Best Fit for Rings - Seekins or ARC?

[DJL2]

I'm looking at putting a 30mm tube on top of my ARC Nuc G2. Currently have a 42mm objective, might be en route to a 50/52 mm objective (lots of space over the Proof CF w/ the pic rail in place). Using the ARC version of the coin spacers, 4 pennies will about do it. Herein lies the question - my math says .83 inches is what I need. ARC low are .94" (and their recommendation). Seekins medium are .87" (I've got a set of these on a Tikka already). The biggest clearance issue is actually the scope's eye piece over the pic rail - if that clears, I can run the Hubble and still be fine over the barrel.

Assuming these both work (and they should), what would you choose and why?

 

[celltech]

ARC is superior if price does not matter. But the Seekins (and Vortex Precision...it's a Seekins) are a great set of rings. You could not go wrong with either set.

 

[max1840]

I've used the rings you are contemplating. All my bolt action rifles are sporting ARC rings. I think they look great, mount easy and have never failed me in any way.

 

[Lost_Phil]

ARC M10 Rings. Well, once you get over the pucker factor of torqueing the tube screw to 50/55 inch pounds, which I have never had an issue doing so.

As for height, a 10th of an inch or less is not that big and higher may be more comfortable in the end.

 

[Glassaholic]

Assuming these both work (and they should), what would you choose and why?

Had both, like them both, prefer ARC because the one bolt system makes mounting so much easier. One torque wrench (I use Borka and Fix It Stix), one 4mm hex and you're good to go. With Seekins and all other multi-bolt design rings, you have to be very careful to not introduce torque twist where the tube can actually spin slightly while you are tightening each screw and go off plumb, I have never had this happen with ARC.

 

[Baron23]

This ^^

 

[Zuul]

ARC, with the lows you should be able to fit a 50mm no problem (if you plan to upgrade from the 42mm).

 

[Shootnwrench]

Don’t worry about a little extra height, adjust the cheek and get your head upright and straight without kinking your neck/tilting your head to the side.

As low as possible isn’t always the best, taller rings can be better.

ARC in whatever size would be my pick.

 

[308Gunner]

I have both and will be using ARC for all my glass from now on.

 

[DJL2]

I don't usually see that much consensus... ha. I pulled apart my Tikka T3x (got a wild hair that I need to bed the stock) and just plopped the 50mm optic from there in Seekins' mediums onto the ARC for a test fit. No issues with objective clearance at all - could do a 56 if I wanted to.

Assuming like measuring techniques, the ARC are a whopping .07 higher. Not a huge amount and not enough to change the fact that I'd need a cheek piece I don't have to "get right" behind the glass either way. I might just tape some foam onto the stock (Manner's CS-2) and call it good.

 

[TurboTrout]

I’d also look at kelbey rings, have them on two rifles, one a pic rail centerfire, the other rimfire precision, and I’ve been very happy with them, also cool they are machined as one piece, then cut in half to make two rings.

 

[Totoro]

Call me weird or traditional, I just can't like the ARC rings visually though I ain't doubting their quality or effectiveness.

Horizontal split rings for me, APA/Seekins/Hawkins for me.

 

[DJL2]

@Totoro - that’s fair. The Seekins are dead sexy in my opinion. I like them a lot more in person than I thought I would. I haven’t encountered the M10… no idea how those will “hit.”

 

[Moose]

I have Seekins and ARC rings a like them both and i am running the ARC rings on my ZC 4x20 and they are so easy to set up.