I'm assuming you mean the recent LoWall. I had one, never really used it and traded it toward something that interested me more (and, as usual, I got skunked on the trade and have been kicking myself ever since). Anyway, nice, light little gun. Straightforward for mounting scope; use medium or higher rings, depending on size of front bell. Also, consider your need to provide clearance at rear ... space between top of trigger and eyepiece ... especially on adjustable-power scopes. You'll want that space for hand cocking/decocking, so you've got to be able to get your thumb in there (and a hammer extension ... ala lever-action guns ... will NOT work. When working the action, the hammer drops down INTO the body of the action, so there's no room for anything hanging off the sides). Although your choice of rings is limited, as noted above, I can't understand why people compain about the cost of rings after they've just spent nearly $1000 for a gun and several hundred for the scope. Anyway, I really only sighted mine in (less than 50 shots through it, ever), using cheap surplus .223; got it readily into 1-1/2 to 1-3/4 inches at 100 yds. Always figured I'd be able to improve on that with better ammo, especially if I ever worked up a hand load. Nice, light carry rifle; good looking and a pleasure to shoot. I recommend it (and wish I had mine back). You don't see many .223's on the market ... mostly Hornets and various Tradition Hunters. If, by some chance, you mean a HI-Wall, (I've never seen one in the flesh or listed for sale, but I've got an old Gun Digest that lists it in .223): while I prefer the Hi-Wall action, looks-wise, that gun (at 8+ pounds) would not be as sweet as a "walking around" gun as the LoWall. As far as convenience of scope use, I'd expect both to be about the same; and it would depend somewhat on your shooting position ... standing or off the bench; but neither has proved problemmatical for me.
