Rifle Scopes Official Zero Compromise Optic News & Updates
- Thread starter gebhardt02
- Start date
Are there any throw levers with a full range of motion that clear the Tenebraex rear lens cap?
hahaha....every time I watch one of your vids I get cold and need to put on a sweatshirt! LOL
Thanks for the vid
Spill the beans on where this info came from. I’m hopeful you are wrong.
Feniks Technologies
Premium Ammunition and Loading Supplies
Supporter
Commercial Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
I’ll know more for sure at SHOT.
But first scopes should be out and about fairly soon. With full production being underway.
That being, SHOT slows everyone in the industry down. So most are slow until middle of February and such.
Q2 is April. And will he February soon. So it’s not really that far away.
Thank´s
That last weekend shooting trip was quite epid.
-8F, felt like my nuts are iced after that trip
Got confirmation this week, that after the SHOT, later on the spring i will get one 8-40 for a test use from the Austrian factory.
Need to find longer range for that scope
I think 6.5PRC could be the rifle i mount it.
That rifle got cerakote on the steel parts yesterday, no more SS.
Need to find longer range for that scope
I think 6.5PRC could be the rifle i mount it.
That rifle got cerakote on the steel parts yesterday, no more SS.
Speaking of Nutz.... how did your prostate thing go?
Thank´s
That last weekend shooting trip was quite epid.
-8F, felt like my nuts are iced after that trip
I went to the doc at Tuesday.
She did her thing, and told me that i am good to go
Prostate is good, blood test was also good, no sign of problems.
But she writed a recipe for a bladder, old age dont come alone
I bet that shit is all, that i do drink a too much coffee.
I was also testing Hornady A-Tip 13´fives on the 6.5PRC.
These goes over 3000fps thru the 24" CTR barrel.
These goes over 3000fps thru the 24" CTR barrel.
What throw lever options are out there in a similar size lever length as a switch view? The poly printed ones are longer than I'd like.
New Hunter Build... weighing in at less than 16 lbs.
Action, glass, and mount provided by you account for a large percentage of ounces in that picture.
Action, glass, and mount provided by you account for a large percentage of ounces in that picture.
New Hunter Build... weighing in at less than 16 lbs.
What's the weight on your gun? I've been thinking about something with pretty much identical components.
261 oz with the triple pull. +5 oz over. I can get it under by removing the caps and sunshade easily. I could probably switch out to Spuhr and save more.
248 oz with single pull and SOAR clamp with everything on. A little more with the double pull likely but under.
Keep in mind, I asked Foundation for a standard weight Revelation. Could take out more in the rear if needed. It balances perfectly in the current configuration.
That boi L O N G.
Talking to Jeff H. he said these are not the actual turret numbers for the 8-40 they just are waiting on the actual ones to be engraved I believe. (It's been a long day)
Talking to Jeff H. he said these are not the actual turret numbers for the 8-40 they just are waiting on the actual ones to be engraved I believe. (It's been a long day)
I was told ETA 60 days. But I'm sure someone in the know will chime in and either confirm or let us know the time frame.
Sick build. What DBM is that?New Hunter Build... weighing in at less than 16 lbs.
I’m currently running the Kahles 525i DLR on all my comp rifles but the new ZC840 has severely peaked my interest, when will they be shipping out to dealers? I want to look through one before I make a decision to sell or trade in my Kahles for a couple of ZC840’s
@gebhardt02 @CSTactical and anybody else who knows something and cares to weigh in .
In another thread about repeated damage to a scope (brand unknown ) that was in an ARC M-Brace mount, a poster said that he has spoken to Jeff Huber who told him to NOT torque the M-10 rings to ARC's published spec of 55 in/lbs and to stay at 18 in/lbs.
This is kind of a shocking surprise to me....if true....as I have not heard of anybody having issues with various scopes in ARC rings if torqued to their spec. That is, I have not seen any specific scope brand recommendations for departing from ARC's spec when used with their product. And, I have a Mk5 5-25 in M-10 rings, yes torqued to 55 in/lbs, and no problems at all.
I ask because I have a new BA under construction and my plan was to buy a ZCO 5-27 and put it in M-10 rings (which I really like and far prefer to regular capped rings).
Any feed back at all on this?
Thanks
In another thread about repeated damage to a scope (brand unknown ) that was in an ARC M-Brace mount, a poster said that he has spoken to Jeff Huber who told him to NOT torque the M-10 rings to ARC's published spec of 55 in/lbs and to stay at 18 in/lbs.
This is kind of a shocking surprise to me....if true....as I have not heard of anybody having issues with various scopes in ARC rings if torqued to their spec. That is, I have not seen any specific scope brand recommendations for departing from ARC's spec when used with their product. And, I have a Mk5 5-25 in M-10 rings, yes torqued to 55 in/lbs, and no problems at all.
I ask because I have a new BA under construction and my plan was to buy a ZCO 5-27 and put it in M-10 rings (which I really like and far prefer to regular capped rings).
Any feed back at all on this?
Thanks
Edit: Found the post in question. Will be interesting to see the official response.
Last edited:
Last edited:
I don't see where the original poster in that thread has clearly stated the scope was a ZCO, but that seems to be the general opinion. I've sent him a message, we obviously need to get that specific scope back to the shop to determine what is going on.
I have no engineering opinion on whether the rings are a cause of it or not.
I have no engineering opinion on whether the rings are a cause of it or not.
Outstanding find...your search fu it strong, Luke (I think I'm mixing up my metaphors...or movies...or something).
Thanks for finding this.....what the other member posted about Jeff limiting it to 18 in"lbs just did not make any sense to me and I'm glad its not true as I pretty much only want to use M-10's going forward and I def will be buying a ZCO 5-27 in the next 2-3 months.
Cheers
Credit actually goes to Shoot 700's on the original thread. Just figured I'd update this one too.
It was the price range and then OP finally put out some more vague photos and stated 36mm tube. Silly thread that should've just been upfront from the start. Assuming it is a ZCO, hopefully you folks can get both it and the mount in hand to see what's up.
No. I talked to Jeff at shot. He wants one too lol But nothing yet.
Ah yeah, the OG poster in the other thread actually has refused to identify the brand of scope...adamantly refused. He just said $4k+ which kind of limits the field a bit.
@spelunk said that he called Jeff Huber who told him (according to spelunk) "he said DO NOT torque the rings to ARC's spec. He recommended the normal 18in pounds or risk causing damage."
Glad to know this is not true.
As for whether its yours or not....if I recall correctly, he said he broke the ocular twice, sent it back, and the company (whoever) fixed it.
I should think it would be somewhat straightforward to check your RMA/Repair files as I can't imagine too many people have sent one of your scopes back....twice...for a cracked ocular lens.
It may not be your scope.
Ah, didn't see that....yeah....what a waste of time. It does sound like he somehow hammered THREE ZCO ocular lenses. Wow.
I wonder if there is not a defect in the ARC mount....a substandard product does make it out the door of everybody at some time or another. I have never heard of ARC QC issues at all (Black Friday delivery issues....diff story! haha). But if the scope is returned to the manf again, I personally would want the mount with it if it was my product. Just for fault isolation purposes, right?
I am highly skeptical it had anything to do with change in temp or recoil. Guess we will just have to wait and see.
I am once again asking the forum to ignore people who don’t understand basic mechanical engineering principles talking about mechanical engineering.
Scopes do not give a flying duck about screw tightening torque. They care about the preload in the screw, which combines the torque, tolerances, screw size, and friction factor to tell you how hard you’re actually clamping.
ARC uses a larger screw. They need more torque to get the same load. They need a bit more torque since it’s one screw carrying the load of what might be 4-6, but it is extremely well load spread and your scope won’t care.
That aside I am extremely hesitant to believe that there is literally anything in common between tightening a screw clamping an aluminum tube and cracking a glass lens several inches and a couple tube profile changes away.
Turns out it wasn't the ocular. It's one of the internal lenses near the turrets.
That being said it doesn't seem to be a ring problem, he says that the turrets and parallax work just fine.
Last edited:
Um yes actually it is true. Why the fuck would I just pull that out of my ass? I don't know why you're so obsessed with that comment, but it IS what Jeff told me last year. I didn't ask Nick, I spoke to Jeff. Do whatever you want, I was simply adding INFORMATION to that shitshow of a thread that was speculation at best and a complete waste of time on the rest. I do have several ARC rings on other scopes with no problems, so I'm not saying it WILL cause a problem, but possibly could according to a guy that knows a hell of a lot more than you and I combined.
I'll defer to Jeff's opinion on the ARC rings and required torque value. Those rings are quite obviously a much different design than the owner's manual was originally written for. If Mr. Huber has specifically told an owner to use a lower torque value, please follow that advise, there is most definitely very good reason for it.
It has been our experience, that most users over torque the rings from repeated "checking" which then can result in binding of internal components. This is exacerbated by the wider design rings that are out there. Or people give it that little extra, just to be sure ya know.
It has been our experience, that most users over torque the rings from repeated "checking" which then can result in binding of internal components. This is exacerbated by the wider design rings that are out there. Or people give it that little extra, just to be sure ya know.
Hmm, this is a bit concerning, considering I purchased an ARC M-brace for my 527 based on the previous validation that ARC torque specs were ok. Perhaps I should have just stuck with a Spuhr with the normal 18 in/lb torque values that seem to be widely accepted.
What a cluster.
Tomorrow's going to be a busy day, first day back from SHOT, but I'll try to get validation on torque specs on these and will post back here.
Ah, perhaps get w Jeff, come up with a consensus on this, and post it/update your instructions if necessary?
I have zero “obsession” w you or your statement.
There was a clear conflict between your statement and the ZCO rep’s statement. Not hard to understand.
Similar threads
