Suggested scope base for lowest height options

[ReLever]

Hi everyone.

By somewhat of an impulse, I became owner of an nice AW357. It had a BB-RSM Scope Mount, and hammer expander mod already in place.
Being as the mount was there, I thought I would clamp a scope to it. While not ideal, I had a Leupold VXR 2-7x33, so 30mm rings were in order. I found a set of Leupold PWR2-Medium.

Everything went fine, kitting the 357 with a scope, but the height of the base/rings, has the combination sitting up there a bit too high. I can get the same rings in "Low", and that will drop it down. Just not by that much.
Looking at the base and rings, the base (IMO) is far too tall. What other options (Skinner?) in -low base- are out there?
Your input would save me some grief.

For visuals

[Rifletom]

Hmm. I have a Leupold VX 1 2-7x33mm shotgun scope with a 1" tube. I also use the Talley integral base/ring set up from the Henry store. Seems to be about the same height as your set up. 30mm tube kind of threw me.
I should have mentioned, that set up is on my Henry BB steel .45 Colt.

[ReLever]

A 1" tube would definitely be more at home. As seen, there is no "natural' cheek-weld due to the height.

[CT_Shooter]

By somewhat of an impulse, I became owner of an nice AW357.

Welcome to the forum from CT and congratulations on your new Henry. Glad you joined us. Skinner Peep Sights are certainly an option. I have one on my BBB .357 and on my H001 Classic. I like them both.

[ReLever]

Welcome to the forum from CT and congratulations on your new Henry. Glad you joined us. Skinner Peep Sights are certainly an option. I have one on my BBB .357 and on my H001 Classic. I like them both.

Thanks. I would not get want the Skinner Peep. The scope base, possibly. For the investment in the Skinner direction, I could have the receiver D&T for a Redfield 70E-T I have on-hand. Right now, a Peep is not a direction I want to go. I'm hoping someone chimes in, with solid "low" methods (without a check rest) of getting my cheekbone on the stock!

[Cofisher]

Look at the weaver 63 scope base. It may fit, it may not. It is definitely low.

[markiver54]

20190128_112850.jpg

Like Rifletom mentioned. My 357 wears the Talley integral mount. The rings are, however for 1 inch tubes.
Scope is a Weaver 1-3 x 20.
Sorry...pic is kinda blurry.

[John E Davies]

Change the rail. The Ranger Point Precision rail is the lowest available for the Big Boy. It is nicer than the Henry version, for sure. ... https://www.rangerpointstore.com/rhino ... ry-rifles/

BTW, there is nothing at all wrong with that 2-7 scope, that is what I have mounted on my BBX, using Warne steel QD rings. Mine is older and has a 1” tube.

John Davies
Spokane WA

[markiver54]

Alrighty then!

[Yornoc3]

Warne also makes a Weaver type base, of steel, that's pretty low. Like you, I like the scope to be as low as possible; the clearance for the hammer usually will be the limiting factor. That being said, fixed power scopes can provide more room, and all variables are not the same, many current models have larger ocular lens/adjustment ring assemblies that require higher rings. And some compact scopes, like the Leupold Ultralight 2.5X, have smaller ocular lens as well. To get 'er lower, sometimes you gotta sacrifice something else .

[Grunt67]

I think this may be misunderstood. I have the Leupold VX Freedom 2X7 also. It has 33mm lenses, not tube. Tube is 1".
I used Warne Maxima bases ( 2 Pc ), Warne Maxima rings, high mount to clear everything, barely did above the buck horns.
FWIW

[ReLever]

Options are everything. I try to stay open minded, thinking levers have been around for such a long time, there has to be several options.
Prior to posting here, I was in the midst of experimenting with ring height. The MED (Leupy) rings were the first test, as seen above. I had a set of Back Country LOW also in mind at the time, which finally arrived. I was a little skeptical, but they did make a noticeable difference. I would still like the height another 1/8"-3/16" if attainable.

The camera is at a slightly different angle, but here are the LOW rings.


I will also be looking into other scope base options mentioned.
Thanks for the additional input.

[JEBar]

looks good to me .... thanks for the update .... looking forward to your reporting as you continue your search

[Goodbye Middle Class]

Change the rail. The Ranger Point Precision rail is the lowest available for the Big Boy. It is nicer than the Henry version, for sure. ... https://www.rangerpointstore.com/rhino ... ry-rifles/

BTW, there is nothing at all wrong with that 2-7 scope, that is what I have mounted on my BBX, using Warne steel QD rings. Mine is older and has a 1” tube.

John Davies
Spokane WA

I agree with John. Here's a photo I recently posted of my .44 BB Steel with the Rhino Rail from RPP. It's also channeled for sighting if you remove the scope.

IMG_20200427_224718160~2.jpg

I seem to recall reading that it is military spec picatinny and Weaver picatinny may not be compatible.

[GaHenryFan]

It's tough to get a scope low enough on a lever action. I've done it on a couple of rifles, but it involved fixed power scopes mounted forward of the hammer. Weaver lows are the lowest rings I know of, but you need a rail that's short enough to fall inside the eyepiece and objective.

[plr]

Probably too late for the original OP, but I just bought a Long Ranger. I mounted a 3-15x42 scope on Talley's extra low mounts. The only problem is eye relief because the turret is right up against the rings. But there is plenty of clearance. That rail pictured is great for eye relief, and but not so great for lowering the scope as much as possible.

https://www.talleymanufacturing.com/pro ... h010-h014/

[ironbrew]

I really want the Ranger Point with the cloverleaf ghost ring. The export permits from the US make it quite expensive, then add $30 to 40 for shipping. I'm getting a few buddies together so we can split the costs... But it's hunting season, so they haven't committed yet.