I have an encore pistol with a 15" heavy factory contour MGM barrel and MGM scope mount. I want to mount my Burris 2x7 scope(non posi-loc)on it using the Burris Signature Z rings with the pos-align inserts. My question is should I use medium or high rings. I have a Stratton hammer extention so the clearance between the ocular and the hammer shouldn't be a problem. The encore is a .308. Will I be ok using the Burris Signature rings in reference to scope slippage. I've always had good luck with them in the past but this is the first time used on a pistol. Thanks for any help!

In my personal experience and going by all the pros I've talked with you want the scope as low as possible.

I prefer to use high rings, mainly 'cause I hate those hammer extensions. On a couple of barrels I have see through rings which are super high but then my hold style on those makes that more comfortable. To each their own I guess.

The bullet has a path it takes when being shoot. The higher your scope is the more your bullets angle is going to cross it. It makes a difference when planing the trajectory of your bullet. This is one of the reasons the military snipers have used 40-mm scopes for so long. However, I can’t really tell a difference up to, I don’t know, 100-300yards. When you start getting into sniper range, 800yards, you start to notice it. But the last time I shot anywhere near that far I was shooting at 1-gallon milk jugs not bars of soap.

I put high rings on my 22-250 pistol barrel because I don’t like hammer extensions and I don’t like the scope taking shavings of my thumbnail. I also had an extra pair that I had taken of one of my rifles.

Something else to consider competition shooters that shoot 1000-yard matches general use large diameter mm scopes with high rings. I had to use high rings on my Ziess 6-20 50mm scope that I put on my 7mm Mag. I put the Ziess on there for two reasons. First, got tiered of my 7mm eating cheap scopes. Second, the light gathering capabilities of a bigger scope are nice at low light levels. Or for that matter, a full moon with that scope. But with a pistol, you don’t HAVE to have them. Also there is the weight of the scope to consider which is far more noticeable on a pistol. It is just personal preference.

Duane

I like the high Signature Zee rings on my encores for 3 reasons;

1, It moves the scope up away from the hammer for thumb clearance because I don't use hammer extensions.

2, I have thin fingers and can slip 3 of them inbetween the scope and mount to carry the gun. Kind of like using the scope as a handle. This works good in the hot summer when charlie hunting. That way there is no large holster pressed up against you to make you sweat.

3, On the low recoiling barrels I like to use high power rifle scopes which have large objective bells. The high rings are nessacary for clearance.

Gotta agree to disagree with you on this one! On a rifle, ring height is paramount for a good cheek weld to the stock and eye alignment to the scopes eye piece. Not to mention actual comfort while shooting. That all goes out the window with a handgun held at arms length. Personally I use the higher rings on my Contender and Encore. That gives me more room to cock the hammer, not to mention easier loading and unloading of the chamber. On my Ruger SBH Hunter, went to high Ruger rings so my scope would clear the high sitting fiber optic sights. Try handling both at your local range on other folks guns if they're amenable, you'll soon find what's comfortable for you.

D'Keyman (Non Sibi Sed Patriae, Not Self But Country)

Both the "highs" and "lows" make good points. You do need to be aware that medium Signature rings are higher that medium non-Signature rings. The height of the base should also be considered. If you have a Brownells catalog it lists the heights of most rings and bases. You may be able to get a comparison from those figures.

There is no disadvantage to a higher ring, as said, at least on a pistol. A 1/4" difference in height is going to be unnoticed but for the additional clearance for the hammer. One other advantage is extended range if you use the +3/-3 BDZ theory. I sight in so that my trajectory never exceedes 3" above line of sight (for big game) and then let my chrono and ballistic software tell me where the 3" below will be (max range with no hold over). Here is where a 1/4" additional ring height makes a HUGE difference, adding all of 20 yards, or more, to the max range (with the faster loadings). I've even gone so far as to put "see through" rings on my 14" Waters, which are about 1/2" higher than mediums. This has added 40 yards to the max, no hold over, range of that one. Plus it is more comfortable with the "taco" hold I use, along with a rifle scope, with a more upright head position. Not for everyone but it works for me. Point is, there is NO handicap in higher rings. JMO, Rod.

No handicap whatsoever with the higher rings. Personally, I prefer to mount the scope as low as feasible, but that is nothing more than my preference.

Guys that shoot a lot of NRA "Hunter Pistol" have been using high rise scope mounts for years. If they were in any way detrimental to accuracy, they wouldn't be using them. Check out:

http://www.kenlightmfg.com/products.html

for some extreme examples.