[Dearth]

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!)

 

[Dearth]

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.

 

[crackedcornish]

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.

living here in Yuma, I have to remember my outdoor seasons are opposite to some of you guys...now, is our time to go do stuff outside, before it gets to the triple digits during the summer months...

 

[unklchuck]

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.

 

[vfourmax]

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.

Never meant to insinuate the charts were not a good source of information to get general ideas concerning how different bullet weights and muzzle velocity ammo may perform at a set distance in theory.

One thing I think many discount or over estimate is their own ability to just eyeball and judge range distance when out in the field, and I am just as guilty as the next guy.
One thing I do want to invest in a decent hunting quality rangefinder.

Since I only shoot rimfire any more I do not need anything that needs to work well at long distances so I figure I should be able to pick a decent unit for a reasonable price.

Take a rangefinder, wind meter and pair that with a ballistic calculator then in my way of thinking then we are accomplishing something as far as predicting bullet drop and POI.

 

[gcrank1]

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'

 

[TMan51]

"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.

 

[Dearth]

One thing I think many discount or over estimate is their own ability to just eyeball and judge range distance when out in the field, and I am just as guilty as the next guy.
One thing I do want to invest in a decent hunting quality rangefinder.

Since I only shoot rimfire any more I do not need anything that needs to work well at long distances so I figure I should be able to pick a decent unit for a reasonable price.

Very good point. I've wanted to buy a rangefinder for some time, not just for shooting but for ground truthing property lines represented on the property maps I can get at the town hall. The woods I walk in has several owners. One owner is the one that owns my apartment complex, and another has given me permission. The third is a bit ... less approachable, so I'd prefer to stay off his land ... but it's not fenced. A range finder would help me find those boundaries.

So if you find a good one suitable for rimfire, please let us know. I've looked the several from Bushnell, but all are over $100 and I just can't do that.

@gcrank1, I, too, have begun to question the value of a cheek weld on Dearth. Since my weather here is pretty unpleasant during January, I spend a lot of time just doing sighting practice from my apartment looking into the woods. I've got 4 2" targets out there from 25 to about 60 yards. I've been "playing" a lot with the new bipod, seeing what I need to do to get the ... steadiest target acquisition (without a fully clamped rifle stand), meaning trying to make the crosshairs dance the least. Being new to scopes (again), I find it's harder than I remembered!

I'm trying different hand positions, especially my non-trigger hand (from holding the fore end or bipod to using it against my right shoulder to support the butt of the stock -- I haven't landed on a consistent practice yet; still in "testing" mode. But I have noticed that the cheek weld adds to the complexity -- just more pressure pushing on the stock to make the crosshairs dance around. I'm experimenting a bit with that. I do have the comb extension on the Magpul. (I purchased the kit with 0.5" and 0.75". I'm using the 0.5" one right now. I find it does offer me a quicker consistent sight picture with the scope, and it allows me to slide my cheek along the top of the comb to get the best distance from the ocular for me.

Later today, I'm going to start exploring the "coin stacking trick" for scope height, then switch my rings from the 0.8" height to the 1" ones. I certainly won't go taller than that. Then, I may want to put on the 0.75" comb. Just not sure yet.

@TMan51, what you wrote about that parabolic trajectory is very interesting to me. Thanks. I need to read it again to gain a deeper understanding, but I'm getting the gist. I may have some questions for you about that at a later time.

And I'm still working to measure the height of my scope, that optics height, the distance from the bore center to the center of the optic. I don't have calipers, and I'm finding it challenging to do it with a ruler (gives 1/32" increments). Right now, the best I can get is 1 11/16".

 

[Dearth]

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.

 

[gcrank1]

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!

 

[TXNimrod]

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.


.

 

[Dearth]

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

That's a really useful (and even fun) tool. Quite flexible in terms of several variables. I've been playing with it for a while now.

I need to find a better way to measure my sight height. My estimate right now is pretty crude. What's the best way to measure it? To be clear, I understand now what it is. I just don't know how to measure it accurately.

PS: found this method. Good enough?

"Sight Height - This is the height from the centerline of your bore to the center of your sight. To measure this accurately on guns with a mounted scope, measure the diameter (that is, from side to side, not all the way around) of the barrel just ahead of the scope's bell and divide that number by 2. Now measure the diameter of the scope bell itself and divide that number by 2. Now measure the gap between the bottom of the scope bell and your barrel. Now add these 3 numbers together to get your sight height."​

 

[learning]

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

 

[Dearth]

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.

 

[learning]

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

 

[NIB]

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

 

[Dearth]

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

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

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

 

[nevadany]

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

 

[Dearth]

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.

After a lot of reading (and posting) in multiple threads, including an interesting and helpful conversation (PM), and watching several interesting videos on the topic of the effects of ring height (especially one by some reps at Vortex), I have arrived at that conclusion, also.

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

I'd love to "just go shoot". But it's January, and where I live that means snow on the ground (usually coated with a layer of ice), which means my ATV trails are closed for winter (by a state agency) until around mid-May (because even after snow melts, we have to deal with mud season).

That, in turn, means I can't get up to my shooting range area until late spring. I have no car and couldn't get to my range shooting area in one anyway because it's in the outback where cars and trucks are not allowed; only ATV's, horses, dirt bikes and hikers ... and right now, snowmobile for those that have them, which is not me.

Therefore I have a lot of extra time to think.

AND I enjoy the thinking part. Understanding something deeply, even more than is necessary for functionality, is fun to me, entertaining, interesting, and better than anything on that stoopid boob tube (AKA "TV") to the left of my workstation.

I'm heavily trained in the sciences and mathematics, and for those of us who love both, thinking about problems like this -- really getting deeply into them and building a mental model of it -- is a big part of what drives us. What some would call "overthinking" is just plain thinking for us. It's fun, and one of the spices of life. Solving differential equations, deriving a probability density function from a probability distribution (try the beta or Weibull distributions for kicks), or logically following a proof of a famous mathematical theorem is not drudgery for us; it's fun. And good exercise for the neurons.

I can't fly like a falcon, or swim like a salmon, or burrow like a mole, or climb a tree like a squirrel, or run like a cheetah. But I can use my highly evolved mammalian brain (the same one that all humans have) to think about complex issues, and it's as much fun for me as flying, swimming, burrowing, climbing or running.

 

[unklchuck]

Entertaining watching this thread develop. Some of the tools mentioned caught my eye, the scope gauge blocks are a neat idea and rather inexpensive; everyone doing much of anything to a firearm should have a decent caliper, a 'value priced' chicom one as noted is quite adequate for a beginner; the scope leveling tool is pretty unnecessary if you aren't a gunsmith, simply set your rifle level and mark a visible vertical line on a target 50 yards or so away, rotate the scope so the vertical crosshair is parallel with the line, tighten your rings and you are done. A scope level mounted to your scope can be of help in precision shooting. Something you might want if you are sticking with rings and not using a one piece mount is a Wheeler Scope Mounting Kit, a tad spendy, but it has a FAT wrench, ring lapping bars, etc. to do a 1st class mounting job. Personally, I mostly use one piece mounts now, but the FAT wrench is used all the time.