Premier Heritage scopes & low scope ring issue


Active Member
Feb 12, 2010
Premier Heritage scopes & low scope ring issue w/pics

I just ordered up some 0.825" high scope rings from Murphy Precision and a minor issue has come up. If anyone is familiar with the Premier Heritage scopes they will notice that under the turret the scope tube body has a rounded "bulge" built into the tube. I guess it has something to do with the way the reticles need space to move up and down and side to side inside the scope, I don't know for sure. Well with that low a scope ring height the bulge hits the picatinny base by just a tiny bit. So Murphy Precision is going to mill the middle 3 teeth of picatinny base by about 50 thousanths so the scope clears the base. It will not affect the strength of the base at all. So if you are a purchaser of new Premier scope and happen to go with that low of a ring height be aware that you may have to mill the base a hairs breath to get clearance.

This should not be an issue for higher scope rings like a 1" and probably not even a 0.875 or .92 offered in other brands but be aware that this may be an issue for the lower height variaties.

I'm still glad to be going with the lower ring height, at least I hope so since I have yet to mount it and shoot it.

Hope this helps any Premier owners out there.

here are are some pics of the Murphy Precision picatinny base and rings in Titanium (0.825 ring height). I chose to go with stainless with a dark gun coat finish.




"the best sound of hunting season is the freezer door closing"
author: Wyomatoes
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2008
Going through the exact same issue with my Hart built 30 Hart rifle with a PR 3X15 Heritage scope on it.
I took a long range shooting class last weekend and the instructor noticed right off the bat that my stock didn't fit me well. He said part of the issue was the larger 34mm scope which obviously causes the scope to set up higher than most.

Part of the fix is to raise my head on the butt with a stock pack or other similar option but he provided that the "best" fix is to get the scope lower.

I have the Seekins bases and .092 rings which keep my scope objective about .244 inches off of the barrel. Problem as noted is 1) hard to find low rings for the 34mm scopes, and 2) the bottom of the Premier Reticles scopes have the aforementioned bulge.

I found the Murphy Precision rings to be the lowest possible and Cameron also offered to lower my rails a bit to acommodate the rings if I decide to go that route.
My immediate question is whether the cost and effort is worthwhile for a 1/10" savings? I guess every little bit helps but am I nuts to consider this small of a fix for the couple hundred bucks it'll cost me? I'll still have to apply a stock pad of some nature. (My stock is a McMillan Lazzeroni so the adjustable plastic check piece really isn't one of my options I don't think because of the very high comb.)

Second question I have is does anyone know if the rails themselves vary in height? If for instance, there is a lower rail than the Seekins, then I would also saveheight there too. I just don't know if the rails are an industry standard in thickness.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks, Havingfun