Q: Savage 93 - Ring Height w/ Burris Zee Signature rings + Mueller Scope?

[zabadozer]

I just picked up a Savage 93R17 BVSS and I'm planning to mount a Mueller APV 4.5-14x40AO scope.

I want to use Burris Zee Signature rings on the factory two piece scope mounts. I think High rings will work (it will be close). Just curious if anyone else has this same set-up and can confirm the high rings are high enough.

Thanks in advance.

Read More

 

[madmax]

medium is fine for a 40mm scope
factory two pc bring the suck, think about one pc base like "EGW" and UTG quick detach
Savage 93
Leapers 30mm Max Strength Tactical 4-Hole Quick Detachable Picatinny-Style Rings Matte Medium

this is my set up

 

[Spitpatch]

Rimfirecentral.com has endless discussions, and even compatibility charts posted by participants there regarding this and other gun/scope combinations.

My preference is for a scope mounted as absolutely close to the barrel as possible, but ergonomics may occasionally dictate otherwise (perhaps as evidenced by madmax's scope altitude above the barrel). Persons with "fleshier" cheeks (face-type) might prefer a scope height such as displayed here, but mine rides with minimal daylight between the objective and the barrel, as do my scopes mounted on other rifles when that is attainable. Some are actually at "dental floss" clearance.

Nothing designates a rank amateur (where scope mounting is concerned) more graphically than optics mounted high when such is not necessary for the shooter's body (face) shape. A firm cheek-weld is a fundamental of good shooting form, and even some "experts" on hunting shows frequently display their (literal) oversight of this axiom: the scope requiring that one elevate his head above the comb in order to achieve sight picture. On heavy-recoiling guns, such placement of the face results in unnecessary amplification of felt recoil, contributing to a flinch reflex. Holdover calculations and bullet-drop considerations are also facilitated more readily by a scope as close to the bore as possible.

Large-Objective scopes (50mm, etc.) dictate higher mounting than conventional objectives, and especially on a factory gun, very often result in the shooter's cheek not attaining the proper weld to the comb. One more reason these types of scopes are probably unnecessary for nearly all field requirements (the "light gathering advantage"---a falsely termed aspect--negated by the disadvatage of improper shooting form dictated by a high scope).

my "skinny cheek set-up" for comparison:

 

[zabadozer]

Thanks for the pics and commentary. I want the scope as low as possible to improve the cheek weld. I did the math and the Mueller APV 4.5-14x40AO scope w/ High Burris Zee Signature rings on the factory two piece scope mounts should give me a gap of 0.165" between barrel and scope bell. That should be perfect for adjusting the AO.

 

[branson4020]

Hey - post a pic when your done!

 

[zabadozer]

Will do. I ordered the scope and rings from Joe Bob yesterday.

Hey - post a pic when your done!

 

[zabadozer]

Got my scope and rings today.
Here's the set-up:
- Savage 93R17 BVSS
- Bases: Factory 2 piece
- Scope: Mueller APV 4.5-14x40AO
- Rings: High Burris Zee Signature (Matte)

I'm pleased with the fit. Note position of rear ring relative to scope turret. This is one of the challenges of using the standard two piece bases - your ring position is fixed. However, I was able to get a good, natural cheek weld before the turret hit the rear ring. Can't wait to shoot it.

 

[Spitpatch]

Well done! A general rule of thumb for eyepiece placement on non-recoiling rifles (like the .17HMR), is to have it lined up on a vertical line from the front of the pistol grip. You can see madmax has this down pat, and from what I can see, you are there as well. Of course, once again, ergonomics (and learned habits: my father always threw his face forward on the comb, therefore his scopes were always further forward than what I prefer) come into play here. On recoiling guns (say, .25-06 and bigger), 1/2" to 1" ahead of that vertical line is a good place to start (to avoid sporting the infamous "Weatherby Eyebrow").

If this is your first venture with the .17, try ALL ammo. Throngs of Savage owners like the Hornady stuff, mine shoots the Winchester much better than anything. There was a rumor circulated (even by "experts" such as John Barsness), that "all .17HMR ammo comes from one or two suppliers, and is virtually identical, with only packaging different". I got curious about why my Savage preferred the Winchester stuff, and so dismantled every brand I had. The Winchester ammo is very singular and differentiated where powder type is concerned. This is not to say it is "better", but it certainly is in my gun: not only for accuracy, but accompanying consistency measured by chronograph. Barsness was politely appreciative that I had put that rumor to rest. The Winchester stuff is hard to find on sale, and most normally runs $2 more than all the rest. Worth it in my estimation.