The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Tactical Rifle & Carbine => Topic started by: Badgersmilk on September 01, 2009, 12:49:29 PM
-
I'd installed a set of these rings having been attracted by the fact that they were adjustable for windage, and were made of nickel (VERY hard, corrosion resistant). BAD CHOICE. Finally got the rifle out in the field, sighted in, and as part of testing out my setup on any new rifle / pistol with optics I use the end of a fist (pinky end) and "bop" the optic a few times on either side, front and back, about 5 times to test its ability to hold zero... Moved the groups at 100 yards anywhere from 1.25", to 2.1" each time I repeated this! :(
I consider this a very acceptable test in ANY field rifle! Rings were lapped in, they were flexing at the bottom where they clamp to the rail. :(
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww40/BigCheeseStick/P1010120.jpg?t=1251826349)
Cheap Weaver "Quad rings":
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww40/BigCheeseStick/P1010286.jpg?t=1251826749)
I have them on two other rifles. No need to lap them in at all! NICE! AND, after clamping down, tightening everything up, I bore sighted the gun at 105 yards and didnt need to touch the windage screw! Elevation was off from true zero on the scope by 2 marks (Millet rings were off by 5). These rings have passed the "bop" test perfectly on the other 2 guns. Bummer they dont come in silver. :( Function before form though.
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww40/BigCheeseStick/P1010288.jpg?t=1251826920)
Toe included per forum standard. ;D ;D ;D
-
Switch to a set of the Burris Signature Zee Rings and you'll never look back. These rings have the plastic inserts that do not require any lapping because they are self centering. The also are available with off set inserts that allow you to move the scope vertically, horizontally, or diagonally, without moving the scope adjustments. I have these rings on 4 rifles now, and they are the only rings I'll ever use from now on. Bill T.
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=416175
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/?productNumber=712472
-
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=7703.0
;)
-
I should add that I just had another set of these rings delivered yesterday, and I'll be installing them on my new Savage 110 FCP-K in .300 Win. Mag. this weekend. I'll post some pics when it get it all together. Bill T.
-
I should add that I just had another set of these rings delivered yesterday, and I'll be installing them on my new Savage 110 FCP-K in .300 Win. Mag. this weekend. I'll post some pics when it get it all together. Bill T.
Please do ;D
-
"Z-rings":
(http://i703.photobucket.com/albums/ww40/BigCheeseStick/Z-RING.jpg?t=1251838461)
PLUS they add a plastic liner and have a flat head screw?!?! :o :( :o
Not even up to par with my mother-in-laws Lorcin .25! And judging by quality, I think it came in a box of rice crispies. ;D
-
What you're in fact pointing out means nothing. Whatever scope ring or system you employ is only going to be as strong as it's WEAKEST LINK. In any centerfire scope mounting system employed, that weak link is the 4, tiny 6-48 UNF screws that attach EVERYTHING to the rifle. Everything you have pointed out is moot, simply because you are going to shear those 4 small screws at the receiver long before anything else fails.
What difference does it make if you have a 1 1/2" safety chain on your trailer, if your hitch is attached to the frame with 3/8" bolts? It is the exact same principal applied here. I have these rings mounted on a .300 Weatherby Magnum that has fired hundreds of rounds. They're still there doing their job without as much as a minute of zero shift. If you think your rifle is "stronger" with these big, heavy, tactical rings, you are only kidding yourself. Weight is the biggest enemy in an optics set up on any rifle. I've had nothing but success with these rings. It doesn't get any better than 100%. Bill T.
-
I am no expert when it comes to scopes, rings, mounts, and many other things. I have a friend of mine that has had several of his rifles that have been factory drilled and tapped for scope mounting altered. He pointed out the same thing you did Bill about the small screws. He has a gunsmith rebore and tap the factory mounting points to use No. 8 screws for a stronger mounting system.
From what I understand the heavier a scope mount and rings are the higher the amount of inertial energy can be imparted to them during recoil. The higher the energy the greater the chance to exceed the strength of the weakest link of the mounting system, or scope.
I may be wrong, but , this all makes sense to me, a simple man.
-
No, you and Bill are right.
-
Would a scope ring endurance test not be a good Downrange tv topic!?! Easy enough to choose about a dozen popular ones and setup a test stand / procedure.
-
From what I understand the heavier a scope mount and rings are the higher the amount of inertial energy can be imparted to them during recoil. The higher the energy the greater the chance to exceed the strength of the weakest link of the mounting system, or scope.
That is exactly correct. Recoil forces set a rifle into rearward motion. From there all of the stress is absorbed and transferred into the scope bases, rings, and the scope itself. The heavier these items are, the greater the stress impaired on them. This is where the "weakest link" comes into play. In examining the entire scope mount system, the 4, 6-48 UNF screws are by far the smallest fasteners from the receiver, all the way to the top of the scope. If anything is going to break, that is where it will be. Bill T.
-
bit off topic but the wood on your stock is brilliant.
-
More toes. ;D
-
Billt, you are right on the money with the scope rings. The price is nice too.
-
I agree that the four mounting screws to the receiver look to be the weak point, but I have found that the clamp force of the ring to the scope is the weak link. I have a Remington 700 in 300 Win Mag topped off with a Burris 6-24 Signature Series scope. The scope is a tank and kept sliding forward with recoil. I started with a set of Leupold standard windage adjustable rings, couldn't make the windage screws tight enough to keep the rear ring from sliding in relation to the base. Next was the Burris plastic insert rings, I like the theory of adjustable MOA offset and no lapping, but again wouldn't keep the scope still. The final solution proved to be a set of the Burris Xtreme Tactical rings. The six screws per ring finally gave me the clamp force to keep the scope from moving and they aren't horribly priced, around 50 bucks.
-
Hey droggsey, gald to see another person from Michigan on board.
-
Next was the Burris plastic insert rings, I like the theory of adjustable MOA offset and no lapping, but again wouldn't keep the scope still.
Did you clean both the plastic insert, as well as the interior of the ring itself along with the scope tube, with alcohol before assembly? Bill T.
-
I agree that the four mounting screws to the receiver look to be the weak point, but I have found that the clamp force of the ring to the scope is the weak link. I have a Remington 700 in 300 Win Mag topped off with a Burris 6-24 Signature Series scope. The scope is a tank and kept sliding forward with recoil. I started with a set of Leupold standard windage adjustable rings, couldn't make the windage screws tight enough to keep the rear ring from sliding in relation to the base. Next was the Burris plastic insert rings, I like the theory of adjustable MOA offset and no lapping, but again wouldn't keep the scope still. The final solution proved to be a set of the Burris Xtreme Tactical rings. The six screws per ring finally gave me the clamp force to keep the scope from moving and they aren't horribly priced, around 50 bucks.
If you exceed 18 INCH pounds torque you stand a very good chance of wrecking your scope.
-
Hey droggsey, gald to see another person from Michigan on board.
I figured that it was about time to quit just reading the posts and actually put my two cents in.
Did you clean both the plastic insert, as well as the interior of the ring itself along with the scope tube, with alcohol before assembly? Bill T.
It has been a couple of years since I used the Burris plastic insert rings, so I am not 100% sure, but I am usually pretty good about cleaning before assembly. The scope weighs 19 oz. and the standard rings just didn't seem to have enough contact area on the scope to keep things from moving with the 300's recoil.
If you exceed 18 INCH pounds torque you stand a very good chance of wrecking your scope.
I must admit that I still haven't gotten a torque wrench that makes it down to 18 inch pounds, mine only goes down to 24 (I just checked Midway and for the price I don't have a good excuse for not having the correct tool). I do go easy when tightening the ring screws and this could very well be the reason I was having trouble with the standard two screw rings. Insufficient torque.
The one thing that I do think should be done on every ring set up, is that they need to be lapped. I have lapped four or five rifles now and on every one the initial ring contact was maybe 50%. I did a rifle for a friend and the rings that he had were stamped with the company logo on the top ring. After the first round with the lapping rod the logo was clearly visible on the inside of the ring, these were not high dollar rings, but at least now he has more than the reverse impression of the logo contacting the scope.
-
It is very important to be sure to get any and all lubricant or rust preventative off the inside of the rings, as well as the plastic inserts themselves to prevent any slippage. No matter what type or brand scope ring you employ, it will be holding a smooth surface with another smooth surface. Even the slightest bit of oily film from your fingers can cause slippage.
I always clean the rings with isopropyl alcohol just before assembly, and I am careful not to touch the mating surface once I've cleaned them. Another thing that will help distribute the clamping force evenly is once you have everything exactly where you want it, and the crosshairs perfectly level, (this IMHO is the biggest PITA), torque the ring cap screws in a criss cross pattern, much like mechanics do when torquing down an engine cylinder head. This will also help keep the crosshairs nice and straight throughout the entire torquing process. Also while torquing everything down, be sure to keep an eye on the gap between the top and bottom half of the rings. Try to keep the gap even on each side.
One other "trick" I would mention, which I used yesterday when installing a Bushnell 3200 Elite Tactical Scope on my new Savage 110 FCP-K, is to use a couple of small line levels to get the crosshairs perfectly straight. I purchased 2 of these from Harbor Freight for just a couple of bucks each:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=66318
It turned out to be the best $4.00 I could have ever spent! I used one on top of the elevation turret which has a nice flat on it, and the other I placed on the flat on the receiver after removing the bolt. This worked out much better than the "look and see" method. For me getting the crosshairs perfectly straight is one of the most challenging aspects of mounting a scope. And it seems to get more difficult as I get older. Me eyes start playing tricks on me, and I have to put the rifle down and let my eyes "readjust", otherwise you think they are straight, only to get to the range and find out they aren't. By using these 2 inexpensive levels it takes all of the guesswork out of it. I think Midway sells a similar arrangement, but this was much cheaper, and worked just as well because it takes any and all human error out of the equation. The job went really well and the rifle is now range ready. I'll try and post some pics later today. Bill T.
-
Bill, pic's of the Savage 110 FCP-K would be greatly appreciated ;D
-
Bill, pic's of the Savage 110 FCP-K would be greatly appreciated ;D
Will do. I'm going to run over to Cabela's and see if they've got a short, bench rest style, Harris Bi-Pod for it. I was going to order one when I ordered the scope and mounts, but forgot. Old story. I'm at that age where I need to start writing things down. ;D Bill T.