Scope Rings and bases

[.45]

Hi,

I am in the process of fitting a Swarovski Z6i gen.2 2-12x50 to a Sako .308 hunter, without picatinny rail.
I need advice with regards to rings and bases. The salesmen at the dealer contends that the Sako Optilock are not the best. I am not sure of his opinion as his recommendation do not invoke confidence. I call on the experienced to please recommend:

1. High quality durable mounts which do not need to be quick detachable. I would prefer the mounts to be adjustable for eye relief, but it is not absolutely a deal braker, if adjustable mounts are not available. Which are best for purpose among Warne, Otilock, Leupold or any other manufacture.
2. Should I opt for low mounts to fit the scope closer to the bore? I am short in stature.

Thanks, in advance

[aimpoint]

Nothing wrong with optilok rings, i use them on all my tikkas. Sako does not make shit!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pirate]

The height of the mounts have nothing to do with your own stature ;-)

Fit the lowest mounts that (1) allow the bolt handle to clear the scope's ocular and (2) that allows the scope's objective to clear the barrel. For actions with a 90deg bolt throw, (1) is generally the limiting factor, but iirc the SAKO has a 60deg bolt throw, which will probably remove (1) as an issue. Theres a non-zero chance you may get the 50mm objective to fit with low mount, which would be ideal, else you'll need to go for medium mounts. It's not that diffucult to measure out, if you have a vernier and the data sheets of the mounts.

[wlm]

My 2 cents worth. Optilock or Lynx's version is fine.
I do think that heavier scopes need sturdier mounting system like picatinny rail and broad rings.
This is not facts, only my opinion.
I think the weight can create more momentum during recoil with a possible shift.

[Heath Robinson]

In my opinion scope mounting height depends on rifle use and stock design.

For a walk-and-stalk hunting rifle with a tradionally-shaped stock, lower is better as it improves "pointability" and balance. However mounting the scope higher on a stock that also allows moving the cheek and but higher results in a rifle in which it is much easier to spot impacts from more stable shooting positions.

[Pirate]

... results in a rifle in which it is much easier to spot impacts from more stable shooting positions.

Hoe bedoel meneer nou...?

[Heath Robinson]

There is less muzzle rize the closer the barrel centreline is to the point of contact between rifle and shoulder.

[Pirate]

There is less muzzle rize the closer the barrel centreline is to the point of contact between rifle and shoulder.

Ah... I misread the bit before the part I quoted. I thought you meant the higher placement of the scope above the bore in itself helped with easier spotting of shots.

[Againstthegrains]

I'm a big fan of going for the most stable system you can find. On a hunting rifle with lots of walking, bumpy bakkie rides etc, the scope can get knocked out easily. It happens often, the bullet doesn't go where you aimed on the animal, so you go back to the range when you get home and have that light bulb moment, when you realize that its not your poor shooting, but the fact that your scope is out and then you remember your rifle tippling over, hitting a bump etc half way through the hunt.

I'm also a big fan of bedding the mounts to the action. Who ever perpetrated that myth that you mustn't bed or use locktite is smoking their socks. My rails and mounts on all my rifles have come loose at this point over time, until I bedded them properly.

[BBCT]

My 2 cents worth. Optilock or Lynx's version is fine.
I do think that heavier scopes need sturdier mounting system like picatinny rail and broad rings.
This is not facts, only my opinion.
I think the weight can create more momentum during recoil with a possible shift.

Exact ditto!