Thread: Length of Pull / Eye Relief

Hi all,

I'm after some input from the brains trust here...

Finally got around to putting some decent range time in behind my hunting rifle and found it quite difficult to get a comfortable shooting position behind it. It feels like the scope needs to bought back and ideally lowered.

I realise it's all personal fit/preference etc, but how do these measurements look? I'd be interested to hear the measurement from the rifle butt to the scope ocular of others.

The scope can't be shifted back any further with the current rings as the objective bell begins just forward of the front ring.

Does anyone know of cantilevered rings that would shift it back and down? Action has a Rem 700 footprint. I'd prefer direct mounts over a rail & not to use a stock pack.

Let's hear it from the collective brains trust...

Cheers.

Some sort of weaver / picatinny base and ring set up would put it back a tad. There is a post online with ring base heights. Do a google search. I saved it down to a word file.

Originally Posted by Kiwi.bloke

Some sort of weaver / picatinny base and ring set up would put it back a tad. There is a post online with ring base heights. Do a google search. I saved it down to a word file.

Also check the bolt, can the scope go lower without hitting it and the scope the barrel?

My scopes tend to be mounted a bit further back than what you have there.
The distance from butt to trigger is about 350mm (10mm shorter than you) but the scope is 250mm from the butt, so about 2" closer.

Unfortunately you are going to need to compromise somewhere as the current scope/ring setup gives you almost no room for adjsutment, a common issue with long action rifles without rails.

Basically you will need a rail or a different scope with more mounting space but I'd say that Leupold is probably better than most.
I'd get a picatinny rail and some low rings, it shouldn't end up much higher or heavier than your current setup, but it looks as though taller rings may be required anyway if you end up pulling your scope back, as the objective bell will be getting close to the barrel.

I find I always need a cheek riser, even with a small objective scope mounted as low as possible. All my Tikkas with factory stocks I've ended up installing a cheek riser.
Whether you need a cheek riser depends a lot on your face structure, I've used some peoples rifles and can't even look through the scope because the cheek piece is so high.

You won’t be able to move the scope down much, the front objective is close to the barrel already. I think a cheek riser and possibly shortening the stock are the way to go.

You need to get it right or you will never be happy with the rifle and this will effect accuracy. My sister went through similar problems but ended up with a more long range/ varmint style stock with high cheek weld and now she shoots light out.

You might get away with lower talleys rings. I did on rem 700 vx5 combo but had to trim the rear mount to clear the magnificent adjustment ring.

I think Stug is right and your best options without changing scope is a cheek riser and shortening the stock.

Get a padded stock ammo carrier like this to raise your cheek rather than lower rings, they're about $40. You can increase the height with foam plastic if you need. As to eye relief shooting prone puts your eye closer to the scope sitting or standing and it's further away so you tend to strike a balance between the two. It's better to have to crane your neck slightly forward than to have to pull your head back.

Originally Posted by stug

You won’t be able to move the scope down much, the front objective is close to the barrel already. I think a cheek riser and possibly shortening the stock are the way to go.

Shortening the stock seems to be a bit dramatic compared to getting a pic rail and new rings?

Most of my scopes are setup with the eye piece 280mm from the butt.
But everyone's eyes and scopes are different.
It's all about setting it up to what's comfortable and getting rid of that fuzzy bit around the image.
Basically when the rifle comes up and the cheek come to rest, the view should be crisp without having to juggle your head.
Have a look at the front ring mount on this Schultz and Larsen. I don't know if these mounts are specific to S&L, but something like this might gain you 20mm. Contact the Schultz and Larsen (and Weihrauch) agency, they might be able to help.

Originally Posted by Beetroot

My scopes tend to be mounted a bit further back than what you have there.
The distance from butt to trigger is about 350mm (10mm shorter than you) but the scope is 250mm from the butt, so about 2" closer.

Unfortunately you are going to need to compromise somewhere as the current scope/ring setup gives you almost no room for adjsutment, a common issue with long action rifles without rails.

Basically you will need a rail or a different scope with more mounting space but I'd say that Leupold is probably better than most.
I'd get a picatinny rail and some low rings, it shouldn't end up much higher or heavier than your current setup, but it looks as though taller rings may be required anyway if you end up pulling your scope back, as the objective bell will be getting close to the barrel.

I find I always need a cheek riser, even with a small objective scope mounted as low as possible. All my Tikkas with factory stocks I've ended up installing a cheek riser.
Whether you need a cheek riser depends a lot on your face structure, I've used some peoples rifles and can't even look through the scope because the cheek piece is so high.

Yes, 2" is a significant difference and I think that is why I was struggling with it.

Lifting the comb with a cheek pack would be easy enough, it's pulling the scope back which is my main goal.

I didn't really appreciate that about long actions until now.

Thanks

Originally Posted by stug

You won’t be able to move the scope down much, the front objective is close to the barrel already. I think a cheek riser and possibly shortening the stock are the way to go.

Thanks for your input Stug. I've got one of your stocks on my T3 284. Love it!

Originally Posted by Beetroot

Shortening the stock seems to be a bit dramatic compared to getting a pic rail and new rings?

True. The LOP isn't so much the issue, as getting the scope back a bit.

Originally Posted by Hugh Shields

Most of my scopes are setup with the eye piece 280mm from the butt.
But everyone's eyes and scopes are different.
It's all about setting it up to what's comfortable and getting rid of that fuzzy bit around the image.
Basically when the rifle comes up and the cheek come to rest, the view should be crisp without having to juggle your head.
Have a look at the front ring mount on this Schultz and Larsen. I don't know if these mounts are specific to S&L, but something like this might gain you 20mm. Contact the Schultz and Larsen (and Weihrauch) agency, they might be able to help.Attachment 249796

280mm. Thanks for taking the time to measure that for me. Quite a bit less than what I've got.

A cantilevered front ring might work provided the objective doesn't hit the barrel & bolt throw doesn't hit the other end.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Feebz

280mm. Thanks for taking the time to measure that for me. Quite a bit less than what I've got.

A cantilevered front ring might work provided the objective doesn't hit the barrel & bolt throw doesn't hit the other end.

Cheers

Unfortunately I don't think such rings exist. The only common cantilever mounts are made for pic rails.

Originally Posted by Feebz

Yes, 2" is a significant difference and I think that is why I was struggling with it.

Lifting the comb with a cheek pack would be easy enough, it's pulling the scope back which is my main goal.

I didn't really appreciate that about long actions until now.

Thanks

Yeah its definitely a problem with Remington style long actions.

I ended up moving everything to picatinny rails years ago and have no regrets. Even on short actions or Tikka tye set ups you can run into problems.

I would also run unto issues with the bolt handle hitting the scope and the mag ring fouling on the rings hen trying to mount too low.

So I tend to just go medium (1") rings, pic rail and cheek riser on everything these days.