Rifle Scopes Return to zero failures
- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
Rock solid on multiple rifles for me. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having problems with ARC rings.
Keep in mind they aren't a split ring like the ones having problems above. They have a fixed base and a hinged top that presses downward more than sideways as you tighten the screw.
Never had them mention the ARC rings... and as noted they are technically not a set of Vertically split rings. They have a solid bottom. (See above)
I wouldn't describe ARC rings "vertically split". The radiuses that cradle (and locate) the scope around the bottom half of the scope tube are one piece with the picatiny rail mount. The clamps are hinged nearly at the horizontal split line (where conventional rings/mounts are split).
I am running a set of warne vertical splits on a DMRII. I decided to check its return to zero. I zeroed it last week. I confirmed with one shot to the center of the target. I ran it up 10 mils and back three times. Next shot came in .2 low. Repeated the process. Was .2 right. Repeated again and .1 low. I then fired a five shot group that worked its way back to the original zero. I feel like what I saw was a new scope wearing its way in. I am going to run them longer and see what happens. I never noticed a problem with them before, but this thread got me wondering.
What kind of rifles were the scopes on that failed? Is it possible that a warped action causing a crooked base exacerbates this problem?
What kind of rifles were the scopes on that failed? Is it possible that a warped action causing a crooked base exacerbates this problem?
Corndogs there is a thread on Accurate Shooetr at the moment
about scopes not returning to zero after dialling . Seems like it's
more common than I thought . The only scopes that passed the
initial test were the old Shimizu ( March ) designed NXS and the
March Highmaster .
I have a PST that does very similar things to your scope , it settles
after 3 or 4 shots . I'm sure it's not the rings , when I swap in the LRHS
problem goes away . EDIT : try swapping scopes around if possible
to see if it's really rings or scope .
about scopes not returning to zero after dialling . Seems like it's
more common than I thought . The only scopes that passed the
initial test were the old Shimizu ( March ) designed NXS and the
March Highmaster .
I have a PST that does very similar things to your scope , it settles
after 3 or 4 shots . I'm sure it's not the rings , when I swap in the LRHS
problem goes away . EDIT : try swapping scopes around if possible
to see if it's really rings or scope .
I was following that too... lots of hubbub about scopes not performing as perfect as they had hoped. Only caveat is that they're looking at tests that showed tiny 1/4 to 1/8 MOA variations in point of aim from shot to shot, only something a benchrest shooter would notice.
The failures Frank had at his class were on a whole different order of magnitude.
The small deviation is one of the reasons I was looking at this as something different than the rings causing a problem. I ran the Warne split ring on my 308 for a while, and I can say, for our purposes anyway, my return to zero was perfect. That LRHS has also been perfect in the Seekins rings its in now. I ran them on a couple other scope also but I could not definitively say if I had return to zero problems on a couple of them because I didn't dial them much. I had them on another LRHS I was noticing return to zero problems on, then when I went to set the zero stop I found out the brass part the turret cover attaches to was bent. I know my burris XTRII tracked and returned to zero dead on in Warne vertical splits. Same with my Steiner 4-16s.
i guess it just got me wondering, what else is adding into this equation.
Last edited:
Rings causing problems for the scope is usually one of two things or a combination. Cheap rings or laziness on the part of the end user in not learning how to properly install their scopes into their rings. I've used a number of different products over the years from all the companies that most everyone else has used or recommended. I've never had any issues. It's because I haven't used any cheap knock-offs or low quality equipment and I found out the manufacturer's installation recommendations before I started. I've also stayed away from vertical split rings.
Frank,
Thanks for the information I too ran split rings and had problems. I thought it was the scope and then I changed them and the problem went away. Now I know why. Thats why I listen to you cause you know you shit and do the research and pass it along to us.
Thanks for the information I too ran split rings and had problems. I thought it was the scope and then I changed them and the problem went away. Now I know why. Thats why I listen to you cause you know you shit and do the research and pass it along to us.
Frank if only you could come down here to Australia and give the explanation you gave a few pages back on the differences between practical shooting and practical guns to the f class/bench crowd here man I would love to watch that!!!!! These guys don't seem to understand that a $1000 front rest that doesn't even attach to the gun is NOT practical and the gun being almost locked into a vice with a guy pulling the trigger is somehow practical!!!
What's the thought on American Defense Recon series mounts? They are vertically split. Anyone having issues with them?
I think they are exactly the sort that might give you fits. I saw a guy including one with a scope for sale and did some research, needless to say there's already enough people out there questioning them that I didn't proceed any further.
I would say that's a question of values and not practicality. Is your goal to just hit something on the first shot or to hit exactly the same spot time and time again. To them it's not practical to shoot off a bean bag and expect to get one hole. But they also give themselves plenty of sighters. Two entirely different games.
I shoot the odd F match in addition to field stuff . It's worth doing a couple
of times a year just to see looks on the guys faces when I drill the 10 or X
at a 1000 cold bore , with a battered Tikka in a T4A off an Atlas ....
I also shoot sling and irons with my 1943 Enfield 303 . Every discipline
has its demands for success , cross training works for me .
of times a year just to see looks on the guys faces when I drill the 10 or X
at a 1000 cold bore , with a battered Tikka in a T4A off an Atlas ....
I also shoot sling and irons with my 1943 Enfield 303 . Every discipline
has its demands for success , cross training works for me .
It's important to recognize the different disciplines and what makes them unique. At the same time, there are still some principles you can employ that will translate across.
We get a mix of students in classes so it is important to adapt to what they are trying to accomplish.
I am working on a class in Australia as I have been contacted we just did not finalize a date
FYI at the Ko2M I saw another Leupold have similar problems. Loss of zero, etc.
We get a mix of students in classes so it is important to adapt to what they are trying to accomplish.
I am working on a class in Australia as I have been contacted we just did not finalize a date
FYI at the Ko2M I saw another Leupold have similar problems. Loss of zero, etc.
Also with vertical split rings, or just a Leupold that decided to shit the bed?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
I've had good luck so far with the American Defense mount on a 6.5 gasser. I torque to 20inlbs.
Split rings: I've followed a number of threads over the years where the shooter had not followed the instructions for mounting his scope in a Larue mount. Most tried to "even up" the top and bottom screws, vs tightening the bottom screws to spec first, then tightening the top screws. I could definitely see this as contributing to the problem with split rings...
I have been following this thread and others and my conclusion is if there are zeroing issues potentially caused by split rings, then there is an easy solution, don't use them. There are dozens of fantastic rings/mounts out there that I don't need to consider a split ring.
I like Barrett rings.
You know, I had a Rem AAC-SD .308 in an XLR element with a SWFA 3-15 and ......
I never. Got. A consistent. Zero.
I was throwing so much time and components trying to find a load, I would get a Zero... at the range and think “good, now I can shoot steel” I would commence ringing my way out to 3,4,500, pang! But then 600, I was in the dirt. Same at 700.... I would dial it to zero only to find out it was off.
Out of time and discussed, I would clean up and go home, start from scratch on my loads, only to repeat the same scenario above multiple times. Hell, I even sold the SWFA to a buddy for his NV coyote rig and I tried a new SWFA 3-15........same results.
I have since sold the whole combination off, and started with a new rifle.
Reading through this again, it dawns on me, I had been using Weaver verticle split rings. .......just maybe.... I lost all confidence in that setup. I’ll never know if it was the rings, but it was so frustrating that I almost gave up completely on long range, except my .223 Bolt action shot so good... I left the .308 alone for 6-7 months before selling it.
Last edited:
I wasn't aware that Weaver made vertically split ring.
If all the Weaver brand rings I have used over the years only the cheapest Top mount ones worked more or less OK.
Every other Weaver brand ring or mount I have ever seen was out of round or misaligned in some way.
It may be just be my bad luck, of course.
ILya
If all the Weaver brand rings I have used over the years only the cheapest Top mount ones worked more or less OK.
Every other Weaver brand ring or mount I have ever seen was out of round or misaligned in some way.
It may be just be my bad luck, of course.
ILya
So were you or were you not using vertically split rings?
I saw that thread too, and while I think that could be it, I also think it depends on your setup. For example, I have a gen I Razor which has a (pretty big) 35mm tube and 125 MOA of adjustment in both windage and elevation. 20MOA is less than 1/6 (17%) of the adjustment range, or less than 1/3 of the available adjustment in either direction from mechanical zero. I don't think that carving 20 MOA from the hold under elevation and adding it to the hold over is going to be enough to compress the erector springs to the point of fatigue with this setup. I will say though that I am not sure where it will sight in at 100 yds compared to the scope's mechanical zero as I have not had a chance to shoot it yet.
Now compare that to something like a Viper PST gen 2, which has a 30mm tube and only 70 MOA of elevation travel. 20 MOA is almost 29% of the total available adjustment range, and removes 57% of your hold under above mechanical zero to add to the holdover range. Maybe I'm not explaining this well-it makes sense in my head lol.
TL;DR: I think erector spring compression could have a bit to do with it, but I think you would have to look at it on a case by case basis because some scopes have more travel than others so a 20 MOA base is not requiring compression of the erector springs to the extent of their range that it does a scope with less adjustment range. Also, some people use more or less cant on their bases than 20 MOA. You'd have to look at it as the proportion of the particular scope's elevation travel taken up by the particular base.
But I'm also pretty new to Precision Rifle, so maybe I'm completely wrong.
The base has nothing to do with it.
The gimbal, the parallax lenses, all are moving parts in front and behind the erector, you know where the rings go. The turrets push down on the erector which is being pushed back by a spring. if the erector is binding it does not move as prescribed.
In cases where the rings crush the back out of round, you get no issues dialing up and right, only issues coming back down and left. If they crush the front it cuts off the parallax, so you only get a limited amount of adjustment or none at all.
They don't return to zero because the rings impact the movement, doesn't matter the base.
The gimbal, the parallax lenses, all are moving parts in front and behind the erector, you know where the rings go. The turrets push down on the erector which is being pushed back by a spring. if the erector is binding it does not move as prescribed.
In cases where the rings crush the back out of round, you get no issues dialing up and right, only issues coming back down and left. If they crush the front it cuts off the parallax, so you only get a limited amount of adjustment or none at all.
They don't return to zero because the rings impact the movement, doesn't matter the base.
Yes. It says right in there. I was using Weaver vertical rings.
I bought the rings second hand, I was told they were Weaver? They were a vertical split, I just assumed they were weaver because that is what I was told. Who knows.
Ah my bad. I misread it and thought you said "had i been using split rings?" Like you couldn't remember if they were vertical split rings but thought they might have been.....my bad.
Warne rings, as explained to me by one of their tech guys, rely on the scope tube flexing in order to hold the scope in place and also remain tight on the base. They are designed to clamp to the rail first, then the top screws are tightened to secure the scope in the rings. IF the scope tube does not "flex", the bottoms of the rings will separate as you tighten the top. This "deforming" of the scope tube affects moving internal parts.
Here's a video of what happens when you replace a scope tube with a steel bar and install ring per the instructions.
No worries, LOL. I was kind of blathering on before I got to the point. It’s a good thing I don’t write for a living LOL
I did, I sold the whole rifle set up and started new. I wanted a caliber change anyway. New rifle is a hammer. I have a one piece mount now.
American defense just recently came out with their recon cantilever mount i'll be getting for my ar15. Always been a fan of seekins.
I will have to play with the windage dial more on my ATACR stuff. Generally I only dial for elevation, and rarely do I hold more than 1 mil for wind inside of 1,000, with the 1 mile stuff at 2-3 mils at most on a real windy day, which occasionally I will dial some of it if its consistent. That being said, the only time I check zero is when im checking velocity of my hand loads and/or temp sensitivity as temps get warmer out here, and so far it hasn't moved in near 400 rounds from my win mag. Would it hit the same hole on a different day? Probably not, but id chalk that up to ammo variance and velocity more than I would the zero, and I don't usually touch it. It has never strayed further than 1 inch away, that's for sure. I guess I will have to try to zero, shoot all my plates, then dial back to the zero stop and zero again, hoping the rifle temperature or rise in ambient temp doesn't skew the results as I have seen velocity move 20-30 FPS between cold bore and warm bore, or cold ammo that was in my bag versus my ammo box that sits next to my rifle, and I shoot in direct sunlight.
Similar threads
