SCJ429 wrote:Touching is too close, not touching is perfect. You appear to be perfect.
If it was touching, you could grind a little off the base for clearance.
Huntnfish wrote:SCJ429 wrote:Touching is too close, not touching is perfect. You appear to be perfect.
If it was touching, you could grind a little off the base for clearance.
Ahh ok well I’ll leave it as it is then I was reading so where that scopes flex some what under recoil just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t going to hit cheers for the reply
Stix wrote:Huntnfish wrote:SCJ429 wrote:Touching is too close, not touching is perfect. You appear to be perfect.
If it was touching, you could grind a little off the base for clearance.
Ahh ok well I’ll leave it as it is then I was reading so where that scopes flex some what under recoil just wanted to make sure that it wasn’t going to hit cheers for the reply
Nah...its just those cheap chinese Vision King's that flex...
I think SCJ is spot on...nothing wrong with what you got there.
I wouldnt want to be moving that scope any farther back though...
Strangedog wrote:The scope would only move forward under recoil. But it won't move anyway. I have a scope that I can only get thin paper to pass through the gap.
Huntnfish wrote:This Might be a stupid question but what’s SCJ
No1_49er wrote:Huntnfish wrote:This Might be a stupid question but what’s SCJ
Might be a silly answer, but the author of post #2 is SCJ 429
Blr243 wrote:Kellogg’s cornflakes is the answer for me. If a piece of cardboard from the packet can pass thru the gap all is well
straightshooter wrote:If after some use you see a shiny mark developing on the scope bell or the mount base then you will know that you should consider putting a bevel on the base.
From your picture it appears that the objective bell is well supported due to the front ring being so close to the beginning of the tapered expansion of the tube but in this shooting game you never can be totally certain.
I would normally suggest that about 1/8" is a suitable minimum clearance.