scope mounting

[montex]

are there any advantages in accuracy between high and low scope mounts?

[Vapodog]

assuming both are properly done.....NO.

[James B]

True. For some peole however the difference may affect its shootability. I shoot better with higher mounted scopes. My brother shoots better with his scopes mounted as low as possible. The mounting higth may affect how comfrotable you are when you shoot.

[eldeguello]

ORIGINAL: montex are there any advantages in accuracy between high and low scope mounts?

No, BUT: Some high-mounted scopes are mounted in the so-called "see under"or "see thru" mounts, many of which are not too strong/rigid. Consequently, these scopes are easily pushed or knocked out of alignment, affecting both consistency and point of impact.

[Mykey]

I feel more comfortable with the high mounts but my accuracy isn't really any better when comparing the two. I have mostly high mounts on my rifles with 50mm scopes because the low mounts wouldn't work. I have low mounts on two rifles with 40mm scopes and i shoot them just as good as the ones with high mounts.

[archerick]

It does make a difference in the way that you can anchor your cheek to the stock more consistantly with a scope mounted lower on the rifle. Sometimes if the scope is mounted too high you have to raise your cheek off the stock and you may not get the same sight picture every time. I recommend to my customers to try to mount scope as low as possible while still getting clearance between the objective and the barrel.

[BCEncorePA]

I agree with archer rick 100%, mount as low as possible with proper clearance. The lower you mount your scope the more elevation adjustment you get out of your scope. Plus you want your cheek snug on that stock or recoil will really bite ya.

[eldeguello]

ORIGINAL: BCEncorePA

I agree with archer rick 100%, mount as low as possible with proper clearance. The lower you mount your scope the more elevation adjustment you get out of your scope. Plus you want your cheek snug on that stock or recoil will really bite ya.

Both the above gentlemen are correct!!

ALL the "old-time" experts like Keith, O'Connor, et.al., mounted their scopes as low as they could get them, usually in some kind of quick-detachable mount like a Griffin & Howe or a Jaeger side mount. They then had their stocks made with a comb height appropriate for such a mounting, and fitted a Lyman or Redfield receiver sight with a removeable sight slide in the same line of sight. If something happened to the scope, it could be quickly removed and replaced with the receiver sight, and they were back in business. I note that the old boys had both scopes (eg., Lyman Alaskan w/7/8" tube) and mounting systems that were much more amenable to low mounting than we have today!

I think their setups were better! I have no use at all for "astronomical observatory" objective lenses on big-game rifle scopes. Very few "hunters" can shoot well enough to properly utilize the long-range capabilities of a scope magnification over 6-power, when hunting things larger than woodchucks!