I know human body and shooting styles vary greatly, but for me that high mounted scope would not work well. And the scope is way to far back for proper eye relief for me. I image with the scope a mile high you could just lift your cheek right off the stock and hold the head way back. I dont say there is a right or wrong, but no way I could handle that on a big bore rifle. As for Leupold and Warne, both look fine to my eye and are well respected. I did not know Leupold made a CZ ring, or I forgot, but that would seem an excellent choice. Taste do vary on rings, as well and that what keeps life interesting. Those tally rings are pretty nice and the basic CZ ring works well. I used both. Some scopes dont have a long enough tube to span the long CZ magnum action, but the Leupolds fit ok.

With scope mounting on the 505 Gibbs, I'd really would have liked to move the scope another 1/2 inch forward. It is ok, but barely. I tried a higher more forward mounted scope on a weaver base adapter and gave it up as a bad method (too high) for me. The conventional mounting turned out the best way.

I want my scopes pushed as far forward as possible with std ring and there is no way I move the scope closer to my eye even on a 375H&H.

One more consideration, given the plan is to have detachable rings, then this would be a hugh change in shooting ergonomics (or holding style) to go from a head up high and way back hold to down low and forward head position with the iron sites. Seems quite a radical transition to make in shooting style when switching from glass to iron. And, potentially in the heat of battle, so to speak.

As an after thought, I feel I might benefit from another 1/4 inch lenght of pull. Maybe another might better fit a shorter stock? If the stock is too long or short might effect proper scope mounting. In that case adjustment of stock fit might be a better plan than an extreme scope setting? I dont know? I just toss that out FWIW?