again, 20 - 75 yards or so). Guess I'll find out in spring, because the height feels really good to me now.

 

It isnt going to do anything detrimental to your 'trajectory', forgetaboutit
I just pulled one one of my best groups saved out of the jar by my easy chair.
High Rings
Sporting rifle comb height; light reference touch and my eye is right down the scope
Trigger hand lightly on rt of grip, thumb NOT over top but along the rt side
5 consecutive shots at 20 yards, front rest, shoulder held
Outside to Outside measurements, 1/4" wide x 5/16" tall (that includes the lead 'Smear')
The proof is in the results. No,I cant do it on demand or every time, but I do enough good groups, or center hits, to know I have 'some skills' and my equipment is good.
Btw, 50yd is what my home 22 range is, I happen to be set up that day for my air rifle (FWB 600) and had just done a .177 5 shot 1/2 the size.
It was Good Day!

 

It isnt going to do anything detrimental to your 'trajectory', forgetaboutit….

Actually it does, and BTW trajectory is not accuracy. Higher rings can affect the poi versus the poa and complicates hitting a small target at close unknown ranges - as in hunting. But the OP doesn’t say what he will use his rifle for, and he’s already purchased his rings so further debate doesn’t help him.


.

 

you’ve already figured out the requisite height for the rings by measuring coin thickness or playing card thickness.

the next value you need is the center of the rifle bore…this is generally obtained by measuring the diameter of the barrel at the region where the scope rings will be… divide that value in half.


the third value is to establish the center of the objective lens on the rifle scope. Scopes generally denote that value….they’re usually 1in, 30mm or 34mm). Divide that value in half. To that value you must add the thickness of the body of the rifle scope tube (it’s usually 2mm - 3mm).


I hope that helps

 

the next value you need is the center of the rifle bore…this is generally obtained by measuring the diameter of the barrel at the region where the scope rings will be… divide that value in half.

But my rings are on the picatinny which is on the receiver, not the barrel. (?)

Those directions I posted above measures the barrel just in front of the objective/bell.

I may need to invest in some calipers to do this accurately.

 

you're absolutely correct.....a precise caliper is a wonderful tool to own or borrow. i use and depend on mine a lot especially for reloading and building/making DIY type projects etc.

If $100- $200 is not in the cards (for a premium model caliper), one can get a perfectly suitable measuring tool for use in applications such as these for much less cost. Plus minus a mm or two is going to be fine for this task.

I bet something like this would suffice and you'll likely find you use it with some regularity:

Amazon.com

or this:

Amazon.com

 

Dimes or better yet. Scope Ring Setup Gauge Blocks | eBay

 

@learning, I've put one of those calipers in my shopping cart for next month.

That's a cool idea.

And while exploring those, I found another useful tool that may be even more useful to me: a scope mounting level. I've been eyeballing mine, doing the best I can. But I know that's not really good enough to avoid sighting errors. So this looks cool, and in my budget. I'll get one before spring shooting begins.

Scope Leveling Tool Scope Mounting Level Universal and Professional Tool | eBay

Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Scope Leveling Tool Scope Mounting Level Universal and Professional Tool at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

www.ebay.com

 

I typically mount the scope on any rifle I have pretty low. On 10/22's I tend to use weaver quad lock, in medium height using the supplied rail from Ruger.

As far as the curve showing a dual zero...sure it might give you a reference, and it might get you close, but realistically, sighting in for a specific distance is best... especially for a purpose rifle...a hunting rifle you should feel confident in hitting a hunting sized target at various, reasonable distances.

For rimfire and anything 50 to 100 yards, the height of the scope rings isn't a big deal. Just get your setup comfortable for you to shoot.

Don't overthink it... just get out there and shoot

DW