>I had a few pretty good questions posted by a customer the other day I thought I would share with you folks:
“I am the poster child of novice and I seek your sage advice for my situation or set up. Rifle: Remington model 700 sps, 7mm mag (almost positive it is long action, not an a bolt). Has 4 mounting screws. Scope: Leupold VX-III 4.5-14x40mm long range model 55275 30mm tube. Purchased thru Optics Planet (satisfied customer RE price and delivery of scope and the services-advice of this forum).
Now on to my newbie questions: With regard to scope-base & Rings. I fed the above specs to the Leupold Mount Selector page (link supplied by this forum, thanks Steve L; I think you posted said link).
The results are as follows: Bases Rings STD – 700 (2 pieces) STD 30mm – Low Matte: part # 50016 Matte: part # 51718 STD-700 Long Range RH-LA (1 piece) STD 30mm – Low Matte: part # 51732 Matte: part # 51718 (same as above rings) STD-700 RH-LA (1 piece) same rings as above Matte: part # 50004 STD-700 RVF (2 pieces) same rings as above Matte: part # 50018 DD-700 (2 pieces) DD 30mm – Low matte: part # 50042 matte: part # 52254 DD-700 RVF (2 pieces) DD 30mm – Low matte: Part # 50044 Matte: part # 52242
The mount selector also listed some QR pairings of bases and rings but I am leary of the Quick Release bases and rings regarding stability and loss of ‘zero’. Agian though, I am novice; are these concerns un founded?
I recognize the RH-LA to stand for Right Handed-Long Action. I recognize DD to represent double dove tail.
I have no idea what RVF stands for.
At the end of the Mount Selector results was the statement that Max ring spacing was 5.9″. I am assuming (yes I know what ‘assuming’ might get me so I thougt it prudent to ask also) that 5.9″ is the distance between the forward and rear rings?
As stated earlier, my objective lense is 40mm. The Mount Selector recommends low-rings across the board. Does this seem right? Should I consider medium heigth, and if so what are the downside to going from low to medium?
I have also read on this very forum that I need not be concerned with one piece vs two piece with regard to stability. In fact, two piece bases tend to allow for greater ease with clearance and loading. Is that correct?
Should I go with a steel base as opposed to aluminum because there is some recoil from the magnum cartriges; or are the steel bases designed for heavier recoil than the 7mm mag (ie super mag or the really big dangerous game cartriges)?
I am guessing that any of the above Leupold rings will suffice for my situation as long as they are properly paired with the base per the mount selector results. I have been advised to have the scope mounted as far forward as possible due to recoil. The eye relief on the low end of the 4.5-14 is about 4.5″ and about 3.5″ high end (which I really don’t intend to scope to 14 very often). LAPPING THE RINGS. I am going to bring the rifle to a local smith to mount the scope and bore site it. I will ask that he lap the rings for me or is it not necassary with Leupold rings? LASTLY (yes, this wind storm is almost over.
I would like to thank every one who suffered to endure my newbie question rampage) I would like to get some lense covers. I read in the forum that the Optics Planet carries the Leupold aluminum flip back covers for my particular scope (part # 59045 objective lense and part # 59055 for the opticle lense). My question is this: Are the covers flush with the scope; do I need to be concerned with bolt clearance for the cover on the opticle lense? Any input would be greatly appriciated. As you can tell, I did just fall off the turnip truck.”
My answer was as follows:
You’re doing a great job and have good questions. One at a time. RVF is reversible front. Not an issue with your particular system. On some scopes and guns you’ll need the extra 1/2 inch or so it will offer you. Not as clean looking as the standard base, but just as strong.
I prefer steel on my hard use guns, and I rarely have use for any QR rings. I’m not going to remove it for cleaning or transport or swapping or….
Your 5.9″ spacing assumption is correct.
I would recommend low rings. The only issue you may have is with slip-over caps such as Butler Creek, and where the exact position of the scope is when placed for your eye. I use lows and my caps fit. Mediums are not such a huge issue, but lows are a bit more comfortable for my face size. I use two piece bases on my hunting guns. I like the extra room I get to load from the top, and for ejection, which is rarely an issue. Two piece bases use four screws, and one piece most often use three screws. Strength is not an issue with either one, and on hunting guns it matters zero. You mount the scope for your head position. You never change your head position to fit a scope. If your gunsmith regularly laps rings and it doesn’t cost too much have him do it, more for piece of mind and no scratches on the scope after removal than any other issue. You can certainly forget about him lapping with no ill effects except for maybe a scratch. If he’s mounted hundreds/thousands of scopes he should know when he’s torquing a scope. Takes a person that doesn’t know any better or doesn’t care to put a scope in the rings incorrectly. The Alumina covers fit flush. I mostly don’t use covers unless the weather is bad. They get in my way, and can cause a missed shot or a dead hunter in the case of dangerous game. I mostly use a Butler Creek Bikini for transport and then remove it while in the field, but I always have flip ups somewhere with me, if not on my person. I would choose the 50042 and the 52242. No need for anything fancier or more expensive.
Follow