How low is too low?

[Xs24-7]

I have a Hells Canyon LR, and mounted my Nikon Black 4-16x50.
I had the Browning Xlock low rings mounted on it. The scope does not touch the barrel, but is sitting low enough that the bottom of the objective is sitting into one of the flutes. It isn't touching, but I've heard people saying that barrel whip may cause it to hit? Is this anything I should care about? I'd like to keep it mounted as low as I can.

 

[Canhunter35]

I'd say that's too low. The medium rings should be just right

 

[Mach 1]

I've got about the same problem but left it be and I've never had any problems. I can't see any impact point anywhere. Also barrel whip should not be nearly bad enough to touch the scope especially where the scope it above the barrel. The whip will be more pronounced on down the tube

 

[Bravo 4]

I've seen the Leupolds that contour the barrel (VX-L) but never the opposite!
Gotta put up a picture.
For one- I want to see this.
And two- maybe see how (where) the mounts/rings are holding the scope tube. I wouldn't worry so much about barrel whip, probably not gonna get it that close to the receiver. The scope tube however can flex as well when fired and if you have the rings close in to the turret housing then it may possibly flex more. Just a thought.

 

[Litehiker]

As long as you can use the scope with no "neck bending" problems lower is better. If you could shoot your rifle with iron sights with no problems then a slightly higher scope should be no problem.

(I agree with Mach 1, there is no way your barrel vibration could touch your scope that far back on the barrel.)

This "lower is better" is mainly because your crosshair center is closer to your barrel bore center. The closer these two are the less effect accidental canting will have on your shots. Sometimes we think we miscalculated the wind when we miss left or right but often it's the dreaded rifle cant. That's why most PRS and F class competitors use levels mounted on rifle or scope.

Eric B.