Height over bore has never affected accuracy, just ease of use. The lower your height over bore, the less you have to compensate for the difference when shooting at distances closer or further from your zero range. I think the idea of it affecting accuracy is a massive misconception. Just like the idea of a foregrip improving your accuracy. It doesn't. Just affects your ability to grip the weapon and for some shooter, improve control of recoil, but the weapon's accuracy is not affected. People tend to use accuracy in place of the word usable when usable is a more fitting term.
@@SaneAsylum I mean, yeah. That's what I'm getting at. The rifle has a set standard it will perform with. Anything outside of that is shooter interference. As long as your scope doesn't lose zero, regardless of height over bore, the moa will always be based on the rifle and ammo and the ability of the shooter to remain consistent.
@@aaronmiles1971 For me, cheek weld only gives me a nice comfy feel rather than real a accuracy boost. Because when standing. cheek weld only matters when you shoot fairly rapidly, and when you're at that fire rate, a solid chin weld coupled with locked tight shoulders would yield the same result. But that's only personal experience.
I personally think hip firing guns is more macho, but my accuracy suffers because Im not aiming down sights. Finally there is a solution. Any chance you could do an iron sights version of this CQC?
@@casey6104 the front sight has 2 aluminum fingers in the same of an index finger and middle finger forming a v, it sticks straight forward and you jab it at your enemies' eyes, meanwhile, under the barrel there is an aluminum foot wearing an aluminum timberland boot with a steel toe, which kicks them in the balls.
But it proved the contrary. The entire video is filled with things being pointed out to be different and worse. Then somehow at the end they try to weasel themselves out of their wrong assumptions and claim it doesn't matter (aka no difference). Also, how about pistols? At short ranges the difference would be huge and basically make it impossible to aim.
Thank you so much for watching! Please rest assured that production is constantly moving, and fun projects and videos like this won't hinder shipping times. Over time, we get questions such as this one "does scope height matter" so our prototyping department decided to meet that challenge and come out with this super fun crazy ring height. Since this is a separate department from our manufacturing, it doesn't slow us down for shipping and provides fun video content for our viewers.
I think the most important thing that extreme height over bore brings to the table is cant. I would think the extremely high mount would make a big difference with that. So I'm definitely excited to see that video.
@@MDTTAC definitely will. But now that I think of it, degrees of a circle remain the same no matter the size of the circle 🤔 your rifle cants 3°, so does the optic, even if it's moving on a larger arc 😱 maybe over thinking this 😂
I think it would make the cant easier to see in the scope and correct for, since small adjustments in the rifle will make for large movements in the scope
Oh MAN, me and my friends have an inside joke called "tall scope" which is about some drawing I'd made like 5 years ago of a stick figure hip firing an AK, but the rifle had a scope mount that brought it up to his eye, so he could ADS while hipfiring. This video is definitely going to each of them.
@@jasonharrison25 Problem with that is my dude is the tube friggin hate links. I have had several comments launched in the sun because I linked to imgur.
I remember The AK Guy once said that his theory is AR guys are working towards an optic riser that lets them mount their optics so high they can use their optic while using the fleshlight stock
Very cool video showing that the height of the mount does not affect accuracy. A lot of people are wrong about this. But in my humble opinion, the existence of different height mounts is not just about the ergonomic comfort of the shooter. It also has to do with the optimized use of the ballistic curve. It is possible to observe in the video that in both comparisons a zeroing strategy was used: the choice of zero at the top of the ballistic trajectory. If we look at the ridge it went from 100 yards to 300 yards (correct me if I'm wrong). This shows that for long distance shots it is advisable to use high mounts and for short distances lower mounts. That's because, physically, taller mounts tend to throw the ridge (the point blank range) further away from the firing point. With that same thought in mind, we can say that, if the shooter has the habit of zeroing his platform always at the top of the ballistic trajectory (or with an uninterrupted point blank range of small killzone - small diameter) and using those height-adjustable mounts, raising the rear mount is the same as using a non-adjustable low profile mount. On the other hand, raising the front mount is the same as using a high profile non-adjustable mount. I see that most shooters buy those adjustable mounts, they only buy these mounts with the objective of reaching very distant targets, but they forget that this projectile will have a very steep climb, a very high killzone and this will result in a poor use of the ballistic curve. Thank you for the video and for the commitment to make an unprecedented test.
I dont think the argument is the accuracy of the gun or projectile, i think the “accuracy” ideal is more about the “ease” of insuring a hit when computer enhanced calculations arent available. Its literally 2 angles. Bore angle and scope angle. The closer those 2 are together on one side, obviously the closer those 2 will be on the other. So in my opinion, the argument is that its easier to achieve a more precise hit on targets at 100yds or 300yds (lets say both rifles were zero’d at 200yds) with the more parallel optic than the tall boy. I dont think anybody ever argued the accuracy of the gun or projectile.
My red dot runs almost 5" height over bore with a tube mounted 12 o'clock setup. The chin weld was a little tough to get used to, but in 5.56 from 25 to 300 yds at a 66 yd zero, I'm within 4" on elevation between those ranges. It works out very well for me.
Before watching, I'd say it has no effect on accuracy if it's zeroed for where you're shooting. But say you're zeroed for 100m, and shooting at a target 125m away, that height over bore will significantly come into play and will require more compensation.
@@raynman6466 I think the problem people have is that for most practical uses where you aren't shooting at a static target at a precisely known distance and with all the time in the world to make adjustments, this is functionally inaccurate.
Looks like something that would be invented in WW1 so that snipers can bayonet charge into no mans land with the infantry and still be able to hip fire snipe the enemy in the other trench.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that height over bore affected accuracy. The whole reason people have said they want a low scope mount has always been (theoretically) to keep the scope more in line with the flight path and therefore reduce the amount of adjustment needed to dial throughout various ranges (although this really doesn’t matter anymore since we all have access to ballistic software via our phones - the only time I can see a potential benefit would be if you’re hunting and have no time to calculate dope - even then, why are you shooting at an animal without having your dope calculated?). I guess we can all test this right at home with ballistic software. Test the amount of adjustment required to dial out to 200, 300, 400, etc. with two different height over bore amounts. When I do it for a 6.5 CM, outside of the initial come-up, the difference between each subsequent 100 yard increment is very close between a 4” height over bore compared to a 1”. And surprisingly the 4” height turns out to need slightly less adjustment at each subsequent yardage. Myth busted
I picked up my DPGunworks yesterday at my FFL and stopped at my friends shop to show it off before I went home to get a scope mounted on it. He showed me his new build and his last two, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6BR. I was surprised at his scope heights, they were 3” above bore. He explained that he did it for comfort, not having your neck cranked when on scope. His explanation sounded plausible so I went home picked out my scope and mount. Weaver T36 and PEPR one piece mount. When mounted it was over 2.8” which seemed odd to me but very comfortable. I got the scoped zeroed and was shooting 1/4” groups at 50yds. All the comments were beautiful rifle but why is so scope so high. I’m a convert this this set up and getting up this morning I found your video, very extreme but perfectly explained and did you see how straight his neck is looking through the scope, just think more realistic and the theory works. Thanks for the great, fun video.
This is interesting. As a UK air rifle owner, your 20" height above bore graph reminds me of shooting a .22 sub-12 air rifle with a normal height above bore except with much smaller distances. We often have to hold under at certain ranges.
Are you all out near Ruby Creek BC shooting? Or did you come over to the Washington side to try that cool gadget out. I took it as a challenge geolocate you when you said not to tell.
The problem with high scope mounts isn't accuracy, it's the fact that your shooting arc becomes a lot steeper, and it will also cause you to miss everything closer than a football field.
@@MiaogisTeas which sounds great in theory, but if you are a hunter with a brush gun, the last thing you want to carry is a 10 pound rifle with multiple optics that get caught on every twig and branch along the way.
I love content like this. I hate the gatekeeping and judging people do when someone makes a build. If it works, and they know how it works it doesnt matter. Yet people cant help but critiquing others.
I can already imagine all the king of the hill billies just relaxing on a beach chair, beer in hand, with the rifle sitting on the front porch while the scope just about reaches eye level. In short, it's perfect.
this wasn't a question that need answering. the purpose of having a flat shooting rifle shooting a flat shooting cartridge is to keep the projectile close to the zero points before and between the zero points. keeping your optic close the the barrel also helps with this. this allows the shooter to take quick follow up shots at different targets at different distances without making calculations in between. of course the optic doesn't affect he accuracy of the rifle. it only effects your ability to point the rifle.
Good video. Even with the lowest rings I can use with my scope I still need a cheek riser to bring the comb up enough to be comfortable. So I have absolutely no need for tall rings.
It all make perfect sense. The accuracy is determined by the rifle itself. Just put it in the vice and, even without any sights, it will print a 1MOA group... somewhere. Ironsights or optic is primerly for pointing the gun on target, secondarly for making corrections for drop and wind (coriolis effect and such). Optic provide enlarged picture of distant target, which is not the accuracy but rather the observation "department". The issue with zeroing on 100 yards, depicted on the diagram, is really the same thing, when someone is using angled scope mount. That extra angle shifts zero further away from shooter, but conserves scope's drop dope range for further distances. At the same time, it's forcing bigger holdovers for ascending part of bullet trajectory on close distances.
Also if dialing down is the main concern, you could also change the point of zero higher up on the reticle. This would prevent you from having to dial negitive for closer ranged shots.
Being that you paid good money for the optic. It is best practices to utilize the entire field of the optic. I would highly recommend watching The Art of Precision shooting.
correct me if 'm wrong but I would think a higher mount like that could in theory improve accuracy. By lengthening the lever arm between the scope and the rifle, you've created a situation where you're effecting less angle for every bit of noticeable movement in the scope. By that i mean you should have finer precision in leveling your rifle platform
What stops you from still holding it not 100% upright? Noticing the scope is not alligend with the horizon? I think I get your point but I am not 100% decided yet.
Parallel axis, unless zeroed, which is kinda like a lens zeroing the sun at that one spot where it burns when the sun is out because it's hot because the sun is out because ... this is looping now
This is actually PERFECT for a sniper hiding in a multi-story building, mount the rifle to a ceiling, cut a hole in the floor above it, feed the scope through the hole, your shots will look like they're coming from the floor below you so even if you are spotted they won't be shooting at the right window, just hope the wall in front of you is thick enough their bullets won't go through in case they hit high, now test out a "pariscope-style" scope and see if you can hide behind a corner while still being able to accurately fire a sniper
Does it effect accuracy, no, does it effect ease of use, yes. It depends how you are using your rifle, If you are setting up and calculating and adjusting your reticle for every shot, it is not as relevant (assuming you are not at your limits of adjustment). If you are in the field and trying to make quick snap shots at a variety of ranges it is relevant as it will effect the distance over which your sight reticle is close to your POI.
As long as you make the right range corrections you should be OK. Some weird configurations like for lever actions will throw off the parallax if mounted off center.
People's idea of accuracy needs to have a basis of understanding of what the rifle is used for. This setup for 1 distance would be great, but using this to change shot distance quickly would be a nightmare.
Nice demo. HoB is also about "natural point of aim". Your 20" example shows how crazy you have to train your muscles to manipulate the rifle to get on target. But down to 1.75" HoB vs 4" HoB.... who cares. If it naturally shoulders and reticle naturally pops into your view in a normal head position... that will be best for a shooter to quickly find target.
Also, expanding on this, you're in some danger of hitting objects in front of your rifle you're just staring over with your massively elevated scope (e.g. a wall, window sill, tree stump, what have you) .
Of course: any degree of cant will have a greater effect the higher the scope is mounted above the bore; that’s junior high geometry (or was at one time). It may not matter much for precision shooting against fixed targets even under time constraints if the rifle is equipped with a leveling device, but when engaged in something like hunting and the cant isn’t readily apparent under field conditions then it can be a factor affecting practical accuracy. I can still remember when sighting levels were literally unknown, and I would bet a nickel that most hunting rifles today aren’t equipped with levels that are used for the purpose under the pressure of getting a shot at a fleeting target. Second, most hunting rifle stocks work best with a low head position because they were originally designed to be used with iron sights that were mounted very close to the bore line. In fact, even today most hunting stocks usually have a bit of drop at the comb for that traditional reason despite the fact that iron-sighted rifles are uncommon these days. Even if they have a bit of comb elevation to permit a higher head position, unless they have an adjustable cheek riser (unusual in hunting rifles), they aren’t designed for a good cheek weld when the scope is mounted above a certain height. And proper cheek weld matters. Again, even today there is a significant difference between the stocks of rifles intended primarily for hunting and those designed for long range competitions. The height of a scope over the bore may have no effect on theoretical accuracy, especially if the stock can be adjusted to compensate, but it can certainly have an effect on a shooter’s practical accuracy. A fascinating experiment, though, so thanks for the efforts involved, and especially for including the explanation of how height over bore affects the trajectory at different zeroing distances.
The higher mount in this video might actually help with rifle cant since you'd be able to detect it easier with the naked eye. Realistically the degree of cant would have the same effect on either a low mounted scope or an extreme mounted scope (I predict anyway). Reason being, 5° of cant is going to have the same effect on the shot regardless of height. 5° is 5°. We'll see in the next video.
You make a valid point about how a higher scope mount might make a cant more obvious, but it would be interesting to know just how much more obvious. The other part of your comment, though, ignores the fact that although 5° is indeed 5°, the linear distance a particular angular value subtends varies directly with the distance from the apex of the angle to the point being measured. If a cant of 5° moves the center of the scope some X distance from a vertical line through the bore with a sight height over bore of 1 inch, then if the sight height is 2 inches, the lateral distance the sight moves with a 5° cant will be 2X. For shooters, think about what it means to say that a group measures 1 minute of angle. If the target is at 100 yards, that means the group is 1.047 inch in size. A 1 MOA group at 200 yards, though, is twice that, or 2.094 inches; at 300 yards 1 MOA covers 3.141", and so on. The angle of one minute of arc (1/60 degree) never changes, but the distance that the angle subtends does increase with range to the target.
This is incorrect. The line of sight to bore offset does not effect the magnitude of POI error for any given angle of cant, it does effect the direction of the error.
@@simonayers6236 Hmm …. I admit I was puzzled when most of the articles about the effects of rifle cant don’t mention height of the sight over the bore. But then I found this statement in the “Cant Errors” article on the Rifle Scope Level web site which of course is obviously true: “The use of large diameter objective scopes mounted high off the barrel, exacerbates the cant error problem. This type of scope is mounted high off the barrel to clear the large diameter of the objective lens. To keep the scope elevation knobs centered for maximum adjustment, precision shooters sometimes use elevation compensated scope mounting rings or bases. Although this solves the adjustment problem, it greatly exaggerates cant error because the distance between the bore axis and the line of sight axis increases, and the included angle between the sight axis and the bore is larger, producing more windage error when canting.” As I understand the statement, moving the sight height farther from the bore line changes the angle and if that changes, the amount of point of impact shift changes. I was evidently wrong with the way I expressed myself, but if the angle as described changes I believe my contention that sight height does have an effect on POI shift with cant is essentially correct. In any event, thanks for giving me something more to think about.
When you’re trying to really max out the PBR of your zero. I don’t really understand people sweating the height over bore. The mounts made these days are solid and hold zero so the main consideration for height over bore to me is how it affects your zero and trajectory. For instance on an AR with an absolute co witness a 36yd zero is a very tight vertical group. It’s about 5-6 inches vertical spread from 25-250 or 300yds depending on barrel length and what ammo you use. If you use a high mount like a 1.93 that 36yd zero offers a much less desirable vertical spread. You’re better off going with a 50/200yd at that height for the sake of having the smallest hold overs and unders.
a solidly mounted scope will of course be capable of being zeroed. the higher the height over bore, the greater number of variables, which means the greater chance of failure. personally, the "it only matters when hunting" statement was ridiculous. I think it is fair to say the majority of shooters don't run ballistic calculators and take wind readings when trying to make shots, and not all non-hunting shooting takes place at a bench. A mount this ridiculously high demonstrated the issue, the fact that you are basically required to use a lot of math to hit anything not at your zeroing range. is it accurate? of course, that has little to do with the scope as long as it's solidly mounted and not broken, that is primarily the rifle. you effectively tested the mechanical accuracy of the rifle, not the practical accuracy of the system. it technically does work on a theoretical level, in ideal settings where everything is literally plotted out.
That's the mount all the Unity riser bros are going to flock to next. They were tired of not having a proper sight picture due to their long necks, Unity satiated them but it wasn't enough, but finally someone has made something that will truly be comfy for them
Obviously there's a difference in angles, it's strongest closeup. You can visualize it by drawing 2 lines starting at different heights and converting at the desiref zero distance. If you want to get more fancy, make the lower line follow a ballistic curve. The further you shoot, the smaller the perceived angle gets, but also the ballistic curve gets stronger...
The thing with HOB is that you can still zero it, but all ranges outside of what it's zeroed to will miss. It's just a matter of knowing how much accuracy you're willing to sacrifice.
One idea I've had is a Periscope which could be configured to either allow you to shoot without poking your head over cover or allow for better ergonomics.
I wished there was some short range shooting to show where the mount height really matters! For hunters the close range shots are very important unlike benchrest long range shooters... *Diagram was pretty intriguing tho!*
You should test it at a closer range like for. 22 and what not...... I was always taught that it makes somewhat of a difference when it's close range 🤔
It will make very little difference in accuracy at any given range.... Problem is sight in at 100 yards or 8oo yards it will work.. BUT changing distances like 800 to 700 or from 100 to 300 you do not have enough adjustment in any normal optic. You are far beyond the typical 40min +_ adjustment.
I get that you're saying that it doesn't affect accuracy, but what the hell do you do when you get a scope mount too high and you can't even get your scope to zero because you don't have enough adjustment in it or the scope starts at zero and gives you no down adjustment. So you have to go only up high scope mounts cause all those problems
Idk why height above bore is all the rage, height under bore is what we need For keeping head below cover and having bore above cover. Firing from 100% cover/concealment would be a game changer
When are these going to be for sale? This is exactly what I needed. Can I also get an offset mount in this height for my red dots? And my flash lights?
theres the average shooters method, and a tactical shooters method. you ever pick up a seals rifle you would likely miss every shot you take because you dont know the parallel to bore sighting method which is more useful in combat situations where timing to sight in the target is alot lower than the take your time to break the shot of range shooting. if you see someone having as little sight over bore possible, these people know how to headshot you from any distance just aiming for the point of your nose. if you see someone with an unusually high sight over bore chances are they use ranged sighting and would likely not be as good at shooting a moving target.
Ok but it affects accuracy if you change the range of your target without re-sighting ur scope in If you have a scope that’s closer to the bore and it’s sighted in for 200m, your accuracy is going to drop much less the closer/farther away you change positions from it than it would with a big ass thing like that. This is assuming you don’t sight in your optic after changing ranges of course. So when people make this claim I assume they’re referring to when they’re in high octane situations where they can’t repeatedly zero their optic over and over again such as in airsoft or milsims. It’s the same reason why I don’t like riser mounts on my m4, because I know that dot isn’t gonna have the same accuracy at 25m as it would at 50m. Sure it’s not gonna be the same either way but the closer to the bore you put your sight, the more range differentiation you have to play around with and your shots arnt gonna be too off from what you originally sighted it in to be
The perfect hip fire scope mount..
Or maybe it's the future for bench rest shooter's.
Maybe it is!!
Scope risers are nothing new to BR shooters…….
@@SigmaBallistics he’s talking about a 20” one
@@rileyf8036 BR shooters already use risers probably up to 8” or so depending.
It's the future for bench rest shooter's what?
When you trying to shoot enemy but you are inside a submarine
But you hit your own submarine 😂
It's called a periscope
When your gun is roleplaying as a submarine
How does a comment this moronic end up at the top 🤦♂️
@@Ineedcoffee-n4j And this aint it
Height over bore has never affected accuracy, just ease of use. The lower your height over bore, the less you have to compensate for the difference when shooting at distances closer or further from your zero range. I think the idea of it affecting accuracy is a massive misconception. Just like the idea of a foregrip improving your accuracy. It doesn't. Just affects your ability to grip the weapon and for some shooter, improve control of recoil, but the weapon's accuracy is not affected. People tend to use accuracy in place of the word usable when usable is a more fitting term.
Cheek weld has been my only concern with scope height.
By that reckoning sights never effect accuracy so long as they don't move at all (and I won't argue with that).
@@SaneAsylum I mean, yeah. That's what I'm getting at. The rifle has a set standard it will perform with. Anything outside of that is shooter interference. As long as your scope doesn't lose zero, regardless of height over bore, the moa will always be based on the rifle and ammo and the ability of the shooter to remain consistent.
@@aaronmiles1971 Yeah. If you mount it too low, it can really be hard to get a good eye box. I like my weld to be somewhere in between chin and cheek.
@@aaronmiles1971 For me, cheek weld only gives me a nice comfy feel rather than real a accuracy boost. Because when standing. cheek weld only matters when you shoot fairly rapidly, and when you're at that fire rate, a solid chin weld coupled with locked tight shoulders would yield the same result. But that's only personal experience.
I personally think hip firing guns is more macho, but my accuracy suffers because Im not aiming down sights. Finally there is a solution. Any chance you could do an iron sights version of this CQC?
I am taught how to hip fire and you can do it well if you understand how to alight your aim with your body position
@@zatoby6705
But do you hip fire with iron sights?
In a pinch, the front site post can be used as a bayonet as well.
@@casey6104 the front sight has 2 aluminum fingers in the same of an index finger and middle finger forming a v, it sticks straight forward and you jab it at your enemies' eyes, meanwhile, under the barrel there is an aluminum foot wearing an aluminum timberland boot with a steel toe, which kicks them in the balls.
@@robertdevito5001 add razor blades to the steel toes and you have the ultimate weapon
This is how you make a point. Build the hyperbole and prove it. Genius.
That's how you find what is better or worse. Test both extremes and see what is better than the other
But it proved the contrary. The entire video is filled with things being pointed out to be different and worse. Then somehow at the end they try to weasel themselves out of their wrong assumptions and claim it doesn't matter (aka no difference). Also, how about pistols? At short ranges the difference would be huge and basically make it impossible to aim.
"The real reason why your stock is on back order"
Thank you so much for watching! Please rest assured that production is constantly moving, and fun projects and videos like this won't hinder shipping times. Over time, we get questions such as this one "does scope height matter" so our prototyping department decided to meet that challenge and come out with this super fun crazy ring height. Since this is a separate department from our manufacturing, it doesn't slow us down for shipping and provides fun video content for our viewers.
😂😂😂
Be prepared to make these now. People are going to want them lol
Yes, we've had a few requests!
When can I purchase?
I would buy one to put on an AK side rail just to be outrageous.
I actually want one of these bases.
Imagine the gun case you would need if you didn’t want to unmount it.
I think the most important thing that extreme height over bore brings to the table is cant. I would think the extremely high mount would make a big difference with that. So I'm definitely excited to see that video.
Check it out, you may be surprised!
@@MDTTAC definitely will. But now that I think of it, degrees of a circle remain the same no matter the size of the circle 🤔 your rifle cants 3°, so does the optic, even if it's moving on a larger arc 😱 maybe over thinking this 😂
I think it would make the cant easier to see in the scope and correct for, since small adjustments in the rifle will make for large movements in the scope
@@keatoncyre9926 it will shift your point of impact for sure
Line of sight to bore offset does not change the magnitude of poi error for any given angle of cant, it only changes the direction of the error.
Oh MAN, me and my friends have an inside joke called "tall scope" which is about some drawing I'd made like 5 years ago of a stick figure hip firing an AK, but the rifle had a scope mount that brought it up to his eye, so he could ADS while hipfiring. This video is definitely going to each of them.
"Tall scope" lol nice story
I want the picture
@@wombatburrito5896 I have it, but I have no clue how to get it to you
@@darkninjacorporation take a picture of it or scan it, upload it to an image sharing site, Google drive, etc and post the link here for us to see it
@@jasonharrison25 Problem with that is my dude is the tube friggin hate links. I have had several comments launched in the sun because I linked to imgur.
I remember The AK Guy once said that his theory is AR guys are working towards an optic riser that lets them mount their optics so high they can use their optic while using the fleshlight stock
now this is the content we need! :D well done MDT for having some fun with it
Thank you and thanks for watching!
Very cool video showing that the height of the mount does not affect accuracy. A lot of people are wrong about this.
But in my humble opinion, the existence of different height mounts is not just about the ergonomic comfort of the shooter. It also has to do with the optimized use of the ballistic curve. It is possible to observe in the video that in both comparisons a zeroing strategy was used: the choice of zero at the top of the ballistic trajectory. If we look at the ridge it went from 100 yards to 300 yards (correct me if I'm wrong). This shows that for long distance shots it is advisable to use high mounts and for short distances lower mounts. That's because, physically, taller mounts tend to throw the ridge (the point blank range) further away from the firing point.
With that same thought in mind, we can say that, if the shooter has the habit of zeroing his platform always at the top of the ballistic trajectory (or with an uninterrupted point blank range of small killzone - small diameter) and using those height-adjustable mounts, raising the rear mount is the same as using a non-adjustable low profile mount. On the other hand, raising the front mount is the same as using a high profile non-adjustable mount. I see that most shooters buy those adjustable mounts, they only buy these mounts with the objective of reaching very distant targets, but they forget that this projectile will have a very steep climb, a very high killzone and this will result in a poor use of the ballistic curve. Thank you for the video and for the commitment to make an unprecedented test.
"Mom, can we have artillery?"
"No, we have artillery at home!"
The artillery at home:
I dont think the argument is the accuracy of the gun or projectile, i think the “accuracy” ideal is more about the “ease” of insuring a hit when computer enhanced calculations arent available. Its literally 2 angles. Bore angle and scope angle. The closer those 2 are together on one side, obviously the closer those 2 will be on the other. So in my opinion, the argument is that its easier to achieve a more precise hit on targets at 100yds or 300yds (lets say both rifles were zero’d at 200yds) with the more parallel optic than the tall boy. I dont think anybody ever argued the accuracy of the gun or projectile.
My red dot runs almost 5" height over bore with a tube mounted 12 o'clock setup. The chin weld was a little tough to get used to, but in 5.56 from 25 to 300 yds at a 66 yd zero, I'm within 4" on elevation between those ranges. It works out very well for me.
Why 66 yard zero? I’ve just seen 50 and 100 for 5.56
@TEXT+①⑤⓪⑤⑤⑧⑤②①⑦⑥ get in touch
Before watching, I'd say it has no effect on accuracy if it's zeroed for where you're shooting. But say you're zeroed for 100m, and shooting at a target 125m away, that height over bore will significantly come into play and will require more compensation.
Exactly you could have the scope 6ft up and 6ft to the side and hit the same target if you sight it in lol dunno how anyone can't understand it
@@raynman6466 I think the problem people have is that for most practical uses where you aren't shooting at a static target at a precisely known distance and with all the time in the world to make adjustments, this is functionally inaccurate.
Looks like something that would be invented in WW1 so that snipers can bayonet charge into no mans land with the infantry and still be able to hip fire snipe the enemy in the other trench.
hip fire snipe while bayonet charging.... I am at a total loss for words at the sheer idiocy of such an idea.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that height over bore affected accuracy. The whole reason people have said they want a low scope mount has always been (theoretically) to keep the scope more in line with the flight path and therefore reduce the amount of adjustment needed to dial throughout various ranges (although this really doesn’t matter anymore since we all have access to ballistic software via our phones - the only time I can see a potential benefit would be if you’re hunting and have no time to calculate dope - even then, why are you shooting at an animal without having your dope calculated?).
I guess we can all test this right at home with ballistic software. Test the amount of adjustment required to dial out to 200, 300, 400, etc. with two different height over bore amounts. When I do it for a 6.5 CM, outside of the initial come-up, the difference between each subsequent 100 yard increment is very close between a 4” height over bore compared to a 1”. And surprisingly the 4” height turns out to need slightly less adjustment at each subsequent yardage. Myth busted
I picked up my DPGunworks yesterday at my FFL and stopped at my friends shop to show it off before I went home to get a scope mounted on it. He showed me his new build and his last two, 6.5 Creedmoor and 6BR. I was surprised at his scope heights, they were 3” above bore. He explained that he did it for comfort, not having your neck cranked when on scope. His explanation sounded plausible so I went home picked out my scope and mount. Weaver T36 and PEPR one piece mount. When mounted it was over 2.8” which seemed odd to me but very comfortable. I got the scoped zeroed and was shooting 1/4” groups at 50yds. All the comments were beautiful rifle but why is so scope so high. I’m a convert this this set up and getting up this morning I found your video, very extreme but perfectly explained and did you see how straight his neck is looking through the scope, just think more realistic and the theory works. Thanks for the great, fun video.
Started like a 1st of april video for sure!
Great question answered awesomly.
Thank you!!!
For when you want to shoot with the rifle on your lap while sitting in a lazyboy.
haha, no kidding!
HahaHaha , that thumbnail image is absolutely hilarious! Has me rolling! Great video!
Please do a limited run of these things!!!! It would be really funny to have one of these on my wall hangers lol
Was this a gbrs precision rifle prototype mount that you decided to make a video on?
Hahaha
I was looking for a GBRS comment and I’m glad I found one!
This is interesting. As a UK air rifle owner, your 20" height above bore graph reminds me of shooting a .22 sub-12 air rifle with a normal height above bore except with much smaller distances. We often have to hold under at certain ranges.
Should have mounted a periscope on it to bring shooter's eye back down to normal height. That would have been hilarious! Great video guys
Needs a cheek riser to match! Great video guys
I want one for home defense and hunting. I can be in my tree stand while my rifle is on the ground. Genius.
Are you all out near Ruby Creek BC shooting? Or did you come over to the Washington side to try that cool gadget out. I took it as a challenge geolocate you when you said not to tell.
The problem with high scope mounts isn't accuracy, it's the fact that your shooting arc becomes a lot steeper, and it will also cause you to miss everything closer than a football field.
Which just means you need to calculate and adjust for it - or use a different sight/weapon for close up engagements.
@@MiaogisTeas which sounds great in theory, but if you are a hunter with a brush gun, the last thing you want to carry is a 10 pound rifle with multiple optics that get caught on every twig and branch along the way.
All I gotta ask is, what would John Wayne say about this? Excellent video MDT. Great info for us looking to refresh our skills.
john wayne would shake his head and say, whats the point
I love content like this. I hate the gatekeeping and judging people do when someone makes a build. If it works, and they know how it works it doesnt matter. Yet people cant help but critiquing others.
Why try to get a cheek rest when you can have a hip rest.
Right!!
@@MDTTAC They wanted a good cheek weld....engineers (the brainy ones) just got the wrong cheek.
Did you consider a raised cheek rest to make things more stable when shooting?
Getting all the way to the range and realizing you forgot the staple gun is a mood.
Yea it is....
But hey…I have my 20” high scope mount!
I can already imagine all the king of the hill billies just relaxing on a beach chair, beer in hand, with the rifle sitting on the front porch while the scope just about reaches eye level. In short, it's perfect.
this wasn't a question that need answering. the purpose of having a flat shooting rifle shooting a flat shooting cartridge is to keep the projectile close to the zero points before and between the zero points. keeping your optic close the the barrel also helps with this. this allows the shooter to take quick follow up shots at different targets at different distances without making calculations in between. of course the optic doesn't affect he accuracy of the rifle. it only effects your ability to point the rifle.
Good video.
Even with the lowest rings I can use with my scope I still need a cheek riser to bring the comb up enough to be comfortable. So I have absolutely no need for tall rings.
It all make perfect sense. The accuracy is determined by the rifle itself. Just put it in the vice and, even without any sights, it will print a 1MOA group... somewhere. Ironsights or optic is primerly for pointing the gun on target, secondarly for making corrections for drop and wind (coriolis effect and such). Optic provide enlarged picture of distant target, which is not the accuracy but rather the observation "department".
The issue with zeroing on 100 yards, depicted on the diagram, is really the same thing, when someone is using angled scope mount. That extra angle shifts zero further away from shooter, but conserves scope's drop dope range for further distances. At the same time, it's forcing bigger holdovers for ascending part of bullet trajectory on close distances.
Also if dialing down is the main concern, you could also change the point of zero higher up on the reticle. This would prevent you from having to dial negitive for closer ranged shots.
There is no reason why you cannot sight in at 100 or even 50 yards then just set the turret at the required elevation rather than at the zero point.
Being that you paid good money for the optic. It is best practices to utilize the entire field of the optic. I would highly recommend watching The Art of Precision shooting.
correct me if 'm wrong but I would think a higher mount like that could in theory improve accuracy. By lengthening the lever arm between the scope and the rifle, you've created a situation where you're effecting less angle for every bit of noticeable movement in the scope. By that i mean you should have finer precision in leveling your rifle platform
What stops you from still holding it not 100% upright?
Noticing the scope is not alligend with the horizon?
I think I get your point but I am not 100% decided yet.
Awesome to see these experiments!
oh my god i thought the thumbnail was some kind of cringy clickbait this is awesome
Parallel axis, unless zeroed, which is kinda like a lens zeroing the sun at that one spot where it burns when the sun is out because it's hot because the sun is out because ... this is looping now
Now we've come full circle 60 years on to Stoner being proved a genius once again by putting sights on a carry handle.
This is some Bugs Bunny shit. I love it.
This is actually PERFECT for a sniper hiding in a multi-story building, mount the rifle to a ceiling, cut a hole in the floor above it, feed the scope through the hole, your shots will look like they're coming from the floor below you so even if you are spotted they won't be shooting at the right window, just hope the wall in front of you is thick enough their bullets won't go through in case they hit high, now test out a "pariscope-style" scope and see if you can hide behind a corner while still being able to accurately fire a sniper
Does it effect accuracy, no, does it effect ease of use, yes. It depends how you are using your rifle, If you are setting up and calculating and adjusting your reticle for every shot, it is not as relevant (assuming you are not at your limits of adjustment). If you are in the field and trying to make quick snap shots at a variety of ranges it is relevant as it will effect the distance over which your sight reticle is close to your POI.
This is excellent.
As long as you make the right range corrections you should be OK. Some weird configurations like for lever actions will throw off the parallax if mounted off center.
What I’m hearing is when I wanna shoot really far away Mount the scope really high and it gives you way more room for adjustment in your scope
Where this matters is your elevation adjustments on your scope,
People's idea of accuracy needs to have a basis of understanding of what the rifle is used for. This setup for 1 distance would be great, but using this to change shot distance quickly would be a nightmare.
Nice demo. HoB is also about "natural point of aim". Your 20" example shows how crazy you have to train your muscles to manipulate the rifle to get on target. But down to 1.75" HoB vs 4" HoB.... who cares. If it naturally shoulders and reticle naturally pops into your view in a normal head position... that will be best for a shooter to quickly find target.
Also, expanding on this, you're in some danger of hitting objects in front of your rifle you're just staring over with your massively elevated scope (e.g. a wall, window sill, tree stump, what have you) .
I think the best thing i saw in this video was the air compressing around the bullet as it travelled the trajectile path.
i think the only difference it would make is increase the difference in shooting outside of your zeroed distance compared to a proper hight
Of course: any degree of cant will have a greater effect the higher the scope is mounted above the bore; that’s junior high geometry (or was at one time). It may not matter much for precision shooting against fixed targets even under time constraints if the rifle is equipped with a leveling device, but when engaged in something like hunting and the cant isn’t readily apparent under field conditions then it can be a factor affecting practical accuracy. I can still remember when sighting levels were literally unknown, and I would bet a nickel that most hunting rifles today aren’t equipped with levels that are used for the purpose under the pressure of getting a shot at a fleeting target.
Second, most hunting rifle stocks work best with a low head position because they were originally designed to be used with iron sights that were mounted very close to the bore line. In fact, even today most hunting stocks usually have a bit of drop at the comb for that traditional reason despite the fact that iron-sighted rifles are uncommon these days. Even if they have a bit of comb elevation to permit a higher head position, unless they have an adjustable cheek riser (unusual in hunting rifles), they aren’t designed for a good cheek weld when the scope is mounted above a certain height. And proper cheek weld matters. Again, even today there is a significant difference between the stocks of rifles intended primarily for hunting and those designed for long range competitions. The height of a scope over the bore may have no effect on theoretical accuracy, especially if the stock can be adjusted to compensate, but it can certainly have an effect on a shooter’s practical accuracy.
A fascinating experiment, though, so thanks for the efforts involved, and especially for including the explanation of how height over bore affects the trajectory at different zeroing distances.
The higher mount in this video might actually help with rifle cant since you'd be able to detect it easier with the naked eye. Realistically the degree of cant would have the same effect on either a low mounted scope or an extreme mounted scope (I predict anyway). Reason being, 5° of cant is going to have the same effect on the shot regardless of height. 5° is 5°. We'll see in the next video.
You make a valid point about how a higher scope mount might make a cant more obvious, but it would be interesting to know just how much more obvious.
The other part of your comment, though, ignores the fact that although 5° is indeed 5°, the linear distance a particular angular value subtends varies directly with the distance from the apex of the angle to the point being measured. If a cant of 5° moves the center of the scope some X distance from a vertical line through the bore with a sight height over bore of 1 inch, then if the sight height is 2 inches, the lateral distance the sight moves with a 5° cant will be 2X. For shooters, think about what it means to say that a group measures 1 minute of angle. If the target is at 100 yards, that means the group is 1.047 inch in size. A 1 MOA group at 200 yards, though, is twice that, or 2.094 inches; at 300 yards 1 MOA covers 3.141", and so on. The angle of one minute of arc (1/60 degree) never changes, but the distance that the angle subtends does increase with range to the target.
This is incorrect. The line of sight to bore offset does not effect the magnitude of POI error for any given angle of cant, it does effect the direction of the error.
@@simonayers6236 Hmm …. I admit I was puzzled when most of the articles about the effects of rifle cant don’t mention height of the sight over the bore. But then I found this statement in the “Cant Errors” article on the Rifle Scope Level web site which of course is obviously true:
“The use of large diameter objective scopes mounted high off the barrel, exacerbates the cant error problem. This type of scope is mounted high off the barrel to clear the large diameter of the objective lens. To keep the scope elevation knobs centered for maximum adjustment, precision shooters sometimes use elevation compensated scope mounting rings or bases. Although this solves the adjustment problem, it greatly exaggerates cant error because the distance between the bore axis and the line of sight axis increases, and the included angle between the sight axis and the bore is larger, producing more windage error when canting.”
As I understand the statement, moving the sight height farther from the bore line changes the angle and if that changes, the amount of point of impact shift changes. I was evidently wrong with the way I expressed myself, but if the angle as described changes I believe my contention that sight height does have an effect on POI shift with cant is essentially correct.
In any event, thanks for giving me something more to think about.
When you’re trying to really max out the PBR of your zero. I don’t really understand people sweating the height over bore. The mounts made these days are solid and hold zero so the main consideration for height over bore to me is how it affects your zero and trajectory. For instance on an AR with an absolute co witness a 36yd zero is a very tight vertical group. It’s about 5-6 inches vertical spread from 25-250 or 300yds depending on barrel length and what ammo you use. If you use a high mount like a 1.93 that 36yd zero offers a much less desirable vertical spread. You’re better off going with a 50/200yd at that height for the sake of having the smallest hold overs and unders.
a solidly mounted scope will of course be capable of being zeroed. the higher the height over bore, the greater number of variables, which means the greater chance of failure. personally, the "it only matters when hunting" statement was ridiculous. I think it is fair to say the majority of shooters don't run ballistic calculators and take wind readings when trying to make shots, and not all non-hunting shooting takes place at a bench. A mount this ridiculously high demonstrated the issue, the fact that you are basically required to use a lot of math to hit anything not at your zeroing range. is it accurate? of course, that has little to do with the scope as long as it's solidly mounted and not broken, that is primarily the rifle. you effectively tested the mechanical accuracy of the rifle, not the practical accuracy of the system. it technically does work on a theoretical level, in ideal settings where everything is literally plotted out.
Yeah. They did science?
Ideal settings are needed for a proper scientific trial
Very cool video thanks for the test guys!
Thanks!
imagine being hip fired from 800m. chad activities.
My god, that reticle is *beautiful* 🥺
Nice shooting. Nice to see our brothers from the north lol so close you can almost taste the maple
Great video guys
Thank you so much!!
That's the mount all the Unity riser bros are going to flock to next. They were tired of not having a proper sight picture due to their long necks, Unity satiated them but it wasn't enough, but finally someone has made something that will truly be comfy for them
super interesting. Love these kinds of extreme testing videos!
I always wondered where the recoil gonna kick. 🤣🤣🤣
Nice video. Thumbs up and subscribed. 👍👍👍
This is fucking brilliant. Can I borrow that mount?
Obviously there's a difference in angles, it's strongest closeup.
You can visualize it by drawing 2 lines starting at different heights and converting at the desiref zero distance.
If you want to get more fancy, make the lower line follow a ballistic curve.
The further you shoot, the smaller the perceived angle gets, but also the ballistic curve gets stronger...
When will it be for sale? I want.
We should!!
I want to be able to win via hip firing at my local precision rifle matches
@@alexs1972 that would be the greatest flex/insult! I love it!
The thing with HOB is that you can still zero it, but all ranges outside of what it's zeroed to will miss.
It's just a matter of knowing how much accuracy you're willing to sacrifice.
So, this would be good for anyone looking to coax mount the rifle, with the mounted scope being above the commander's hatch?
One idea I've had is a Periscope which could be configured to either allow you to shoot without poking your head over cover or allow for better ergonomics.
Already exists, used in trench warfare in WWI.
I wished there was some short range shooting to show where the mount height really matters!
For hunters the close range shots are very important unlike benchrest long range shooters...
*Diagram was pretty intriguing tho!*
thank you for settling this argument
_MSRP???_ This is the future right here.
depends if you like adjusting by 100+ clicks or not
You should test it at a closer range like for. 22 and what not...... I was always taught that it makes somewhat of a difference when it's close range 🤔
This should allow Mark & Sam to get to 10 miles now :P
Its not even April!!
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Thank you guys, i needed this lol!!
🇨🇦😎👌
Time to do a sight under bore test.
Amazing! When can we start ordering these 22" mounts?
It will make very little difference in accuracy at any given range.... Problem is sight in at 100 yards or 8oo yards it will work.. BUT changing distances like 800 to 700 or from 100 to 300 you do not have enough adjustment in any normal optic. You are far beyond the typical 40min +_ adjustment.
I get that you're saying that it doesn't affect accuracy, but what the hell do you do when you get a scope mount too high and you can't even get your scope to zero because you don't have enough adjustment in it or the scope starts at zero and gives you no down adjustment. So you have to go only up high scope mounts cause all those problems
Looks like a setup that Giraffe would use if they could.
That’s fine for firing at the specific ranges it’s sighted into
But adjusting your aim on the fly in the field would be a nightmare
3:36 the groin puncher
Idk why height above bore is all the rage, height under bore is what we need
For keeping head below cover and having bore above cover.
Firing from 100% cover/concealment would be a game changer
Cant argue with that!
When you're hiding in 3 feet of snow but can still shoot accurately lol
When are these going to be for sale? This is exactly what I needed.
Can I also get an offset mount in this height for my red dots? And my flash lights?
Addition to the ring around the eye risk now add the punch under the waist risk
What app are they using for the DOPE sheet?
theres the average shooters method, and a tactical shooters method. you ever pick up a seals rifle you would likely miss every shot you take because you dont know the parallel to bore sighting method which is more useful in combat situations where timing to sight in the target is alot lower than the take your time to break the shot of range shooting.
if you see someone having as little sight over bore possible, these people know how to headshot you from any distance just aiming for the point of your nose.
if you see someone with an unusually high sight over bore chances are they use ranged sighting and would likely not be as good at shooting a moving target.
the standing desk of scope mounts, you guys are amazing lol
I skimmed past the title in bed without my glasses and got very confused as to why anyone would care about their height over Boers.
I put ak rail on a SKS and it’s setting way too high. I can’t get my scope to lineup with my bite. I might just be a little too close.
height over bore plus an offset from bore is where the fun happens.
What calibre is the rifle used in that video?
Ok but it affects accuracy if you change the range of your target without re-sighting ur scope in
If you have a scope that’s closer to the bore and it’s sighted in for 200m, your accuracy is going to drop much less the closer/farther away you change positions from it than it would with a big ass thing like that. This is assuming you don’t sight in your optic after changing ranges of course.
So when people make this claim I assume they’re referring to when they’re in high octane situations where they can’t repeatedly zero their optic over and over again such as in airsoft or milsims. It’s the same reason why I don’t like riser mounts on my m4, because I know that dot isn’t gonna have the same accuracy at 25m as it would at 50m. Sure it’s not gonna be the same either way but the closer to the bore you put your sight, the more range differentiation you have to play around with and your shots arnt gonna be too off from what you originally sighted it in to be
This
Whats the tiny little bar with the lights on the scope?
a level... to make sure the gun's not leaning to the side...