I often hear people discussing someone's scope being to high and that it is going to cause massive trajectory issues. Lets look into this statement.
For the test examples we will be looking at a 6.5 Creedmoor topped with a Riton Conquer 5 rifle Scope.
The bullet being used for this example is a 140gn Hornady ELD-M going at 2700 fps.
Rifle 1 will be mounted with Low rings at 45mm height over bore
Rifle 2 will be using a Unimount at 60mm height over bore
|Distance||Rifle 1||Rifle 2||Difference in Mrad||Difference in cm|
|25||U 0.8||U 1.2||0.4||-1|
|50||U 0.1||U 0.2||0.1||-1|
|300||U 1.4||U 1.3||0.1||-3|
|500||U 3.3||U 3.2||0.1||-6|
|800||U 7.0||U 6.9||0.1||-11|
|1000||U 10.2||U 10.1||0.1||-14|
From the above we can draw the conclusion that at 25 meters the difference is 10mm less upward adjustment on rifle 1 than on rifle 2.
However over 100 meters the advantage went over to to Rifle 2. At 1000 meters the difference is 14 cm less adjustment on Rifle 2 than on Rifle 1.
So why do people prefer lower mounted optics. The first reason would be traditional rifle stocks having a very low Comb and therefore struggeling to get a proper sight picture. This stock design comes from the days of iron sights. This design is however still being used by rifle manufacturers.
On more modern rifles stocks or rifle chassis mounting your scope higher is not a problem as they have adjustable cheek pieces. Mounting your optics higher also takes a lot of stress off of your neck as it allows you to get more upright behind your rifle.
So to draw a conclusion, does it matter?
No not really unless 1 cm will make a difference in your shooting below 100 meteres.
Does this mean I suggest mounting your scope as high as possible, No not at all.
But this should give you some peace of mind knowing it doesnt really matter.