Scope ring height difference

[Firedad]

I assume going from one extreme to the other there would definitely be a difference in sight picture but would it be noticeable going from 1.1" to .92"? I was excited to get shooting so I bought medium height rings knowing if they didn't work out I could return them and order lows. Regardless whether mediums work or not, would I notice a difference if I went to lows?

 

[WeiserBucks]

Yes, check weld and head placement matters as part of your overall fundamentals.

 

[Mark37082]

I prefer to go as low as possible as long as there is no interference (contact) with the barrel or base. As WeiserBucks mentioned above, cheek weld and head placement matters. Sometimes going too low can limit your ability to move the scope far enough rearward to achieve optimal eye relief.

 

[Firedad]

I do understand all of that. I know better to search the topic but what isn't clear is would there actually be a noticeable difference from 1.1 and .92?

 

[3chester]

.18 of an inch just bit less than 3/16ths, but keepR low if possible. It just looks and works better usually but, not sure what ya got for a cheekpiece or objective clearance there ,so

 

[Huntnpack]

""This"". ^^^^
Probably won't make much of a difference,
Depends if your current cheek weld is lightly touching or hammered in to the stock.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I do understand all of that. I know better to search the topic but what isn't clear is would there actually be a noticeable difference from 1.1 and .92?

The answer is yes, as has been stated in several replies in this thread.

 

[3chester]

Close your eyes, mount the rifle like to shoot. Open the eyes, If your eye lines up and have a firm cheek weld, those might be the rings.

 

[Firedad]

Thank you I'll do that

 

[Hand Skills]

For me, it really depends on the stock or chassis.

A typical 'sporter' style stock has some drop at the comb (cheekrest) and heel (recoil pad). This is why 'mount the scope as low as possible' became rhetoric.

Some chassis just come straight back, and I definitely prefer 1.1's over .92's on these setups, even if the scope will clear on .87's.

It's a matter of personal preference, that's my opinion - might be different for others, but I certainly notice the .090 difference.

Too high is better than too low...

 

[FEENIX]

For me, it really depends on the stock or chassis.

A typical 'sporter' style stock has some drop at the comb (cheekrest) and heel (recoil pad). This is why 'mount the scope as low as possible' became rhetoric.

Some chassis just come straight back, and I definitely prefer 1.1's over .92's on these setups, even if the scope will clear on .87's.

It's a matter of personal preference, that's my opinion - might be different for others, but I certainly notice the .090 difference.

Too high is better than too low...

This! I had some low rings (.885") for my latest custom build. However, because my stock has a carbon guard over the barrel, I cannot use it. Medium (1.000") is still too low so I ended up with high (1.250"). Luckily, I have an adjustable cheek riser.

 

[3chester]

Little more Beech-Nut , takes up the slack.

 

[std7mag]

Bear in mind, you can get almost that much difference in height between different brands of low rings.
Or different brands of medium rings.