Aloha Kodiac:
I normally use ARMS #22 rings, but recently I have been experiementing with other types of rings. A big thing to consider is what type of mount are using? An ARMS mount sits low while a Smith Ent. or Smith type mount will sit higher than an ARMS mount. This will affect ring height selection I think.
These are some of the different rings that I have been using.
The Leupold Mark 4 rings that I bought (standard, 30mm) did not allow my scope to be mounted on an ARM S#18 mount (old style). Too low, the ocular bell hit the rear aperture bottomed out.
These rings work and look good on an ARMS #19 throw mount. And appears to be close to the right height when sitting on an ARMS #18 mount.
The Badger Max 50 Rings (standard or high, 30mm) will not work on an ARMS #18 mount being too wide front to back and will hit the clip guide area on the rear of the mount.
The Badger standard tactical rings will work very well. They come in various sizes and are 1" or 30mm in size.
HRT and TSR rings from Tactical Precision work well and are priced way lower than Leupold, ARMS and Badger. But I would opt for the "steel" rings. TSR of the two look more like tactical type rings IMHO.
I also bought a set of Smith Ent. 30mm rings, high and they work really well. A tad high, but they are only offered in two heights I believe. These rings allow the ocular bell of my scope to clear the rear aperture with ease.
The main thing in ring selection is getting the proper height to clear the objective bell as well as the ocular bell. Because of the shape of the M14, the objective is usually not a problem, but the ocular if too low will hit the rear aperture.
None of the rings that I experimented with will be wasted as I am also setting up a couple of bolt rifles as well and these will go very well with those rifles.
One of the problems that I ran into is that measurement of the rings vary from each manufacturer. And sometimes, that can be quite confusing...
What are your plans? What have you tried so far?
I hope this helps a little.
Aloha,
Tom O.
I normally use ARMS #22 rings, but recently I have been experiementing with other types of rings. A big thing to consider is what type of mount are using? An ARMS mount sits low while a Smith Ent. or Smith type mount will sit higher than an ARMS mount. This will affect ring height selection I think.
These are some of the different rings that I have been using.
The Leupold Mark 4 rings that I bought (standard, 30mm) did not allow my scope to be mounted on an ARM S#18 mount (old style). Too low, the ocular bell hit the rear aperture bottomed out.
These rings work and look good on an ARMS #19 throw mount. And appears to be close to the right height when sitting on an ARMS #18 mount.
The Badger Max 50 Rings (standard or high, 30mm) will not work on an ARMS #18 mount being too wide front to back and will hit the clip guide area on the rear of the mount.
The Badger standard tactical rings will work very well. They come in various sizes and are 1" or 30mm in size.
HRT and TSR rings from Tactical Precision work well and are priced way lower than Leupold, ARMS and Badger. But I would opt for the "steel" rings. TSR of the two look more like tactical type rings IMHO.
I also bought a set of Smith Ent. 30mm rings, high and they work really well. A tad high, but they are only offered in two heights I believe. These rings allow the ocular bell of my scope to clear the rear aperture with ease.
The main thing in ring selection is getting the proper height to clear the objective bell as well as the ocular bell. Because of the shape of the M14, the objective is usually not a problem, but the ocular if too low will hit the rear aperture.
None of the rings that I experimented with will be wasted as I am also setting up a couple of bolt rifles as well and these will go very well with those rifles.
One of the problems that I ran into is that measurement of the rings vary from each manufacturer. And sometimes, that can be quite confusing...
What are your plans? What have you tried so far?
I hope this helps a little.
Aloha,
Tom O.
