Compact optic (NF NXS 2.5-10x42) on a long action (T3x). Looking for ring suggestions

[KootenayShooter]

I'm mounting a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x42 Compact on a Tikka T3x and am struggling with the short 5.1" mounting length. While I admittedly do not have the scope in hand, I'm reading every forum post available while deciding which rings to try. Initially, I was planning on the popular Sportsmatch TO84 but read a handful of forum posts where some users complained if insufficient eye relief due to the front ring being positioned too far forward and limiting adjustment. In my limited experience, I generally prefer my optics lower and further back than most. My current considerations are:

Unknown Munitions with the front ring mounted as far rearward as possible with it's multiple recoil lug positions. While I've seen people run this system before, I dislike how the front ring overhangs the ejection port. The rings are also generally larger, bulkier, and heavier than I'd like, but I've also read they're solid and reliable.

Spuhr HPC30-25A Cantilever Aesthetic with Burris XTB 2-piece bases. The cantilevered front ring should allow more rearward adjustment, but I'm not sure how tall this would end up and if I'm wasting my time mounting an $1,800 optic to $250 rings through cheap $30 bases. Are cheap 2-piece bases liable to create misalignment and zero shift or loss? The entire reason I'm running the NF is its reputation for rugged reliability and repeatability. If Spuhr sold direct mount cantilevered rings, it would be an easy choice.

Any other options to consider or anyone else have experience mounting this optic on a T3x or other long action?

 

[BCsteve]

Get a rail if you want endless flexibility. I have a SHV with the same tube lenght on a long action Ruger. Had to get extended rings. If it was easier to get for a Ruger M77 I would have used a rail.

 

[KootenayShooter]

Get a rail if you want endless flexibility. I have a SHV with the same tube lenght on a long action Ruger. Had to get extended rings. If it was easier to get for a Ruger M77 I would have used a rail.

From what I've seen, the steep objective angle means that scope usually runs in to the front of the rail before you can move it any further back than direct mount rings unless you run taller rings. Tough to explain, but you can see what I mean in this thread. I should have specified in my post that I'd also generally like to avoid using a rail.

 

[BCsteve]

I know exactly what you mean. Even my extended rings didn’t give me very much rearward adjustment. I still think a rail would give you more adjustment. Might have to use higher rings.

 

[norenorse92]

Sako ring mounts. They clamp to the dovetail and have a recoil lug.
I had the x32 version of this scope on my tikka and I didn't have any issues with eye relief with those.

But to be safe a Pic rail is probably your best choice.

 

[KootenayShooter]

Sako ring mounts. They clamp to the dovetail and have a recoil lug.
I had the x32 version of this scope on my tikka and I didn't have any issues with eye relief with those.

But to be safe a Pic rail is probably your best choice.

Are you referring to the Sako Optilock rings? I definitely like how slim & low profile they are and a recoil pin system is almost a must for me, but it looks like the front ring would be stuck in a fixed position and can't be relocated with different recoil pin placement like the Unknown Munitions. I've briefly looked at Sako rings before but never found a clear video or manual explaining how the recoil pin interfaces with the receiver. Is the front ring stuck over the large oval hole in the front of the action?

 

[MHWASH]

I had mine in Talley lows until I changed things up. Worked just fine.

 

[Blackdog317]

Hawkins Long Range Hybrids worked well on my T3x. I had to bring the scope back as far as possible to get the right eye relief. But it worked.

Stock was a Mesa Precision Altitude with a 13.5" LOP.

 

[The Harbor Master]

From what I've seen, the steep objective angle means that scope usually runs in to the front of the rail before you can move it any further back than direct mount rings unless you run taller rings. Tough to explain, but you can see what I mean in this thread. I should have specified in my post that I'd also generally like to avoid using a rail.

Fwiw I have the same scope in Hawkins UL low rings, on a rail. No issue with the objective when getting the scope far enough back for proper eye relief. I see you'd rather not use the rail though...

 

[KootenayShooter]

Hawkins Long Range Hybrids worked well on my T3x. I had to bring the scope back as far as possible to get the right eye relief. But it worked.

Stock was a Mesa Precision Altitude with a 13.5" LOP.

View attachment 803106

I definitely prefer the look and simplicity of direct mount rings like that, but the extra 1/2" on a factory Tikka LOP might make the difference. I'm planning a custom Wildcat Composites stock down the road but need to manage the factory stock in the meantime. Someone needs to make cantilevered Tikka direction mounts ETO37C or Spuhr HPC30-25A.

Great looking rifle and very similar to what I'm trying to put together. Ultralight-ish without compromising reliability and shootability.

 

[Tanner]

Another vote for Hawkins LR hybrid lows…

 

[Macintosh]

If you do go with a pic rail it’s easy to bevel the front edge of the rail to get a few extra mm back, Ive had to do this a few times. A file and some cold black or cerakote works fine, or any smith could do for you. The oem tikka rail is the thinnest Ive found, and with low rings isnt bad as far as height.

 

[Littlechief]

I use the tally extra lows and have never had an issue

 

[hseII]

I know exactly what you mean. Even my extended rings didn’t give me very much rearward adjustment. I still think a rail would give you more adjustment. Might have to use higher rings.

Which Ruger is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BCsteve]

Which Ruger is that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

It's a semi custom MKII with a custom .35 Whelen barrel, bead blasted in a B&C stock.

 

[Oregonmuley]

I used the Sportsmatch rings on mine and got it mounted just fine, had to move the back ring up just a bit though. Not much wiggle room but it works.

 

[KootenayShooter]

Another vote for Hawkins LR hybrid lows…

Do you know if that stock has a 14" LOP? I think many aftermarkets are 13.5" which might make the difference. Maybe I'll just have to bite the bullet and try a few different options.

 

[Tanner]

Do you know if that stock has a 14" LOP? I think many aftermarkets are 13.5" which might make the difference. Maybe I'll just have to bite the bullet and try a few different options.

Standard 13.5” on this setup. I’m pretty average sized, touch over 6’ but I do have long ish arms. This whole package works really well.

 

[Randy11]

I know exactly what you mean. Even my extended rings didn’t give me very much rearward adjustment. I still think a rail would give you more adjustment. Might have to use higher rings.

What brand of rings are those?

 

[wapitibob]

From what I've seen, the steep objective angle means that scope usually runs in to the front of the rail before you can move it any further back than direct mount rings unless you run taller rings. Tough to explain, but you can see what I mean in this thread. I should have specified in my post that I'd also generally like to avoid using a rail.

file the front boss off the rail, takes 10 minutes, or use an angle head grinder, takes 30 seconds