Rifle Scopes A.R.M.S. #22 throw lever rings
- Thread starter South tx
- Start date
Yes, quite a bit.
To start, the ARMS #22 rings are a less than optimum but still pretty conventional design, with the upper half and lower half being mirror images of the other, each addressing 180 degrees of the scope's circumference. The better way is like Badger, KAC, and Nightforce build their rings, with the bottom portion contacting 180 degrees followed by a relief cut at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions, and the top 160 degrees. Less ring marks this way, plus less tendency for the scope to rotate when you tighten a screw on one side or the other.
The biggest problem with the ARMS rings are the inevitable slippage that will occur due to their throw lever design.
To start, the ARMS #22 rings are a less than optimum but still pretty conventional design, with the upper half and lower half being mirror images of the other, each addressing 180 degrees of the scope's circumference. The better way is like Badger, KAC, and Nightforce build their rings, with the bottom portion contacting 180 degrees followed by a relief cut at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions, and the top 160 degrees. Less ring marks this way, plus less tendency for the scope to rotate when you tighten a screw on one side or the other.
The biggest problem with the ARMS rings are the inevitable slippage that will occur due to their throw lever design.
Used several sets of ARMS mounts over the years with no problems (still have a set of 30mm 22M rings in the safe too). Went to one piece mounts with 20moa when I started shooting long distance. Also used their aimpoint mounts years ago, again without issues. They were the good QD rings before I ever heard of LaRue tactical...
Similar threads
