• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rifle Scopes Rings?

R

RichS

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 16, 2001
272
72
53
PG County Maryland
Alright,
So I'm getting my stuff together, and I'm thinking about rings. My old GAP had Badgers and they were great. Now, of the options I'm looking at I've got...

Badger
Seekins
American Rifle M3s
Aadland

Thoughts?
 
Re: Rings?

Good point. I guess I was just checking to see if any of the "new and improved" designs were really new and improved.
 
Re: Rings?

I think that the "new and improved" really is in the case of ARC offering. I just got a set of the Aadmount rings but I haven't had the chance to do any testing with them yet.

100 years ago a 2 MOA rifle "worked great", 50 years ago that number had dropped to 1 MOA, today an all purpose rifle that "works great" is 1/2 MOA.

20 years ago it was a given that if you dropped a rifle you needed to rezero it because it wasn't going to be "on".

Today the situation has gotten to where I can pull my scope/rings off the rifle, put them back on and not worry about rezeroing.

If you never look outside the box you'll never experience the improvements.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, why changed what worked "great"?

You had the Badgers, they worked great. Stay with what worked great and get the Badgers. </div></div>

One of the more bizarre comments I've read recently.

So never change anything? Never consider the role improvements might make on redefining 'great'?

You've never upgraded a product that worked to something that worked even better? Do you use a leather sling or one of the modern, improved slings by TIS or TAB? How about your optic - how many scopes have you upgraded even though you could make hits with the previous one? Ever changed ammo or reloading recipes?

Why should we bother watching Frank's reviews of new products then? There's clearly no need for anything new given that people have been using firearms 'just great' already for decades.
 
Re: Rings?

I have and use Badger, Seekins and Nightforce. Of these 3 I believe I like the Seekins best. Although the other 2 also work great. If you buy top tier rings it's hard to go wrong.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, why changed what worked "great"?

You had the Badgers, they worked great. Stay with what worked great and get the Badgers. </div></div>

One of the more bizarre comments I've read recently.

So never change anything? Never consider the role improvements might make on redefining 'great'?

You've never upgraded a product that worked to something that worked even better? Do you use a leather sling or one of the modern, improved slings by TIS or TAB? How about your optic - how many scopes have you upgraded even though you could make hits with the previous one? Ever changed ammo or reloading recipes?

Why should we bother watching Frank's reviews of new products then? There's clearly no need for anything new given that people have been using firearms 'just great' already for decades.</div></div>

Are you serious??

You're going to try and say that a set of rings is comparable to a scope?? A complex and precise precision optical tool vs. metal clamps? Please, you're being retarded. They're metal rings that hold a scope in place. From his own admission the Badgers worked very well previously.

Tell me how these:

Seekins
American Rifle M3s
Aadland

or any other rings are so "improved" over the Badgers. Are they made of a new, super strong and light alloy? What makes them special? They're rings. The clamping force is limited by torque specs, you can lap them if you're that anal. Any pair from a dozen different manufacturers will be more than adequate for his intended use so what does he have to gain by moving away from Badgers?

It has zero to do with new technology and everything to do with going with what worked before.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RichS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alright,
So I'm getting my stuff together, and I'm thinking about rings. My old GAP had Badgers and they were great. Now, of the options I'm looking at I've got...

Badger
Seekins
American Rifle M3s
Aadland

Thoughts?
</div></div>


I have Badger, NF and Seekins. I no longer purchase anything but Seekins. The Seekins quality and precision are second to none and I much prefer the way the Seekins attaches to the base without the big exposed nut and the smoothness of the finnish





 
Re: Rings?

Your failure to understand the difference between 'metal clamps' is exactly that, your failure, not mine. Also your comprehension is leaving more than a little to be desired.

I didn't compare rings to scopes in complexity of design or execution. I compared your Luddite comment on rings to what I'm sure are discrepancies in your actions by having upgraded one time or another just about every other accessory associated with shooting. Such as slings for example.

You promote Badgers, fine, bully for you. But to suggest there's no differentiation between designs such as Badgers and ARCs is uninformed at best or disingenuous at worst.

If you want review the facts about why there<span style="font-weight: bold"> is </span>a real, functional difference including but beyond just materials, then read Bohem's threads or contact ARC directly.

ARC

Have you bought or used a set of ARC rings? Do you even know, first hand what you're talking about when saying they are no different? Because if not, then you're in danger of playing with calculators here...
 
Re: Rings?

My comprehension of the capabilities and engineering of precision firearms and their components, let alone my personal experience, is what is beyond your level of comprehension.

Let me point out your failure, or should I say your hypocrisy. You want to criticize my use of the word 'metal clamps' and yet what did I find on the ARC website?

"The hinge minimizes the number of screws used to clamp the scope"

ipso facto, they are metal clamps.

You say you didn't compare rings to scopes..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You've never upgraded a product that worked to something that worked even better? How about your optic - how many scopes have you upgraded even though you could make hits with the previous one? Ever changed ammo or reloading recipes?
</div></div>

We are talking about scope rings....Your question of whether or not I've ever upgraded a product uses a scope as an example. You're inferring that scope rings are in the same category as other, more complicated, products.

All scope rings have one job and that is to hold the scope tight enough to prevent it from moving while the rifle is being employed. All the ARC rings do is promote marketing hype. There is no significant difference in how they hold the scope. I know my Badger rings only require 15 ft/lbs. to properly hold a scope. I know testing rings at a ridiculous and unrealistic 500 ft/lbs is ludicrous. I know that only marketing idiots would use the example of 500 ft/lbs. of force applied to each screw to make their point.

By purchasing a set of ARC rings, what is that going to prove? Do you expect me to set up a bench-top FEA study? I've been in marketing long enough to be able to cut through the bullshit and hype and recognize the truth. I know Badgers work and work well. I know I have never damaged a scope tube or a scope finish with Badger rings.

With ARC's testing, have you applied 500 ft/lbs. to your screws? Has ARC measure the differences at real world 15 ft/lbs as per the instructions of most ring manufacturers rather than at 500 ft/lbs?

There are a number of scope rings out there that would work perfectly for the OP. If he had said USO or Seekins as his "original" set, my answer would have been to stick with the same manufacturer.

I promote Badger because they work and work well. I do the same thing with USO rings. However at least I admit I am promoting them, your blatant promotion of ARC's rings under the auspices of some "superior technology" proves you're using your calculator.

Continue to by ARC's rings.

But in the infamous words of Public Enemy "Don't Believe the Hype"
 
Re: Rings?

OK Mike, I'll try and make this simple. If you read carefully the whole sentence referencing optics the point is your previous optic worked well enough for you to put shots on target so by upgrading you broke your own (flawed) logic of sticking with what 'works' great.

500 ft lbs.... who made this claim? I don't remember doing so. Perhaps you're the one using false hype and exaggeration to make a point.

You clearly don't know the value proposition of the ARC rings. Yet you feel entitled to state facts about what they are or are not. That again is something you would need to rectify once you decide it's worthwhile to speak on matters which you're reasonably informed on.

Badgers may work well for you. Wonderful. For others they have not. As the owner of ARC pointed out in a dialog with Frank, the point of ARC rings is to eliminate this 'crap-shoot' of working for one person and not another.

I don't see any point in discussing this further with you seeing as you'd rather defend a position of incomplete knowledge than actually investigate what the ARC rings are about.
 
Re: Rings?

Y'all left out TPS.

If width is limited by application TPS, Badger, IOR, MK4 have all worked well for me. If I can use wider I like Seekins and if I need windage correction I prefer USO.

 
Re: Rings?

I have never had a pair of Badger's or USO's not work for me, and I will continue using them.

Its not rocket science, it just needs to hold the scope. All of the quality brands will do that.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK Mike, I'll try and make this simple. If you read carefully the whole sentence referencing optics the point is your previous optic worked well enough for you to put shots on target so by upgrading you broke your own (flawed) logic of sticking with what 'works' great.

<span style="font-weight: bold">No, that's not how it works. Say for example I shoot a Unertl. It's 30 year-old technology with a simple mildot and BDC knob. Now I've shot with it for years and it works marvelously. But is there something better out there? I'm not upgrading from one Unertl to another. I am upgrading for specific technological advances that aren't available on my current Unertl One can upgrade scopes for a multitude of reasons. Reasons that are far beyond marketing hype. For example, there are reticles. There are turrets matching reticles rather than mix-matched a la Leupolds. There is even variable vs. fixed power. Those are technological upgrades that go beyond "staying with what works". How a set of rings holds a scope is not on that same level. We are talking about a clamp (again ARC's words) holding a tube.</span>

500 ft lbs.... who made this claim? I don't remember doing so. Perhaps you're the one using false hype and exaggeration to make a point.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I find this question funny. Who made this claim? ARC. It comes directly from their website

http://americanrifle.com/scope_rings/default.asp?d=2</span>

You clearly don't know the value proposition of the ARC rings.

<span style="font-weight: bold">"Value Proposition" is so full of sales hype I am laughing out loud. I use that term every day. </span>

Yet you feel entitled to state facts about what they are or are not.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Actually I am stating opinion based on logic and experience. You, on the other hand, are trying to force your opinion on us as fact.</span>

That again is something you would need to rectify once you decide it's worthwhile to speak on matters which you're reasonably informed on.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I can assure you I am very well informed.</span>

Badgers may work well for you. Wonderful. For others they have not. As the owner of ARC pointed out in a dialog with Frank, the point of ARC rings is to eliminate this 'crap-shoot' of working for one person and not another.

<span style="font-weight: bold">So in this statement you claim ARC told Frank "the point of ARC rings is to eliminate this 'crap-shoot' of working for one person and not another." Basically implying he's trying to make his rings fool-proof. So his rings will never break, they will never have a problem, and every person will be able to mount them without a single issue? Oh, and they will never mark or score a scope body? Everything that is manufactured has the potential for having an issue. If it's happened to the users of Badgers, USO, Seekins, et al, I guarantee it will happen with ARC.</span>


I don't see any point in discussing this further with you seeing as you'd rather defend a position of incomplete knowledge than actually investigate what the ARC rings are about.
</div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I'm completely open to what ARC rings are all about. But show me relevant fact and not market hype. Once you start from that position, I'm all ears. </span>
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK Mike, I'll try and make this simple. If you read carefully the whole sentence referencing optics the point is your previous optic worked well enough for you to put shots on target so by upgrading you broke your own (flawed) logic of sticking with what 'works' great.

<span style="font-weight: bold">No, that's not how it works. Say for example I shoot a Unertl. It's 30 year-old technology with a simple mildot and BDC knob. Now I've shot with it for years and it works marvelously. But is there something better out there? I'm not upgrading from one Unertl to another. I am upgrading for specific technological advances that aren't available on my current Unertl One can upgrade scopes for a multitude of reasons. Reasons that are far beyond marketing hype. For example, there are reticles. There are turrets matching reticles rather than mix-matched a la Leupolds. There is even variable vs. fixed power. Those are technological upgrades that go beyond "staying with what works". How a set of rings holds a scope is not on that same level. We are talking about a clamp (again ARC's words) holding a tube.</span>

500 ft lbs.... who made this claim? I don't remember doing so. Perhaps you're the one using false hype and exaggeration to make a point.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I find this question funny. Who made this claim? ARC. It comes directly from their website

http://americanrifle.com/scope_rings/default.asp?d=2</span>

You clearly don't know the value proposition of the ARC rings.

<span style="font-weight: bold">"Value Proposition" is so full of sales hype I am laughing out loud. I use that term every day. </span>

Yet you feel entitled to state facts about what they are or are not.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Actually I am stating opinion based on logic and experience. You, on the other hand, are trying to force your opinion on us as fact.</span>

That again is something you would need to rectify once you decide it's worthwhile to speak on matters which you're reasonably informed on.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I can assure you I am very well informed.</span>

Badgers may work well for you. Wonderful. For others they have not. As the owner of ARC pointed out in a dialog with Frank, the point of ARC rings is to eliminate this 'crap-shoot' of working for one person and not another.

<span style="font-weight: bold">So in this statement you claim ARC told Frank "the point of ARC rings is to eliminate this 'crap-shoot' of working for one person and not another." Basically implying he's trying to make his rings fool-proof. So his rings will never break, they will never have a problem, and every person will be able to mount them without a single issue? Oh, and they will never mark or score a scope body? Everything that is manufactured has the potential for having an issue. If it's happened to the users of Badgers, USO, Seekins, et al, I guarantee it will happen with ARC.</span>


I don't see any point in discussing this further with you seeing as you'd rather defend a position of incomplete knowledge than actually investigate what the ARC rings are about.
</div></div>

<span style="font-weight: bold">I'm completely open to what ARC rings are all about. But show me relevant fact and not market hype. Once you start from that position, I'm all ears. </span> </div></div>

Perhaps I can better inform your comprehension of what ARC says on the website:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ARC Website</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A force of 500 pounds* was applied at each screw location during the analysis to simulate the forces imparted by the screws.</div></div>

Note that it says 500 pounds, not 500 ft-lbs or even 500 in-lbs.

So here's how someone with an engineering background can calculate the applied force in a screw/bolt/fastener when a certain torque is applied.

Torque = K *F *D

K = frictional torque magnification factor due to thread conditions
F = axial tension force
D = Screw diameter

K ~ 0.15 as us shooters commonly apply torque to scope rings (unlubricated, annodized aluminum interfaced to steel)

For a steel on steel interface that number is closer to 0.1, and with a lubricated threads the steel on steel interface is 0.06-0.08

As you can see, the better the thread conditions the better the load will transfer.

When you put X ft-lbs of torque on a screw/bolt/fastener you don't get X lbs of torque. The whole point of using a helical ramp to apply force (aka a screw) is to magnify the force applied.

Therefore, if you put 25 in-lbs on a 1/4" bolt the following load tension force is generated in the bolt:

T = K F D

F = T/KD
F = 25 (in-lb)/(0.15*0.25in) = 666.666.... lbs

Let's take a look now at the 4mm screw that is in a clamp on the ARC rings set at 15 in-lb

D = 4mm = 0.1575"
K = 0.15
T = 15 in-lb

F = 15/(.15*.1575) = 634 lb

So, the 500lb value calculates into:
T = K F D = .15 * 500 * 0.1575 = 11.82 in-lb

Mike, do those numbers now make sense?
 
Re: Rings?

Now the next question. Which of the multiple ring manufacturers out there had their rings used for this test?

Are all rings outside ARC created equal? I know Badgers are milled from a solid piece, that is why the tops and bottoms match. So where is this pinch point?

At what point can you eliminate this "pinch point" if we're not dealing with a concentric circle?

Or what if there is no pinch point such as with the USO rings?
 
Re: Rings?

Murphy's Precision. You can request any height and he will build them.

2nd choice I'd go Nightforce or America rifle. Good luck with Seekins, just sold my last set in classifieds.
 
Re: Rings?

I love my Seekins 6:4.... exceptionally beautiful machining... am curious to try the AADLAND rings on my next build.
smile.gif
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

All the ARC rings do is promote marketing hype. There is no significant difference in how they hold the scope.
</div></div>

I don't really want to get in the middle of this argument but I have to disagree with your comment Mike as it is absolutely incorrect. There is a significant difference in how different style clamps hold on to a material and how each of those clamp styles will exert forces upon the object in different ways. To say that there is no significant difference is just not the case.

In response to your comment about badgers milled from a solid piece so there is no pinch point, that is also incorrect. There are some very basic fundamentals of engineering here that you are failing to account for. When you look at the 2 halves of your rings once mounted, you'll notice they are not touching. There is your pinch point. Being milled from a solid piece has nothing to do with elimination of pinch points due to the design itself. Being milled from a solid block at the same time only helps to eliminate any variance associated with having to re dial in another piece to work on when milling the sesperate halves.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flounderv2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

All the ARC rings do is promote marketing hype. There is no significant difference in how they hold the scope.
</div></div>

I don't really want to get in the middle of this argument but I have to disagree with your comment Mike as it is absolutely incorrect. There is a significant difference in how different style clamps hold on to a material and how each of those clamp styles will exert forces upon the object in different ways. To say that there is no significant difference is just not the case.

In response to your comment about milled from a badgers milled from a solid piece so there is no pinch point, that is also in correct. There are some very basic fundamentals of engineering here that you are failing to account for. When you look at the 2 halves of your rings once mounted, you'll notice they are not touching. There is your pinch point. Being milled from a solid piece has nothing to do with elimination of pinch points due to the design itself. Being milled from a solid block at the same time only helps to eliminate any variance associated with having to re dial in another piece to work on when milling the sesperate halves. </div></div>

So if the ring halves were to touch when mounted, then would it eliminate the pinch point?

 
Re: Rings?

Force and torque are different things and to an engineer, it is easily recognizable. As an end user, and someone who their website is marketed to, I don't see it as clear. Whenever I have read any thing about scope rings, torque is specifically mentioned.

So my question to the engineers is what forces other than pressure and friction spread across the surface area of the two halves of the rings are holding the scope tube in place?
 
Re: Rings?

I like the Badger best. They are solid and well made every time.
Triad Tactical has the best prices on them.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Night poacher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Little pricey, but the Murphy's Titanium are top-notch.


001-2.jpg
</div></div>

Now it looks like the Murphy's ring halves are touching. Is that correct?
 
Re: Rings?

I know Mike's favorite, TPS, by design close on one side, then clamp on the other.

Is this any different in practice than the hinge of the ARC?
 
Re: Rings?

Well Gentlemen what all you have failed to include in all your fancy mathmatics is the size of the scope O.D. in .0001ths vs the size of the ring I.D.in .0001ths or for that fact the difference between the two which inparts said force(grip).Is the tube exactly 30 mm?+ or - what?Are all scopes the same size. What about tube finish or wall thickness. What about the rings steel,stainless, alum.. How about ring width?Screw location. Number of screws?And most of all have they been mounted and torqued right.And on what base????Sorry but when someone dives down a rabbit hole when a simple "I prefer brand x and heres why"Question is asked the need to explore all the tunnels.
Scot
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well Gentlemen what all you have failed to include in all your fancy mathmatics is the size of the scope O.D. in .0001ths vs the size of the ring I.D.in .0001ths or for that fact the difference between the two which inparts said force(grip).Is the tube exactly 30 mm?+ or - what?Are all scopes the same size. What about tube finish or wall thickness. What about the rings steel,stainless, alum.. How about ring width?Screw location. Number of screws?And most of all have they been mounted and torqued right.And on what base????Sorry but when someone dives down a rabbit hole when a simple "I prefer brand x and heres why"Question is asked the need to explore all the tunnels.
Scot </div></div>

haha, You're right.

The days of experience being a criterion for advice is long gone.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Night poacher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Little pricey, but the Murphy's Titanium are top-notch.


001-2.jpg
</div></div>

Now it looks like the Murphy's ring halves are touching. Is that correct? </div></div> No, the picture angle seems that way.

I torque 25" lbs. Just my personal specs.
smile.gif
 
Re: Rings?

so...is it better to have aluminum rings over steel so they contract and expand, due to temp changes, the same as the scope tube?
 
Re: Rings?

I like Seekins myself. I have used TPS and they are nice especially for the price. Those ARC rings remind me of the old Weaver hinged rings but more modern of course.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Night poacher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Night poacher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Little pricey, but the Murphy's Titanium are top-notch.


001-2.jpg
</div></div>

Now it looks like the Murphy's ring halves are touching. Is that correct? </div></div> No, the picture angle seems that way.

I torque 25" lbs. Just my personal specs.
smile.gif
</div></div>


I torque to 14 inch pounds, my personal specs
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well Gentlemen what all you have failed to include in all your fancy mathmatics is the size of the scope O.D. in .0001ths vs the size of the ring I.D.in .0001ths or for that fact the difference between the two which inparts said force(grip).Is the tube exactly 30 mm?+ or - what?Are all scopes the same size. What about tube finish or wall thickness. What about the rings steel,stainless, alum.. How about ring width?Screw location. Number of screws?And most of all have they been mounted and torqued right.And on what base????Sorry but when someone dives down a rabbit hole when a simple "I prefer brand x and heres why"Question is asked the need to explore all the tunnels.
Scot </div></div>

Perhaps you can enlighten us with those "fancy mathematics" that you want to see?

This is a known issue and one that was mentioned and discussed by both Lowlight and myself in a recent review that I posted in the Optics forum here.

There certainly IS a connection to poor scope tube diameter control and ring issues.

The problem is a known fact but many ring manufacturers are quick to say "It's a scope problem, not a problem with my rings".

OK, now that someone has designed rings that can handle the issue, it seems that technology has advanced and the "new and improved" are a step up from the status quo.

Additionally, if you look at how the ARC ring actually works it behaves much like a strap wrench does. "One size fits all". The cap (or in case of the new design, caps) wrap around the tube and the flexible cap shape rolls around the tube much more than a stiffer design (aka a bulky split cap ring) will. This is not to say that a 32mm tube can be properly held in a 30mm ring, but rather that the inherent tolerances involved with scope tube manufacturing is largely accounted for by the design difference.

This allows for tube size deviation without causing undue high contact pressure points.

Scot, when I give my take on the scope ring question here is what I own or I have owned at this point (and the order in which I got them):

Leupold
Burris XTR
Badger
Seekins
Burris XTR
ARC - Gen 1
ARC - Gen 2
ARC - Gen 3

I have 1 rifle that still has Leupold rings on it because the old Mauser receiver is not setup for a picatinny rail. Unless I put more holes in it or make a custom rail I am stuck with keeping Leupy rings on there.

Everything else has been removed from my stuff in favor of the ARC offerings because I have seen first hand what happens to scopes that have these issues.


Chimera Rings state in their instructions to screw one side down all the way and then tighten the rings by torquing the other side to provide clamping forces. The cap design is flexible at the top of the cap but quite stiff near the screw heads. So they function similarly, but not quite the same. The screw heads still have an offset to the "tangency" condition and they still generate a bending moment in the cap that will dig into the scope tube.

How far it drives that cap corner into the tube is largely dependent upon 2 things:

1) Tube diameter control vs. nominal tube diameter (30.xx vs 30.00mm)
2) Torque applied and therefore cap tension force applied to that tube diameter.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hyena74</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so...is it better to have aluminum rings over steel so they contract and expand, due to temp changes, the same as the scope tube? </div></div>

I feel it is a non-issue. The Aluminum to Aluminum setup will change much more closely however in extreme temperature ranges I don't feel it is going to cause much of an issue either way.

Mounting issues are not going to crop up solely because of material selection during temp change unless they're not properly installed anyway.

If I take steel rings and torque things down in my house at 70F, then take it out in the winter at single digit temps there is going to be a change because the AL will shrink more than the steel. The question is will it really matter though? Take a look at the numbers

Cte of AL ~ 13e.6 in/degF
Cte of Steel ~ 6.5 in/degF

A 30mm tube is 30/25.4 = 1.181" nominally
Let's assume a 75F temp difference from indoors to outdoors
Diameter change is Nominal * Temp_change * Cte

Steel: (30/25.4) * 75 degF * (0.0000065) ~ 0.00057 inches

About 6 ten thousandths of an inch or 0.0146mm

The scope tube is going to be appx double that value, 0.0292mm

The difference between the two is the change that we're concerned with --> 0.0146mm (0.00057in)

Without diving into the rabbit hole to figure out the magnitude of the forces involved of this temp change, they're not particularly large compared to the screw tension forces that are created by torquing the rings down.

I've gone down the rabbit hole on this calculation, it's more complex than warranted for this forum and I don't think that typing the problem out does anyone in this thread much benefit.

Suffice it to say, the steel vs. AL temperature difference is largely a non-issue. Much more important things come into play before this.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mike</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And why is 15 in.-lbs. the magic number?

Will they hold with less? Do they require more? </div></div>

The reason I used 15 in-lbs is because you quoted that number in the post prior, nothing else.

My 300 WSM is 8lbs and the 5.5-22 NXS slides after a few rounds if I don't put at least 12-15 in-lbs on it. As a matter of caution I usually use 20-24 for this scope/rifle package with the ARC Gen 2 rings. This scope has ring marks and slide marks on it from the prior owner's rings and from the first set of split clamp rings that I had on it.

I have an 18lb 7/300 WSM that doesn't move the 5.5-22 if I use 12 in-lbs but the recoil impulse is lass then half what the hunting rifle produces due to the weight offset. I'm shooting the same class projectile at the same speed (180gr bullets at 3050-3100fps).

My 14lb 6.5 Creedmoor with 140 Amax's doesn't slide at 10 in-lbs with a Razor HD in it.

The recoil impulse level is an important factor to consider when trying to answer that question.

JBM has a calculator that will give you the numbers to see what you're generating with a specific setup.


At risk of getting too complicated, a brief overview on the ring clamping question is this:


Clamping force is calculated using the mu*e^(f*theta) approach.
The screw tension forces are generated from the torque applied to the screw via the formula I posted above.

The recoil impulse is worst with a heavy recoiling caliber, light package but heavy scope.

So, an example of a NASTY environment for rings would be a big bore hunting rifle like a 378 Wby Mag in a 9lb platform but a 2.5lb tactical precision type optic on top.

Spring piston air rifles are known to be miserable too due to the piston mechanism oscillating in the stock during the firing cycle.
 
Re: Rings?

I am following this thread on "rings", as well as the other one that was started about ARC rings. While the ARC design does seem different, and may well be an improvement, I don't think it means that all the other well built rings described and recommended on this site for years are obsolete.

The proponents of ARC seem to be trying to pass that off, and I just don't buy that it is a "problem" for most of us who have been buying traditional style two piece rings. While it may in fact be true that the two piece standard rings create a pinch point, my "pinched" USO mounted in Badger rings was able to consistently hit a 10 X 17 target at 1000 yards (my avatar) which is good enough for me.

I may be willing to try ARC in the future, but I have to tell you, the reccuring theme that the new design is the only
"best" way to clamp a scope on a rifle is a turn off.
 
Re: Rings?

I consider it to be the same comparison between someone who has a good factory rifle capable of sub MOA 100yd groups and hitting 2 MOA targets at 1000yd though asking about upgrading to a full custom built gun.

The existing setup works but better exists.
 
Re: Rings?

Here's my experience-when a scope is marked up or doesn't stay put in a set of rings I do not buy/use them anymore.
If the fasteners come loose with the maker's recommended torque, I do not buy/use them anymore.
If the manufacturer's recommended torques specs are nowhere near "turning with the little end of the allen/torx wrench as tight as comfortable to do with fingertips", I don't bother.
I never lap rings, valve seats maybe but rings no.


Good to go by my extremely stringent scientifically derived basis (shit I've used that worked), in no particular order
-AccuLock
-Badger
-IOR/VTac
-MK4
-Seekins
-TPS
-US Optics

Until I can shoot the difference from the above to a new fangled design, I'll stick with them.

If you want to spend a buttload of time and money trying to find a rounder wheel, rock on with yo bad self!
If you have any of the above that are now inferior because a better mousetrap has been switched to, I'll PM my address for disposal of the archaic devices.....
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I consider it to be the same comparison between someone who has a good factory rifle capable of sub MOA 100yd groups and hitting 2 MOA targets at 1000yd though asking about upgrading to a full custom built gun.

The existing setup works but better exists. </div></div>

That is not a very good analogy, comparing results at 100 yards where wind is not a factor and shooting a .308 at 1000 yards with full value winds of 6-8 at the target and switching winds at 500, to a factory VS custom rifle.

Since my factory R700 5R and custom GAP were both 1/2 to 3/4 MOA consistently at 100, and since they both hit the steel at 1000 in the conditions stated above, and since both had scopes mounted in old technology Badger rings, your insistence that the old style causes problems does not convince me. Just because you say the ARC technology is better does not make it a fact.

Your persistent argument proves nothing in the real world where empiracal data tells me that my set up works and that a "better way" will not arbitrarily provide a better result in my application. Please don't compare shooting in a controlled range environment with shooting here:

CVTTrainingPhoto.jpg
 
Re: Rings?

I don't think Bohem is trying to force his opinion as fact. I think he is trying to help us understand why the ARCs may be a better design. And just reading the post about the design they look pretty neat to me.

I have used Badger, Seekings, TPS, Nightforce, IOR, Leupold, etc as well. They all worked. But that does not mean much because I have used maybe one or two sets of them. What does that really show, other than those few sample worked okay. I have read about people having problems with all those brands, but again what does that really show other than they may have had 1 or 2 sets that don't work. That is the same as me having a Leupold or Bushnell scope break and now labeling the whole brand as junk.

If we lived by the adage "if its not broke don't fix it", we would still be living in the stone age.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sobrbiker883</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A good schill knows to make their case well and let it stand on its own merit..... </div></div>

This is a valid statement and I think what is being shown here is being shown and described by engineers which is why these individuals are supporting the ARC rings.

Will Badgers, seekins, Burris, etc do the job, Absolutely!
From a strictly engineering perspective, is there a benefit to the design of the ARC? Yes!

The engineers that understand the design and its impact it see the benefit immediately, others that do not deal with design and engineering concepts may have a harder timer and will tend to argue there is no reason to change.

Mike
Think of it like this for a second. If you have to replace a key part on something you own and:

The 2 pieces are identical in price
One is half the weight of the other
One is designed to impart less stress and eliminate pinch points

Which do you choose and why?

While you personally may not understand the differences other than the weight, Im sure you still realize that the better design is the smarter choice even though you may not understand the design from an engineering perspective.

Other than that, the members here can argue all day long that they dont do anything different and until you understand the engineering behind it, you're making a similar argument to the guy who says he can shoot minute of duck at 4000 yards. (i.e. You're arguing a point that you dont comprehend or fully understand.)

Im not trying to be mean here but if you open your mind for a second and realize the argument some of you are making, you'll understand that you are arguing concepts you dont fully understand based only on the fact that what you have now works so why change it. No one here is saying that ARC is the only way to go or to replace your existing rings. There are allot of great ring manufactures out there that make a product that works for your needs. Pick what you think works for you and go with it. Most people are adverse to change and to new technology they dont understand the value of. There is nothing wrong with that either. Over time, people tend to learn and come around. It would be interesting to visit this thread again in 5 years to see what ring manufactures are doing.



 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheOneTwo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think Bohem is trying to force his opinion as fact. I think he is trying to help us understand why the ARCs may be a better design. And just reading the post about the design they look pretty neat to me. </div></div>

I don't see it that way. He has stated that the ARC rings were designed to correct the common problems with traditional rings that previously were thought by many to be very good at what they do. Apparently standard rings have been a huge problem for years.

Granted, Mike wasn't very tactful, but he was not necessarily wrong on much of what he said. As previously stated, presenting a new idea objectively and letting it sell itself is a better way than the hard sell that these are the only thing that work now that the new best way has been revealed.
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flounderv2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
sobrbiker883 said:
Im not trying to be mean here but if you open your mind for a second and realize the argument some of you are making, you'll understand that you are arguing concepts you dont fully understand based only on the fact that what you have now works so why change it. No one here is saying that ARC is the only way to go or to replace your existing rings. </div></div>

None of this engineering data proves that this new technology will yield a better result in hitting a target with a well aimed round. Let the engineers figure out a ransom rest type test with the same rifle, base, scope, and ammo using the two styles of rings as the only variable, on a range with no wind, and where no human factors are involved, and maybe we can compare the tangible results and differences. I would be willing to say "hey, this really is better" if it can be demonstrated to me. I actually think the concept is good and may well be the next best thing. So far it has not been demonstrated.

Also, it was clearly stated here, and in another thread, both directly and in an overall context that the ARC is superior and eliminates the problems with "standard" rings.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Rings?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DWood</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: flounderv2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
sobrbiker883 said:
Im not trying to be mean here but if you open your mind for a second and realize the argument some of you are making, you'll understand that you are arguing concepts you dont fully understand based only on the fact that what you have now works so why change it. No one here is saying that ARC is the only way to go or to replace your existing rings. </div></div>

None of this engineering data proves that this new technology will yield a better result in hitting a target with a well aimed round. Let the engineers figure out a ransom rest type test with the same rifle, base, scope, and ammo using the two styles of rings as the only variable, on a range with no wind, and where no human factors are involved, and maybe we can compare the tangible result and differences.

It was clearly stated here, and in another thread, both directly and in an overall context that the ARC is superior. </div></div>

You have failed to understand the point of this thread. If you are trying to compare any quality rings to your ability to hit a target, then you have gone off on a tangent that is completely unrelated. The benefits of the design surround imparting less stress on your scope tube as well as a better return to zero should you decide to remove the scope/rings and remount.
Please try and stay on topic.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Rings?

Try again, the topic was on recommended rings, not ARC rings. It got hijacked somewhere along the way, and you too are off topic.

Sorry OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
M40a1 Rings Question
Replies
3
Views
139
bigdibbs88
B
R
Scope ring half gaps?
Replies
12
Views
591
rmiked
R
R
Are 30mm scope rings, 30mm inside diameter?
Replies
3
Views
205
rmiked
R
dogman
Double whammy
Replies
20
Views
589
dogman
dogman
LRRPF52
Options for Razor 1-10 Gen III Flip Covers and Accessories
Replies
2
Views
213
Tyler Kemp
Tyler Kemp
Top Bottom
Back