This may seem like a real newbie question. I've noticed when folks use three scope rings on their handguns the pairing seems to differ. Some put a pair to the front and some put the pair to the rear. What is the reasoning behind this? I understand adding the extra ring, but where it is located seems to differ.

Wherever you can fit them, put them. Some bases have limited space and the scope's design will often dictate where rings can go. If room for 4, and it kicks like a mule, sobeit

There are 2 primary forces at work on a scope under recoil.
1 - The rearward motion of the gun essentially slides out from under the scope during recoil causing the scope to move forward due to its static mass - inertia. This is countered by more rings in any location. Clean, tight rings.
2 - Muzzle rise torque that slams the gun into the bottom of the scope can actually dent an aluminum tube gradually over the firing of many rounds. It can also shear the ring to base clamp off of some rings. Again the more rings the better but if you only have 3 you should have 2 up front as the torque is greater away from the grip / pivot point of the gun.

It should also be noted that these forces are proportional to the mass of the scope. A heavier scope is stressed more than a lighter one. That is why a little dot sight can survive with only one clamp.

Thanks s4s4u and billa, that makes a lot of sense. I will keep that in mind. By the way billa nice whitetail in your avatar.

Indeed!

Thanks guys. I shot that whitetail in PA in 1984 on the last day of the 2 week long PA gun season on my neighbor's property that was open to public hunting at that time. It scores 141 B&C typical. I won the HHI big buck whitetail division that year and it was the #1 typical Whitetail in the HHI record book at that time. I used a Contender in 358JDJ with a 2.5x Bushnell Centurion scope. The main beams are over 25" and the spread is 21.5".

Billa, ah the old Centurion! I have a 10" 358JDJ, unbraked with a Bushnell 2.5 magnum phantom in the rail for 3 shots....it came past my ear on the 3rd shot. I also had a original stainless steel 2.5x Redfield that was heavier than the 10" 444 it was mounted on. It too sheared off the Leupold base. I now use either T'Sobs on heavy kickers, or Weaver base and 3 split rigs if I can find them. I try to use 3 rings on most everything if I can fit them. Leupod 2x are easy as they are straight tube. I have 4 rings on some of them. Scope tube flex at the turret defeats a lot of scopes.

I'm surprised the rack only scored 141. what holds it back, points and mass?

My 358JDJ is unported. The mount is a T'SOB from SSK Industries with 3 of the older 80s vintage Bushnell rings. I have had 4 different Bushnell or B & L scopes on the gun in 34 years of use. All survived. 2 rings in front. I always try to position the middle ring so it is tight against the front of the turret so it can not walk in the rings.

The buck has relatively short brow tines etc. He only aged at 3 1/2 years. Weighed 160 lbs field dressed. Est live wt 200 lbs. would have been a monster in 1 or 2 years. Has the main beams of a 160 class buck

"Howard Johnson is RIGHT!"

Yeah, it wasn't the scope that failed...it was the mounts. The screws sheared right off. I love the T'SOBs on my heavy kickers.

Cessna,

Handgun scopes on really hard kicker (sharp muzzle rise) are much harder on scopes than are rifles. As Billa noted, you can dent and even bend tubes. had an early Burris Posi-lock (3-9 or 3-12) that broke at the eye piece, with 4 rings on a 375 JDJ. The recoil forces up and down were too much for the big bell at the rear. The extra rings help both in the sliding of the scope, and in its flexing.

Craig