Scope ring height?

[Davel91]

Hello,

I have a Single Shot in .350 Legend that I am preparing to mount a scope on. I have the EGW picatinny rail from Henry, a Leupold VX Freedom 3-9x40 and Leupold PRW high rings. I bought high after doing some research online about the rifle. My scope came in the mail today and after a quick test mounting, I'm wondering if I can get away with medium height. There is not enough room to get my finger in there to cock the hammer (hammer expander on the way), but I'm curious if I could get away with a lower medium height. For those of you who have scoped one of these rifles, what ring height did you choose?

Does the "rebounding hammer" come into play here? i.e., does the hammer when the trigger is pulled come further forward than it sits when it is not cocked?

Thanks!

[Sir Henry]

Like the VX Freedom for a bump.

[JEBar]

very well thought out, interesting series of questions .... I have no answers but am sure looking forward to hearing them

[Hatchdog]

Dave,

I don’t have a single shot so I can’t comment about that rifle specifically but I do have a Big Boy that I recently scoped. This is a Leopold 2-7X VX Freedom with either a 32 or 33mm exit (can’t remember). It is mounted on the same style rail from Henry using low rings. Note how the front bell just clears the rear sight on the rifle. Your 40mm might hit the sight with low rings but might clear with medium ??? Of course you can always remove the sight. Or, it’s possible that your 3-9x40 might clear the sight as it is most likely a bit longer than my 2-7. Anyway, this is how mine looks with low rings.

Another consideration is even with low rings my scope is so far above the stock that I have to use a cheek riser.

Can’t help you with the rebounding hammer as I have never paid attention to that. My 2-7 didn’t require a hammer extension probably due to it’s being a very short scope and I can get my thumb on the hammer comfortably.

Sure with Henry would put a folding rear sight on these rifles, that would help with scope mounting.

BE8BC668-CBED-458A-BD13-A31471F7B545.jpeg (176.97 KiB) Viewed 6378 times

72525B5D-4FD4-45B0-86DC-456237B38AB9.jpeg (196.55 KiB) Viewed 6377 times

[Vaquero]

Hey Hatch, it seems you and I may share the same coffee.
Those red containers sure come in handy.

RP

[Sir Henry]

Hey Hatch, it seems you and I may share the same coffee.
Those red containers sure come in handy.

RP

I have a dozen of them myself. Some are green.

[Davel91]

I have an answer to the rebounding hammer question. I guess it should have been obvious but I did confirm. The hammer does travel further forward when the trigger is pulled than it sits when it is not cocked. However, the decocked position is the highest point of the arc of the hammer. When the trigger is pulled the hammer reaches the decocked point and then travels downward from there. So, if your scope does not touch the resting hammer, the hammer will not strike the scope when fired.

I have a set of low scope rings on the way. The medium rings are okay, but I wouldn't mind the scope being a little lower. We'll see if it works out soon.

[Hatchdog]

Dave,

Your thoughts on the rebounding hammer make sense, thanks. There is a mount available that looks to be a bit lower than the Henry mount that I plan to try out on my 41 Big Boy that I have on layaway. My old memory can’t remember the manufacturer right now but there is a discussion here on the Henry Forum about it. I’ll come back with a link to the discussion. Currently the manufacturer is out of stock but I’m not picking up my 41 until March so hopefully they will have one available by then.

Here is the link to the mount from RangerPoint. But, I derailed my own thought process with my Big Boy application forgetting you are scoping a Single Shot. I don’t believe RP makes a mount for the SS but it’s a company to keep on eye on in the future.

https://rangerpointstore.com/rhino-picatinny-rail


Yeah, those red custom brass storage units come handy. The green one’s are okay but I prefer the red. Only from habit I’m sure, should there ever be a shortage of the red containers I would be delighted to get some green ones.

[Bear-of-Grayling]

This is a Henry SS with a 3-9x40 Nikon. I used Warne “Low” rings. Allows acceptable cheek weld, clearance to keep and fold the rear sight, also clearance for the hammer with the aid of a hammer extension. If the power knob on the scope is to large then medium rings will be necessary. Also a SS with a 4.5-14x42 Burris and UTG “Low Pro Max Strength” rings. Couldn’t use the Warne rings here as the mediums were to low and the high to high. The hammer does not strike the scope. I did cut off the extra base material. The hammer extension is a must have. I am a lefty so don’t get confused. Merry Christmas.

[Hatchdog]

Bear,

That’s great that your single shot has the folding rear sight. The Big Boy’s have the ladder rear that does not fold so some have to remove the sight to mount a scope. Nice to have a scope that size mounted so low, your set up looks great. Thanks for the pics.

[Yornoc3]

Scope rings and mount combinations can drive you mad . What I've learned, some of it the hard way, is that you have to check as closely as you can on the height of both, to make sure it'll work. I've mounted scopes to four Henry single shots. On all of them, I've used the Warne steel base, which had to be modified a bit for the early models, before Henry slightly adjusted the mount screw holes' location; on new models they fit. I've used Burris low Zee rings, and Weaver medium Grand Slam rings, which are the same height; Weaver low traditional rings are lower than everyone else's low rings. I've always strived for as low as possible, and these combinations have worked fine for the traditional fixed power scopes I've fitted to these rifles: Leupold Compact 2.5X, Burris low Zee rings (plenty of hammer clearance with its smaller ocular lens) to a 45-70; Leupold FX 2 6X gloss to a .243, with medium Gloss Weaver Grand Slam rings (gloss is still available), Redfield 2.75X gloss to a 30-30 with Weaver medium traditional tip-off rings (their low is too low), and a Burris Fullfield 4X to a .308 with Weaver Grand Slam medium rings. I like the current rendition of Grand Slam rings, I understand the first version had issues, but the USA made rings I've used have been good. Warne low rings (same height) would work, too, but they're more "bulky" than I like. Just looks, I guess. Using variables with bulky power adjustment rings might require more height, so it's back to case by case with them.

[Bear-of-Grayling]

I agree with the prior post.I prefer the looks of the traditional “Leupold or Burris” steel style rings. It’s not however my first priority. My priorities for ring selection is; 1. Strength. 2. Height for good cheek weld. Usually as close to the barrel as possible. 3. Rings that do not damage the scope while adjusting. 4. American made. 5. Aesthetics. When the stars align I get all 5. The American made steel Warne rings get 4 of the 5. I do like the looks (still not as well as the tradition style) but it’s not a handy removable ring. Everything moves if the scope is removed. One needs to literally, carefully remove the rings from the base and the rings from the scope simultaneously. It all comes apart together. I do not like this at all. Any modification or just loosening of the base means the whole scope leveling and sight in are a bust.The Warne does not damage the scope though and it is super strong. This ring (Warne 200M Low .250”) is on my Henry SS .308 with the Nikon 3-9x40. The Warne medium rings 201M have a saddle height of .375 of an inch. The tall 202M jump to .525. On my Henry SS .223 with the Burris 4.5-14x42 I first tried the Warne medium rings and the scopes power ring did not clear the hammer. I needed a pinch more saddle height. Jumping to the high would have been way to much. With my cheek weld getting questionable using the medium height Warne, I knew I needed to get just slightly more saddle height. Couldn’t get there on the American decimal system. (American made products) The Metric system is however slightly larger, usually. I’ve used the UTG rings before and they are strong, removable (without total scope disruption), VERY gentle on the scope and metric. Not American made though. The UTG “Low Pro Max Strength “ has a saddle height of 10MM which translates into .3937”. Just the extra needed. An alloy ring, very solid, will be fine on the Henry SS .223. Again not my first choice aesthetics wise. I find myself getting used to the looks of things that at first did not impress me. Anyway this is my formula for ring selection. Thanks y’all.

[Bear-of-Grayling]

Hello everyone. Back again for an extra FYI. If the scope was damaged/failed on a hunt or one wanted to use the open sights, the base I used (in the pics a few posts back) is too tall for the usage of the factory sights. Below is the base I used on both my Henry SS. It is not as in the picture. That’s a generic picture. It was a cantilever style and I removed the excess material. So a take-off ring is rather pointless with this base as the base would have to be removed to use the open sights. Might help someone. Thanks