Hey OP, what did Brand X (ZCO) say when you called them to report the same issue occurred again? Please don't leave us hanging and not come back with the verdict. I'm really curious to see if my theory is correct.
- Thread starter Bsutton2010
- Start date
- Status
Judas priest. UPS does NOT pay claims for packages that are "never dropped off".
Show me exactly where the barrel company or UPS purported that "it was never dropped off"........
They didn't . You (and others) are making that up. It never happened.
The issue was NEVER the veracity of the claim, but instead how much the payout was. The payout was dictated by the lack of insurance by the person who made out the label i.e. the barrel maker.
The barrel maker deemed it to be a valid claim. They filed said claim. UPS paid the claim. The barrel maker received the claim money and offered it to the barrel sender/buyer.
"
I say, let me contact the maker and see if they will fix it. I email them about it with the measurements, and they send me a shipping label. I package it up, slap their label on it, and take it to UPS. Then the package disappears, no one ever scans the thing anywhere.
I contact UPS, and go to the facility and talk to the manager, and the person whom's hands I literally put the package in. They say, we don't know how it could have happened, are you sure you didn't drop it off somewhere else? You will have to call the 800 number and file a claim. I am like what fucking year is this, where are the cameras to see me walking in, and whomever walking out with my package?
"
in the first post of that thread
lol
try reading
i trust the supercorndogs. it's a shit situation. but i've had that no scan bullshit happen with USPS before. never again will i not get a receipt.
UPS would never had paid that claim if they believed it was "never dropped off".
Once they paid that claim they were agreeing that it was indeed "dropped off". So therefore they DID NOT contest that it was indeed "dropped off" .
By paying the claim they were stipulating that it was indeed dropped off.
The barrel maker never refused the claim "because it was not dropped off". in fact they filed the claim and offered the money to the barrel owner,
In so doing both UPS and the Barrel maker were stipulating that the barrel was in fact dropped off.
Neither one ever said "We are not going to pay because it was never dropped off"....
In point of fact once the barrel maker's "Boss" got the senders side of the story, HE AGREED with the barrel owner, and offered a replacement barrel.
Trying not to offend and respect the more religious element here.......
Last edited:
Was that the barrel with the fucked up muzzle threads?
This has to be one of the worst threads I have ever “watched.“ And that’s saying something…. I’ll be curious to see the final word on this, but I’m not confident the OP can deliver!
People love to overtighten and break shit, it’s just about their favourite thing. 55 inch pounds is retarted and the rings are hideous.
Yes, let's ignore the ring manufacturers instructions. Sounds like a great idea.
Use Rosin and some self control. If the scope doesn’t move then that’s all that matters. More importantly don’t buy stupid mounts. Sphurs and traditional rings work because they have plenty of clamping area. 12 inch pounds is usually enough, 55 inch pounds is more than I would put on an action screw - would never fuck up an optical device with that sort of clamping force.
I always thought all the chemicals I deal with on a near daily basis would end up eventually giving me cancer. Never would've guessed a Snipershide thread would actually end up doing it first.
That's not cancer, just heartburn......
Along with the sound of crinkling as the folds in my brain undo themselves.That's not cancer, just heartburn......
BTW everyone.......
This is a carbon copy of an almost identical thread somewhere between six months and a year ago. It ultimately became a very granular "discussion" about rings/mounts with one ring screw vs four vs six and torque divided by the number of fasteners and the validity/non-validity of the various theories. I don't presently, nor have I ever owned any ARC mounts. In that regard, I can't/won't offer an opinion. However, I am more comfortable with more "traditional" mounts with multiple ring cap screws and lower torque per fastener requirements. That is not to say that I am right and those with contrary preferences are wrong. Mine is simply a preference, nothing more.
You know what the conclusion was on that other/older thread ? There wasn't one. The collective finally got tired of arguing. I can pretty much guarantee that's what'll happen here.
Let the beating of the horse resume.
This is a carbon copy of an almost identical thread somewhere between six months and a year ago. It ultimately became a very granular "discussion" about rings/mounts with one ring screw vs four vs six and torque divided by the number of fasteners and the validity/non-validity of the various theories. I don't presently, nor have I ever owned any ARC mounts. In that regard, I can't/won't offer an opinion. However, I am more comfortable with more "traditional" mounts with multiple ring cap screws and lower torque per fastener requirements. That is not to say that I am right and those with contrary preferences are wrong. Mine is simply a preference, nothing more.
You know what the conclusion was on that other/older thread ? There wasn't one. The collective finally got tired of arguing. I can pretty much guarantee that's what'll happen here.
Let the beating of the horse resume.
Dang, lot of tards here that have no idea how bolt size or number relate to clamp force, but are damned sure that anything over the patented Vortex 18 in-lb limit is "Bad, M'kay".
Ironically enough, Vortex has acknowledged that the 55 in/lbs for the M10s are good to go.
Last edited:
hahaha...they had to rob a leather fag bar to get those clothes. Wow, bet they wish they didn't take that pic. LOL
Ah fuck...I just looked it up and yeah, their front man "came out" Well, good for him ...I guess.
Yes, it's almost like they understand the difference between the M10 and their own ring designs.
@308pirate - hello my friend...you seem to have a good bit of knowledge about clamping forces, torque specs, etc.
Is there any way to relate a single screw at 55 in/lbs to...for example...a four screw cap ring at 18 in/lbs?
Or, I suppose, looking for relationship of number of fasteners to torque spec. Not sure I have defined the problem correctly but I think you may know where I'm coming from on this.
Thanks
Is there any way to relate a single screw at 55 in/lbs to...for example...a four screw cap ring at 18 in/lbs?
Or, I suppose, looking for relationship of number of fasteners to torque spec. Not sure I have defined the problem correctly but I think you may know where I'm coming from on this.
Thanks
Would need to know fastener sizes and lengths for a rough calculation of clamping forces
Gentleman,
My apologies for the absence on this topic this week. We've been going through a few items and have obviously been very busy catching up from SHOT. I've spent some time consulting with our engineers and looking at some design stuff and just haven't been on here as much to check in on things. Again, sorry for the absence.
It is quite frankly impossible to provide one single specification on ring cap screw torque values to cover every single type of rings design and application. If we had to give a single number to cover as wide a variety as possible, our official recommendation would be 25 inch pounds. I understand the sticker in the box says 20, that's already in the process of being changed. There are just too many variables to take into account such as lubrication on the screws, screw size, number of screws, etc. to provide recommendations on every situation possible.
We will also go ahead and say that at no point do we recommend going to 55 inch pounds even on the ARC rings. We have been a huge fan of their rings since day number one however we prefer to use 35 inch pounds on these rings. That is our official recommendation for these rings specifically for our products.
Common sense ultimately must prevail here. The ARC, Spuhr, Etc. rings are widely popular and in use throughout the country without any issues on our scopes. They are a great match to our products and we recommend them all very highly.
My apologies for the absence on this topic this week. We've been going through a few items and have obviously been very busy catching up from SHOT. I've spent some time consulting with our engineers and looking at some design stuff and just haven't been on here as much to check in on things. Again, sorry for the absence.
It is quite frankly impossible to provide one single specification on ring cap screw torque values to cover every single type of rings design and application. If we had to give a single number to cover as wide a variety as possible, our official recommendation would be 25 inch pounds. I understand the sticker in the box says 20, that's already in the process of being changed. There are just too many variables to take into account such as lubrication on the screws, screw size, number of screws, etc. to provide recommendations on every situation possible.
We will also go ahead and say that at no point do we recommend going to 55 inch pounds even on the ARC rings. We have been a huge fan of their rings since day number one however we prefer to use 35 inch pounds on these rings. That is our official recommendation for these rings specifically for our products.
Common sense ultimately must prevail here. The ARC, Spuhr, Etc. rings are widely popular and in use throughout the country without any issues on our scopes. They are a great match to our products and we recommend them all very highly.
Or, he could be torqueing to 50 ft lbs instead of in lbs
Anything that requires 55 inch pounds to hold an optic is poorly designed.
Thanks for the information @gebhardt02 much appreciated!
Originally he stated the rear ocular lens was cracked and that really cannot happen by ring torque.
This is still the best explanation
Based on conventional split rings OK but the ARC rings apply clamping
pressure to the tube differently so unless you are a engineer and do the math you cannot
make that statement.
See above
...there ya go, an "authoritative answer"...maybe now this thread can end. It may be advisable for these recommendations to be "stickied" for future reference.
Best (and only) thing to come out of this thread is an official confirmation from ZCO that ARC rings should only be tightened to 35 in/lbs.
I’m still curious what ARC has to say about the 35 in/lb recommendation, but I’ll be sticking to that guidance.
I’m still curious what ARC has to say about the 35 in/lb recommendation, but I’ll be sticking to that guidance.
Mate some lads are just retarded, the single bolt 55inlb thing has already been addressed 900 times in this thread..
Facts thus far:
- Vortex says 55 in/lbs ARC rings are gtg
- ZC says 35 in/lbs for the same rings is max
- The OP sure is coy
- Lots of non-engineers think they are engineers
That is their recommendation for a ZCO scope only.
You just had the ZCO man tell you that it’s way too much. Please everyone go ahead and break shit. My things don’t spend anytime in transit...
I have them on several rifles, all torqued to the 55 in/lbs as recommended. I don't have any ZCO's. Too loose can be as detrimental as too tight.
- Status
