Ive spoken with Ted in person more than 90% of the people here. Im very aware of his mfg processes, thoughts, etc.
- Thread starter Bsutton2010
- Start date
- Status
I'm with you 100% on this. I have never owned or used ARC rings, don't care for the design, just my personal preference. But even if I did, no way in hell I would be torquing the single bolt to 50+ inch pounds. In a previous post someone posted one of his emails where he likens tightening his single bolt to 55 inch pounds being equivalent to 25 inch pounds on a two bolt, traditional ring. If that's true, 25 inch pounds is WAY too much torque on a traditional ring setup. 15 inch pounds has worked perfectly for me on dozens of guns. Nearly every scope manufacturer on earth recommends 12-18 inch pounds MAX. Not sure what the equivalent would be on ARC single screw rings, but I bet it's a lot less than 55 inch pounds.
I'm still going with the OP over tightened the rings and damaged the lens.
Is that based on your mechanical engineering degree or gut feeling?
And what would the inch pounds be on 4 screw at 18In lb's??
72 in lbs Its all in how the load is distributed.
So with every ZCO suiciding itself in the upcoming days are we back to
NF/S&B/TT = Master Race
NF/S&B/TT = Master Race
It's based on my experience and the manufacturer of the rings own words.
as long as youre shooting a 260So with every ZCO suiciding itself in the upcoming days are we back to
NF/S&B/TT = Master Race
So I just read through this disaster of a Zco breaking thread. I didn’t see this above but OP did you try cleaning with compressed air? When you tightened did you go all the way to 55 on one and then 55 on the other?
Also you should let us know what Zco says. But I have $10 we won’t hear back.
Also you should let us know what Zco says. But I have $10 we won’t hear back.
What is it we’re looking at circled in red in the first pic?
A piece of the reticle that he neglected to scribble over.
Edit: not that it matters as it appears the OP slipped and admitted the tube was 36mm and then edited his post to cover it up.
lol
Yeah, just based on the reticle bit I unearthed, I can’t tell what scope it is. If we pretend it’s not a 36mm (and not $4k), that little bit looks like a Leupold PR2. Maybe it’s a ZCO MPCT3 with the little circles and “radii” coming off some of them in a cross fashion. I imagine looking through the front end of a scope distorts the reticle a bit.I was wondering about that edit.... Like maybe he realized the scope was in a 34mm mount
Who knows?
Is that bo biden tea bagging an 18 year old street walker?!
There are some CSI sleuthin' sumbitches on here
I cannot believe I’m still reading this thread…
I suspect what is wrong is a misalignment of the lens seat to the lock ring threads. This would cause the lock ring to land on the lens only on one side and stress the glass substantially.
Subsequent replacement lenses would also grenade.
Subsequent replacement lenses would also grenade.
I don't think it's the scope and I don't think it's the torque on the rings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the rings torque on the main shaft of the scope? The ocular twists and turns via a somewhat flexible seal on the main shaft. I don't see how torque will transfer to the ocular piece. However, if the rings were not true center to center that could be enough movement to transcend the seal and crack the ocular.
Could also be the ocular is touching the rail because the rings are too low.. but going for the above.
Could also be the ocular is touching the rail because the rings are too low.. but going for the above.
I think he determined somewhere in 6 pages that it was the lens near the turrets inside the scope.
Not the ocular
I use precision matched Vortex Rings on all my scopes. They are not cheap but not unaffordable either. Not one issue on any scope. I mount them at 18 inch pounds per Vortex. I get that you don't want to tell us they company but if this is happening people should know. A $3000 plus scope that cracks on a really low recoil round like 6.5 Creedmoor is interesting to say the least. What did the company say?
Yeah top bridge shouldn't cause any issue.
https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ount-279-from-american-rifle-company.7092685/
I always tighten my scope rings until I tear a bicep, I can only tighten one set every six months due to surgery and recovery time.
49 inch pounds is nuts. Scopes get tightened 16 inch pounds
if you don‘thave any idea on what/how the scope mount works like, then how can you comment on what is the proper torque value.
49 in lbs is less than what ARC calls for on their M-brace mount.
Yeah, and we still don't have any clarification between the contradictions in the manual and Jeff Huber's statement (alleged statement but I have zero reason to believe the member lied about it) wrt to torque specs.
You would kind of think this would take like 30 seconds to nail down once they all got back from SHOT.
There is no "dumpster fire" over there...just some politely asked questions about their max torque spec and contradictions thereof. Might want to go read it before commenting, eh?
I keep shaking my head at every comment about temperature maybe being the cause...I've never had an optic fail while shooting in Canadian winters, and I sure as shit can't afford a top tier optic. I've never worried about a slow warm up or cool down when moving rifles from indoors to outdoors either. The only thing that's ever failed is electronics in range finder binos and red dots, but that could be battery issues also. If a top tier optic can't survive winter, I am way happier knowing I can't afford them being a Canadian.
Thanks for letting me know. It appears purely by luck one of my answers strill might be the cause. If the rings are not aligned center to center, torquing them down could tweak the tube just enough so that by firing a shot the impulse could twist the tube just enough further to result in cracked lenses.
Any halfway decent installation will check the center to center alignment of the rings. I realize the higher end manufacturers are telling their customerss checking alignment and/or lapping isn't necessary.. but it's kind like Ford telling you the oil level is fine.. Maybe it is. Or maybe the junior lube guy forgot to put the oil in and that ride home is going to surprise you...
I bought a new Leupold Mark 6.. perhaps the must rugged well built scope they've ever made. After a more than a few trips to the range resulted in larger groups than I should have been getting. Part of me suspected my own self (no matter how unlikely that might be..
) so I went back to the range a few more times, tore the gun down, scoped the barrel, carefully reassembled the rifle, send the mount back to Larue to check it just in case.. and I was still shooting erratic 1.5" MOA groups and it should have been .5MOA or better. Finally as a last resort I sent in my "bullet proof" scope and guess what? A small spring holding the reticle assembly was missing, probably not ever installed during the initial manufacturer. They claimed this had never happened before. Suddenly I'm shooting .5moa or better groups. Stuff happens..
It's not rings, It's a mount. The mount weighs 11.8oz. It's a fucking beast. It's probably the most idiot proof mount there is.
Here's a picture.
No one pays any attention to details or reads past a sentence anymore!
No it does not need to be lapped.
I just swapped a MK5 from ARC's M110 rings on a 20 moa rail (ARC rail) to one of these M-Brace 20 moa mounts on an AR upper. Torqued 50 inch-pounds in 3 steps 20, 35, & 50. Simple.
Re-zero @ 100y elevation was perfect. Windage required .6 L. I'd say ARC's machining is pretty stellar.
Last edited:
I didn't read through all 7 pages of this. But with that being said, all the talk about torque possibly causing this is bullshit. I have dozens of scopes mounted on dozens of rifles, (and I never paid more than $1K for a scope in my life).... Or will I.
I have NEVER used a torque wrench to tighten ANYTHING scope related. And I have NEVER cracked a scope lens. And this includes the scope on my .50 BMG. So most likely compared to "modern standards", ALL of my scope rings and bases are "over torqued". And I have heavy recoiling rifles, (.300 Win. Mag. & .338-378 Weatherby Mag.), I bought new over 50 years ago that are fine, and the POI never changes. Nor has the scope ever moved.
I have also gone from "hot to cold" without any issues what so ever. (Room temperature to -10 F), and visa versa. That scope is defective, pure and simple. And it's ridiculous that you paid all of that money, and have had the exact same issues, (cracked lens), TWICE.
Whoever made that thing, should replace it free of charge! Not keep trying to fix it.
I have NEVER used a torque wrench to tighten ANYTHING scope related. And I have NEVER cracked a scope lens. And this includes the scope on my .50 BMG. So most likely compared to "modern standards", ALL of my scope rings and bases are "over torqued". And I have heavy recoiling rifles, (.300 Win. Mag. & .338-378 Weatherby Mag.), I bought new over 50 years ago that are fine, and the POI never changes. Nor has the scope ever moved.
I have also gone from "hot to cold" without any issues what so ever. (Room temperature to -10 F), and visa versa. That scope is defective, pure and simple. And it's ridiculous that you paid all of that money, and have had the exact same issues, (cracked lens), TWICE.
Whoever made that thing, should replace it free of charge! Not keep trying to fix it.
Spuhrs aren't perfect. There's an entire thread on them jamming up parallax adjustments on scopes from several manufacturers. I've personally had a Spuhr jam up the parallax on a ZCO. I switched it over to ARC rings with no problems on that ZCO. I've since switched to ARC for all of my mounts, always torqued to the spec in the manuals and have never had an issue.
That is not how it works.
Can you link to some of those threads, my search game isnt working on this one.
Those are some finicky friggin scopes though if this is the case.
After watching many of these no name, whining fits over the years I have a theory.
The posters are using the attention to indirectly apply pressure to the MFG. “Look, I have 200 people viewing a thread where I’m going to out you if you don’t…. “
I think it’s an unspoken threat. Guy whined his way into a new barrel he bought used. It was on the site last week. Never gave a name. Then strutted around like he had done something great and was vindicated. It was a second hand barrel and the mfg owed him nothing but a kick in the ass.
These threads serve no purpose to anyone but the poster who uses them for leverage.
The posters are using the attention to indirectly apply pressure to the MFG. “Look, I have 200 people viewing a thread where I’m going to out you if you don’t…. “
I think it’s an unspoken threat. Guy whined his way into a new barrel he bought used. It was on the site last week. Never gave a name. Then strutted around like he had done something great and was vindicated. It was a second hand barrel and the mfg owed him nothing but a kick in the ass.
These threads serve no purpose to anyone but the poster who uses them for leverage.
Rifle Scopes - Spuhr binds parallax ?????
What am I doing wrong. Have moved scope back and forth. Can torque the back ring no problem to 25. As soon as the front ring starts to get snug the parallax binds up ??
www.snipershide.com Rifle Scopes - Tangent Theta in Spuhr - Parallax Binding
Really dumb point to make here but are you all sure you aren't overtightening the spurh mounts and bending the tubes? Please don't flame me but the Spurh has multiple bolts (very similar to the forks on a motorbike) and what can happen is as you torque one of them, the others will then seem...
www.snipershide.com The issue, at the time, seemed to be more specific to TT and Kahles scopes in use with Spuhr mounts. TT recommended 15 in-lbs, but some TT and Kahles owners reported they didn’t experience any parallax binding with torque values higher than 15 in lbs, up to 25 in lbs. A couple other scopes mentioned. Lots of speculation, exact cause still seems unknown.
I like my Spuhr mounts and haven’t experienced what was reported. I don’t own any TT or Kahles to test though.
That guy ended up with a new barrel!!??? Wow... they didn't owe him shit! Did he finally divulge who the company was??
Nope, no name.
but the guy sending the barrel didn't ask for a scan/receipt...so in theory it could have been never dropped off
Wow, you mean people will tell a story while only including the selected facts that will spin it in a direction to suit their desired effects? Has this become the MSM?
- Status
