Done

[COSteve]

Done

[Mescalero]

You got it right Steve.
5 years of shooting .458 Win Mag. in a concrete tunnel affirms it.

[M. M. Wright]

You're correct Steve. I had been a shooter many years before the army and I shot the Garand during basic. As you know the aperture in it's rear sight is very small unless you get that head well forward. Correct position will put your thumb in contact with just under your eye, in fact if you will just not wrap your thumb around the wrist you will not have a "strawberry" from rubbing your cheek during recoil. Tang sights require this hold too and a couple of my shooters tap my glasses under recoil. My BLRs have the scope so far forward that the bell makes getting your thumb on the hammer difficult but that's where they belong for proper head position so that's where they are going to stay. Probly need to use one of those offset hammer extensions but think they look sorta "wrong".

[AJMD429]

Folks say I'm a "stock crawler" (and all sorts of other things ), but I agree with you.

I'll bet some of those new shooters are standing with their feet nearly parallel to the barrel, whereas when I shoot I'm facing off to the side about 70 degrees.

[Blaine]

I like yours. I don't like to uncomfortably crawl the stock to get the best field of view. I like the scout configuration on my 1895GS, and I think I'll use it on the new Ruger GunSite rifle (I can do either on that one)

[Old Savage]

Well Steve. I firmly disagree. The position you discuss may or may not be the best for any particular individual depending on body build, experience, condition of the body (particularly shoulders and cervical spine) and the eyes. It would not work for me though I can shoot heavy rifles from a bench and shoot accurately. I require a more neutral position. You can probably pick any style and find adherents that will swear to it but that only demonstrates that they do well with it. Doesn't prove it is all around better or better for any particular individual. I learned what is best for me by experimentation and natural inclination. Tall guys seem to like to crawl the stock I have noticed. I watched an old man who weighed about 150 lbs shoot his 458 - he sat at about the angle AJ describes.

I agree with your observations that new shooters often tend to have the head too far back and often unnaturally tilted or cocked.

[InTheWoods]

I think it depends a lot on body shape, and one rule doesn't apply to all. I tend to mount my scopes further back than some folks, but it seems (to me) that I am reaching as far forward with my head/neck as I can. I am certainly not shooting in an erect position. I am tall, lean, have somewhat forward sloping shoulders (could be the problem). I shoot a lot of shotgun, and like to mount my shotguns and rifles the same way. When adjusting the position of a rifle scope, I close my eyes and pretend I am mounting my 20 gauge on a flushing quail. This also results in my generally mounting scopes as close to the bore a possible.

One size doesn't fit all. I think forcing the one-size concept will result in very poor shooting by some folks trying to do the 'right thing.'

[Pisgah]

Your positioning is correct -- but not necessarily correct for everyone. Whatever your head position, it needs to be one you can assume quickly, naturally, and comfortably. I tend to use your position; my hunting buddy, with his mildly arthritic cervical spine, finds it sharply painful. His is an extreme case; for others, it might only be awkward. When training a novice, I teach the more forward position, but if the student has a problem with it we adapt as needed.

[El Chivo]

Mine are more like #2, the idea for me is to find the sweet spot without lunging forward. I want to find a place that is repeatable against the stock, then when I look forward the scope is in the right place. As you know, with parallax, if you get a little off to one side you will get the aiming error. None of mine are heavy recoilers.

[Catshooter]

I think you're probably right Steve, but all my scopes are "Scout" mounted so what do I know?

I do know that it's just plain child-abuse for you to post a pic of that spectacular 88 though. That I do know.


Cat

[Old Savage]

Well here is what I've got - some form is pretty common at our ages. I have taken more than 30,000 of these on thousands of people and seen many more done by others in the last 35 years. Most of you, not having been kept in a violin case probably have some form or degree. May well affect what works best for you.

[COSteve]

Done

[COSteve]

Done

[Jayhawker]

Mine tend to be mounted pretty far back but then, I'm short (~5'6" with comparable arm length). What works for me, sure doesn't work for Junior, who at over 6' can't shoot my rifles without sliding the scope forward which is why he has only a few options when it comes to shooting my rifles.

[Chuck 100 yd]

Steve. I agree with you to a point.
I mount scopes as you do unless that rifle is going to be used while wearing heavy
winter clothing while hunting.
I find I can manage to shoot well in the summer with my scope set back 1/2"
or so from the optimal position to be sure I will get a full field of view in the scope
when I am bound up with a heavy coat and gloves on.
Good thread!

[stepmac]

Deleted

[FWiedner]

I probably agree with most of what anyone has said but will confess that I read littel of the above because I find descriptions of such things tedious.

I mount all of my scopes in the position they will need to be in for off-hand shooting, which is the position I take 99% of my field shots from.

If I find myself in a situation where I'll be shooting from another position, I put my head where I get the best sight picture using whatever sights are mounted on the gun I am using.

[Old Savage]

Well goody, goody for you then stepmac - now back to the scope discussion.

COS - "a decent, balanced shooting position" - "My point was what you mentioned, that shooter needs to be in a balanced position rather than strained with their head way back." or forward - I interpreted what you said as straining forward which takes the slack out of the joints then slams them with the force. I agree with the goal of the quotes. I don't see it as the best way to get there as in - this is the way it should be done. I have new shooters relax their head forward, mount the rifle to the shoulder with the weight more on the front foot looking toward the target.





But after all that - looks like my scope positions are about where yours are .

[Mescalero]

Yes OS'
and they are both lower power FIXED power scopes
which is really the heart of the problem,
You can NOT buy a scope like that today

[Chuck 100 yd]

I like low powered variables. They are great units or they would not be as popular as they are
Buy one of them and fix the power ring with electricians if you don`t want the option of variability.

[Mescalero]

Chuck 100 yard
I am not picking on you.
But that is also the problem, because, even if you leave it one place, you are still paying for stuff you do not need, cams, lenses , lock rings, etc.
Not to mention the extra weight that is not needed/utilized.
And I have yet to see a serious discussion about lens drift anywhere in print.
But you ARE experiencing it.
Trust me.
I hate variables.
I made them.
I know.

[Old Savage]

Mesc - ain't it the truth. 4x and down Steel Lite IIs are great.

[J Miller]

I have but one rifle that has a scope. My Marlin MR-7. It came with a 3x9 on it and when I'd shoulder the rifle I had to hunt with my eyes to find the cross hairs and keep a good sight picture. I felt as if I was straining to get my head close enough to the scope.
I tried to move the scope back but it was butted against front ring already.
So I bought one of those off set bases and moved the scope back. That made it work better, but then I was paranoid about getting an eye brow full of scope.

I still have not fired the rifle with the scope on it. So I'm just relating what I've felt with the rifle.

And OS, I suspect if you x-rayed my neck you'd find some pretty bad discs and things in there.
I find that I can't crawl the stock as I used to and it's making my rifle shooting kind of difficult.

Joe

[Mescalero]

Joe,
I bet that 3x-9x has you lifting your cheek way off the stock trying to find the crosshairs.
Larger the objective gets, the higher the centerline of the scope.

[Rusty]

I think Stepmac has it right from a pure hunting standpoint, but most people just plain don't know how to use a scope. I knew a fellow growing up that was a pure hunter. He hunted with A M99 in .3 Savage. He told me one that too many people want everything to be perfect or they won't fire.
With the scopes I've mounted I find that the hardware only aows for so much lee way. I was told by some Ruger number 1 fans to use a Leupold scope because at the time they offered more distance than any other makers and on a number 1 you need it.

BTW Steve at the time you were in did they ever teach you vuys the quick kill/skill method?

[Mescalero]

Rusty,
I am 60
I think quick/kill was a product of my draft eligible class.

[86er]

I strongly disagree with the concepts described aforementioned. For a field rifle, you lift both hands together to your cheek and pull it back into your shoulder. You then press your cheek down on the stock. That is a proper gun mount. Then, if you are adjusting the scope you bring it back until the shooter has a full field of view. If in its rearward most position the scope does not offer a full field of view there are two options. One is to see if an extended base or another scope in combo will give the right picture. However this is with the scope centered in the rings like it is supposed to be. If different bases or scope cannot be centered in the rings and offer a full field of view it is time to address the length of pull. If you need to be closer to the lens for full FOV you cut the stock. If you need to move away from the eyepiece to get full FOV you use a spacer, pad or stock extension. To exaggerate an example of this, my son is 50" tall and 55 pounds. He can put my rifle stock in his shoulder and contort himself to see a full field of view. His shoulders are out of alignment, his neck is cocked and hyperextended. His chin is down. However he can see a Full FOV. So, should he shoot the rifle like this? Now, cut 3.5" off the stock length. The scope is properly centered in the rings and hasn't been touched. It is sighted in. When my son can put the rifle to his cheek, pull it tight to his shoulder and apply cheek pressure to the stock he also has a full FOV. His body is in a normal, relaxed position. Some rifles will not balance with these measurements so we now have to balance it. Knowing this in advance we should have started with a shorter barrel or lighter frontal mass to ease the balancing act. Ricky is about 6 or 7 inches taller than me. If he shoots my rifle he is too close to the scope to get a full FOV. The solution is to lengthen the stock, not move the scope. Stock crawling and these other than natural shooting positions are the result of poor stock fit and should be thusly addressed, not moving the scope to try to compensate for poor stock fit. I know plenty of rifle shooter don't want to "alter" the rifle. That's the difference between a collectible ( to you) and a working rifle. You cannot set up the rifle and scope the way they were designed and's shoot from field positions in a natural comfortable manner if the stock doesn't fit. Get another stock for field use, or make the rifle fit so it can be used in the field properly and don't fret about the value. Those dynamics change a little bit if you are just bench rest shooting. But, even competition target rifles and long range rifles with or without optics have adjustable combs, lengths of pull and often grips and foregrips. You center and balance the sights or optics, then you adjust the rifle so the sights are proper for you to ahieve full FOV then you adjust the sights to hit where you want.

[J Miller]

Joe,
I bet that 3x-9x has you lifting your cheek way off the stock trying to find the crosshairs.
Larger the objective gets, the higher the centerline of the scope.

Mescalero,

I would not be surprised if you are correct. I am not a scope user so I'm not sure how to fit it.
I do know that with the iron sights the rifle fits me fine.

Joe

[Mescalero]

Did'nt some jake leg gunsmith hose that up for you?

[COSteve]

Done

[J Miller]

Did'nt some jake leg gunsmith hose that up for you?

Two such "gunsmiths" have messed with this rifle. The last one actually got the iron sights closer to TDC but quit before he got them there. They're close enough to TDC to shoot the rifle but someday I'd like to get them where they belong.

The scope mounts, bases are (with the exception of the extended one) the same ones that were on it when I got it.

Joe

[Chuck 100 yd]

Mescalero and guys, Good discussion here and it is impossible to get everyone to
agree on such a simple thing as this. Life in Deer camp around the fire would be dull if we all did agree.

Variables do have all the issues you say... So I should buy an old steel Weaver 4X, remove the turret
and epoxy the erector tube solid and install adjustable mounts like some of the benchrest guys do?

Any error that the scope may add to my lever action hunting rifle will be minor at the 40 yard
average distance deer are killed at in my area. More important to me is the option to go from say,
2X to 7X to get a better look at that deer I may see at longer distance.

Have fun!!

[Mescalero]

Drift becomes a factor at long range, at 40 yards, don't pay any attention to me

[Lastmohecken]

I favor iron sights on tradition Winchesters, but on bolt actions and other rifles that take scopes well, I usually choose a nice Leupold 2 x 7 variable. Left on 2x it's as fast or faster then irons, but can be cranked up to 7 when time allows for best target evaluation and precision.

On the scope placement issue, I like my scopes a far foward as I can confortably use them, but my body type, thick shoulders, and somewhat short neck usually demands that I slide my scopes back often on the short scopes nowdays that means pushing the scope all of the way back to the bell on foward ring.

Yes, proper form dictates crawling the stock some, but for many that is not very far, and one also needs to allow for heavy winter coats, etc if he ever needs to hunt in that kind of weather. You can always pull your head back a little if shooting in your shirt sleeves. This is one reason and the main reason I usually buy Leupolds. Because they have a more generous eye relief window where a full field of view is available. Sometimes I will cut stocks off as much as 3/8 to 1/2 inch on some guns to find the sweet spot. I want all of my rifles to shoulder like my best side by side double bird gun so I can get off a shot quickly from about any position.

Kissing the charging handle on an AR 15 is fine, and pretty much the way I do it, which is one reason I like the collapable stocks, but that is the wrong thing to do on a major caliber rifle, because you will likely end up with a busted lip from the recoil. While I have never suffered from scope eyebrow, I know others that have on hard kickers, so everything needs to be in balance. I do remember I busted my lip one time as a kid, when I squated down to fire an old 12 ga single barrel at a crow, and I guess the position put my thumb too close to my lip, and the recoil got me good.

[COSteve]

Done

[Old Savage]

Scopes can certainly be too low for me with some stocks.

[Lastmohecken]

Scopes can certainly be too low for me with some stocks.

That's true, and someone mentioned the bell crowding the hammer on a BLR. I never go lower then medium height rings on the BLR's which gives me the room I need, but it's still pretty close.