washguy Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 Just now, blue109 said: Good trade up. Only you can decide where the scope is comfortable man. Depends entirely on where you like to run your stock and eye relief of the optic Just as Blue said....but it does look like it could be moved a tad forward for my taste in eye relief Wash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 One suggestion I can make is get your scope mount squared away. Looks to me like a cheap riser, with a set of cheap rings on top of that. Measure it out and finds some decent rings that won't need a riser. Burris XTR and Warne maxima can both be found for a decent price. You can't shoot well if your mount is flexing all over the place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shepp Posted June 29, 2016 Report Share Posted June 29, 2016 19 minutes ago, blue109 said: One suggestion I can make is get your scope mount squared away. Looks to me like a cheap riser, with a set of cheap rings on top of that. Measure it out and finds some decent rings that won't need a riser. Burris XTR and Warne maxima can both be found for a decent price. You can't shoot well if your mount is flexing all over the place. I'll add to that the Nikon one piece mounts are nice too and fairly cheap they make a P223 and I think a P308. I'm running the P223 on both my 556 and my 308 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washguy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 "I'll add to that the Nikon one piece mounts are nice too and fairly cheap they make a P223 and I think a P308. I'm running the P223 on both my 556 and my 308 " yeppers...and the one piece RR is good too but if you dont mount the scope correctly...you aint got squat ! Wash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washguy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) "I'll add to that the Nikon one piece mounts are nice too and fairly cheap they make a P223 and I think a P308. I'm running the P223 on both my 556 and my 308 " yeppers...and the one piece RR is good too https://www.amazon.com/The-Segway-MKIII-Reticle-Leveler/dp/B00F42HGV0/180-5368280-0774046?ie=UTF8&tag=happesprlivet-20 but if you dont mount the scope correctly...you aint got squat ! Wash Edited June 30, 2016 by washguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
survivalshop Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 You can say that again . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmackc Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 It would be 2 or three inches too far to the rear for me but I use the eye relief built in to the scope . I find a good cheek weld on the stock then slide the scope to get a full scope view and nail it there. Once I shoot it and it looks good I mark the rail and the mounts with a dot of red paint for reference. These are the Burris mounts I use for rhe Bushnell AR308 BDC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBrien Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I've always been partial to Warne Maxima rings. They guarantee their QD rings will maintain zero (within a certain MOA, can't remember now what it is) after detaching and reattaching. I've never bought one of their "AR Mounts," but have their rings on all of my rifles. If you go with Warne rings, you can skip the riser. Just pick up some Extra High rings (.650" from top of rail to bottom of scope) or Ultra High rings (.935"). The Extra High rings will just get your objective bell above the handguard (.030", to be exact...). Ultras will get you 5/16" of space between objective bell and handguard. For the sake of posterity, the formula for figuring ring heights: (Objective diameter (or Ocular, if larger) - tube diameter) / 2. That is the minimum height required by the scope to clear the receiver (or handguard, if receiver-height). If you have BUIS to clear, add their height above the rail to that number. Most ring manufacturers will list their suggestions for ring heights based on objective diameter, but those are sometimes off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Just pay attention to how the ring manufacturer measures. Most measure from the top of the rail to the scope centerline. Warne, as you pointed out, measures top of the rail to bottom of the ring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBrien Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, blue109 said: Just pay attention to how the ring manufacturer measures. Most measure from the top of the rail to the scope centerline. Warne, as you pointed out, measures top of the rail to bottom of the ring. Good point. I've been using Warnes for so long, I forget just about everyone else measures to the center of the tube. If that's the case, you just add 1/2 of the tube diameter back on after using the formula I posted above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted June 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, COBrien said: For the sake of posterity, the formula for figuring ring heights: (Objective diameter (or Ocular, if larger) - tube diameter) / 2. That is the minimum height required by the scope to clear the receiver (or handguard, if receiver-height). If you have BUIS to clear, add their height above the rail to that number. Most ring manufacturers will list their suggestions for ring heights based on objective diameter, but those are sometimes off. Thanks for the formula CoBrien, I was going to ask blue that since he mention my rail/rings. Right now I have a Truglo 1/2" rail and the rings are 1" Leupold. So using your formula 50mm - 1" / 2 = minimum height. Therefore 1.96850394" - 1" / 2 = .48425197 for Warne, others add .5 = .98425197 ~ .016 clearance(based on 1" ring)...correct? Which ain't much to me. Also On a Nikon 1 piece rail M-308 has a built in 20 MOA Slope. I know it means Minute of Angle but that's about it. I don't think it would work for me in that respect. But I really can't seem any specs on it either nor the M-223 Remember I'm very new to Rifles/scopes and so on so I may have a lot of explain to me questions. Only Rifle ever fired before this was an M16 with iron sites. LOL Also thanks to all of you for your time and valuable input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted June 30, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 15 hours ago, mrmackc said: It would be 2 or three inches too far to the rear for me but I use the eye relief built in to the scope. I moved it forward and may even go one more notch If I can without getting on the Troy Rail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 I may have Been harsh with the cheap comment, Leo makes good stuff but it looks like those rings only have one bolt on each side of the cap. I like a little more clamping force to be sure. I just bought my first set of maxima QD rings and I like them a lot. think I only paid around $50 on Amazon. Something kinda silly I do because I'm picky about my scope height: I do the measurements like above, but I never really trust the raw numbers. I cut some thick cardboard or Styrofoam to the size of the rings I'm looking at and use masking tape to hold the scope down. Really allows you to get a feel for exactly how it's all going to line up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBrien Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, DD_Raptor said: Thanks for the formula CoBrien, I was going to ask blue that since he mention my rail/rings. Right now I have a Truglo 1/2" rail and the rings are 1" Leupold. So using your formula 50mm - 1" / 2 = minimum height. Therefore 1.96850394" - 1" / 2 = .48425197 for Warne, others add .5 = .98425197 ~ .016 clearance(based on 1" ring)...correct? Which ain't much to me. Also On a Nikon 1 piece rail M-308 has a built in 20 MOA Slope. I know it means Minute of Angle but that's about it. I don't think it would work for me in that respect. But I really can't seem any specs on it either nor the M-223 Remember I'm very new to Rifles/scopes and so on so I may have a lot of explain to me questions. Only Rifle ever fired before this was an M16 with iron sites. LOL Also thanks to all of you for your time and valuable input. You're close. 50mm is the diameter of the objective lens of your scope. The diameter of the objective bell (the actual body of the scope) is what you actually need. According to MidwayUSA (who measures just about every scope they carry), the actual diameter of the objective bell for your scope is 2.24". So, (2.24 - 1) / 2 = 0.62" of height required from rail to tube. This is the minimum height if you measure for a Warne ring. The closest they have is an Extra High (.650"), but that leaves you with .030" (less than 1/32") clearance. I'd suggest, if you go with Warne, to jump on the Ultra High (.935"), leaving you with .285" of clearance. For all other brands, your minimum height would be 1.12". As far as a 20 MOA base, if you intend to do any long range shooting (i.e., 600 yards and beyond), it might not be a bad idea. The extra angle of the base will keep your reticle closer to center and leave you plenty of elevation adjustment for taking those long shots. I'm like blue109 with my scope mounting. I want my scopes mounted as low as possible, keeping about 1/8" (.125") clearance so I have room for some Butler Creek scope caps. Edited June 30, 2016 by COBrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washguy Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 DD You will like the 20 moa built in and you wont even know its there..a lotof mine have it...comes in handy Wash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 18 hours ago, washguy said: DD You will like the 20 moa built in and you wont even know its there..a lotof mine have it...comes in handy Wash Thanks for that info. but not sure if want to go that way. The Warne ultras highs I'm looking at are the quick detach type. (Burris also I think) Has any one used these, do they always latch properly and tight after use? the bolt type are hard to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Darn edit time limit...LOL Anyway I was going to add that I am going to take er out this weekend and see if the gas block and tube swap fixed my problems. I sure hope it does. So I'm not really in a hurry to solve the ring/mount issue, but I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBrien Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, DD_Raptor said: Thanks for that info. but not sure if want to go that way. The Warne ultras highs I'm looking at are the quick detach type. (Burris also I think) Has any one used these, do they always latch properly and tight after use? the bolt type are hard to find. I'm using some QD Warne rings on my LR-308 (and was using them on my Mini-14...). The best piece of advice I can give on the Warne QD rings is to snug them onto your scope first -- leave enough slack to adjust as necessary once you get it on the rifle -- then mount the rings onto the receiver. Slide each ring to the back of the slot (they will have some forward-back movement), then lock them down with the lever. Adjust your scope for eye relief and square your reticle, then torque the bolts down in an 'X' pattern. I like to snug them all up in an 'X', then go back and do a final torque. I'm OCD when it comes to mounting scopes, so I have a torque driver to torque the bolts down to 20 INCH-pounds. Any time you remove and replace your scope, be sure to slide it all the way back in the slots before tightening the levers. This will lessen the POA/POI shift and, theoretically, should get you back to your original zero. Be sure to degrease your rings and their bolts before you start mounting. Bolts that have been degreased don't require LocTite, according to Warne, but I usually put a drop of blue LocTite on the threads before mounting a scope. They still come apart without any fuss, but they won't loosen up on you, even with .308 recoil. Edited July 1, 2016 by COBrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Hey CO, you want the rings pushed all the way forward in the rail slots...towards the muzzle. I don't remember exactly how installed my maxima QD rings, but I followed the supplied instructions. They were pretty straightforward. I was swapping back and forth between my 1-6x and my aimpoint at 25, 50, and 100 yds and it seemed to hold zero every time. I'm comfortable recommending them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I was out at Gander Mt today and ran across these Burris Rings. Man so close, the front cap won't quite fit on though. Luckily he said I could return them if the didn't work. Edited July 1, 2016 by DD_Raptor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmackc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Did you measure the scope tube and I.D. of the rings. Screws torqued down ? Do the front and back vertical and horizontal I.D. of the rings the id's should be with in a few 10/thousands. I did both sets. The AR308 Bushnell 4 X 18 scope takes 1" rings and the AR223 1X4.5 scope takes the smaller metric ring. too small will egg shape the tube and too large will let the tube move. Many shooters lap the rings I never have seen a need to lap rings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD_Raptor Posted July 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 No, No and No That is just a test fit with all bolts snug but not torqued. Don't have an in/lb torque wrench anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue109 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Strange the front won't fit. Did you try swapping them? Will the cap that doesn't fit the front fit on the rear? Will the cap that does fit the rear not fit the front? Try swapping them around like cap A on ring A and then cap A on ring B. Basicly troubleshoot it down to find the exact issue. Is it the rings? The scope? Just one of the caps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmackc Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Whoops, never had to measure either, I had some customers bring in a couple of basket cases where scopes rings and mounts didn't fit so that calls for measurements, usually because of bargain buying, and they don't like the news that "it fiddint dit". It seems to me that a there are way too much stuff associated with "black rifles" and so called tac-ops stuff being pushed on us consumers that don't fit than should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COBrien Posted July 2, 2016 Report Share Posted July 2, 2016 6 hours ago, blue109 said: Hey CO, you want the rings pushed all the way forward in the rail slots...towards the muzzle. Oops! My bad. I'd edit my post, but... Lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.