Lowest Rings?

[Earle]

Happy Family Day to all, (if you're Canadian) Need some advice regarding rings for a Brno 602, 375HH. I am mounting a Leupold 2.5-8x36 scope and want as low as possible. My choices are Leupold, Warne and Burris, all medium rings. Because of Covid, i have to order on-line and wonder if anyone knows which rings would give me the lowest mount for the above scope. Mail delivery disruptions are such that returning the wrong ones will lead to more aggravation and waiting than i already face. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

 

[R.M.C.]

I'm kinda in the same boat putting a Leupold on a .375. The gun itself is stuck in some mail room in TX so I'm just hanging out waiting for it to get here. I ended up ordering Warne rings in low, med, and high and plan to send back the rings that too high. Kind of a pain in the ass but the mail and everything is so slow I figured I'd get them on the way. Now the rifles gonna be delayed but I will be ready when it gets here. I would think you could get away with low rings for a 36 mm scope. Good luck!!

 

[Rimshot]

You know that they make "Low" and sometimes "Super Low" rings right?
Unless someone has this exact combination, you'll need to do some calculating if you don't want to play the mailing back and forth game.
The surest way to do this is to lay the gun and scope out, take some measurements. Then look up the specs on base and ring height, and pick the minimum that gets your scope enough clearance .

 

[Earle]

I have done a lot of looking at on-line sites and can't find any CZ compatible rings that are rated as "low". Hence the question about height regarding the medium rings. Even the Alaska Arms offerings are all medium and high. I'm thinking maybe the bolt clearance on the 602s is such that low rings won't work. Just trying to figure it out before entering the delivery lotto.
It doesn't help that i,m still waiting for the scope to be returned from warrant work at Leupold. It's only been 9 wks. LOL

 

[Nevada Mike]

Have you looked at Talley rings?

 

[Earle]

Truth be told, i never even thot of Talley,s but after checking their website, they may just be the ticket. Need to find a Canadian distributor as I can't source directly from the U.S. Many thanks for the suggestion.

Have you looked at Talley rings?

 

[mark-hunter]

Is it possible to send email to scope rings maker, and ask for advice for this specific optics?
Then to order what is necessary, without guessing?

 

[C.W. Richter]

I have done a lot of looking at on-line sites and can't find any CZ compatible rings that are rated as "low". Hence the question about height regarding the medium rings. Even the Alaska Arms offerings are all medium and high. I'm thinking maybe the bolt clearance on the 602s is such that low rings won't work. Just trying to figure it out before entering the delivery lotto.
It doesn't help that i,m still waiting for the scope to be returned from warrant work at Leupold. It's only been 9 wks. LOL

Manufacturers provide that sort of information for instance I know that talley low rings are 0.3 in above the base. Just send them a friendly email and you will get the answers you seek.

 

[curtism1234]

If you plan on keeping the iron sights (particularly the hood), I wouldn't even think about ring height less than medium. My feeling is buy both medium and high from a merchant with a decent return policy.

 

[C.W. Richter]

If you plan on keeping the iron sights (particularly the hood), I wouldn't even think about ring height less than medium. My feeling is buy both medium and high from a merchant with a decent return policy.

A great point raised although low mounts would work fine on my 416 I opted to get high rings as not to interfere with the front sight Hood.. obviously using quick disconnect mounts.

 

[mark-hunter]

If you plan on keeping the iron sights (particularly the hood), I wouldn't even think about ring height less than medium.

Why?
In my experience, this does not effect vision of the scope.

 

[Scott CWO]

The lower the better.

 

[curtism1234]

I've always been distracted by the blur of the front sight in the bottom of the scope. Imo, way too much emphasis is put on low rings. If you are trying to hit golf balls at 400 yards, sure. If you are trying to hit pie plates at 200 yards, it doesn't matter. I've never been able to tell the difference between low and extra high on either a straight stock or cheek piece. Know your gun and you will adjust yourself automatically imo

 

[Wyatt Smith]

With my VX6 I can see the blur of the rear sight on 1 power. The rest of the barrel is very visible. It doesn’t bother me at all.

 

[C.W. Richter]

Yes-ring height is a non-issue on a primarily <100 yd gun (sometimes 200 w/ a 416, maybe 300 w/ a 375 on plains game.) Only if it's exceedingly high (not in-line with your eye, etc.) will there be issues. Talley's are interesting in that you can have different heights within each ring size, as they additionally offer different base heights (not applicable on the CZ integral "buttes.") They are far more adjustable than most. I did NOT want to see the front sight/hood as a blur on 1-2.5 power with a hit buff, elephant, lion or leopard running at me, so I opted for the high rings (and the gun shot just as accurately.) *I'd approve of the blur for rhino.

 

[Nevada Mike]

If you have iron sights (every DG rifle should have irons) then the lowest possible scope mount results in less compromise due to the variance between the scope line of sight and the line of sight for the irons. This is important.

I have a rifle with a S&B Summit 2.5-10 X 40 scope that I had fitted with Talley QD rings and the line of sight for the scope was a bit high for the height of the comb. I changed the rings to low, non-QD rings on the same Talley mount and this dropped the line of sight by 1/4". Much better.

 

[fourfive8]

@Earle, it might depend on the particular stock on your 602. I have a 602 375 HH with the humpback style. It is definitely best suited for iron sights. It is going to be a compromise no matter what you do with scope and irons sights. I used some of the simplest mounts on mine and they work well with the scope I have- a scope very similar in dimensions and eye relief to your 2.5-8x36. I used the Leupold Medium ring-base mounts. Simple and strong design- always my preference for these type mounts. I added a padded leather cheek piece to the stock to slightly raise the cheek weld. That added maybe 1/4"- 3/8" height and seems about as close as I can come to putting my eye line in the right place with the Medium Leupold mounts. The other not-so-trival matter, especially for a DG scope mount, is the question of clearance for ejection/loading and bolt operation. I am pretty sure if I lowered the scope very much it would be too low and tight for my taste for unrestricted bolt operation.

Here's a pic of my set up. The pic shows the excellent port clearance and at the same time shows a mount that "seems" too tall. In most cases I prefer a slightly lower mount but because of the bolt design/geometry it seems necessary for adequate bolt clearance, especially on a DG rifle, IMO. Lots of ways to "skin a cat"... this is the one I used on a comparable set up. I may yet fiddle with the mount height in the future but for now this seems to work well. But if I tweak the height lower, it will be minimal and certainly not down to where the objective bell barely clears the barrel.

Oh and if I'm reading the confusing specs right for each, I'd guess the Medium Warne is just a skosh lower than the Medium Leupold. Don't hold me to it- just my best interpretation of their spec sheets.

 

[Earle]

I went ahead and ordered the med Warnes. My 602 has the American style stock, so i should be okay. I have a 1.5-5x20 Leupold on my 416, so while i'm waiting for the 2.5-8x36 to come back from Leupold, going to mount the smaller scope on the 602 and see how it works. May wind up getting a second 1.5-5x8 and if the Warne rings work, may order the Alaska Arms QDs as they are within .025" height of the Warnes. Lot of guess work without all the pieces together.

 

[fourfive8]

Have read about the advantages of the teeter-totter split ring but I'm not convinced. I think some of the "popularity" has to do with the vertical split being a trendy "thing".

If I am reading the specs correctly, the Leupold lists their CZ ring mount for the CZ 550/BRNO 602 Medium height as 1.000". I assume measured from the bottom flat to the center of ring which would equal .500" of ring height- measured normally. The Warne site has a graphic of their ring mount that shows the Medium height measurement as .425". That is a difference of .075". As far as I can tell, Leupold and Warne only offer these mounts in Medium or High. I have no info about the AA QD mounts.

 

[Earle]

The Alaska Arms medium QDs are listed ad .400" high, so actually a tad lower than the Warne rings. Going to try them when i get the 2.5-8 Leupold back, someday. LOL