• 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 Vertically split rings

MachoKing

MachoKing

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 26, 2017
317
98
I've read that there was a huge shit show about vertically split rings a while back.

On one of my rifles I have a Bushnell 4.5-18 LRHS in a set of Warne rings. After load development I was sighting it in and dammit if I couldn't get the windage to go further left. I was about a MOA at 200 off zero and even with more and more adjustment it wouldn't move.

Now, on my 7 mag hunting rig I have Talley lightweights, same scope model. Shoot one bullet. Measure the distance with the reticle. Adjust. Shoot another. Bullseye.

Am I having the infamous vertically split ring issue?
 
Could be... perhaps over torqued ring screws are pinching the scope tube causing the internal turret adjustments to bind... or you could just have a misaligned rail and you've maxed out your windage adjustment. Hard to tell. from info provided.

Has this scope ring combo worked on this rifle before? If you loosen the rings some, does the windage turret once again begin to move the reticle as you would have expected?

Vertically split rings, while not ideal, can be made to work. Just make sure you follow the manufacturer's torque recommendations and screw tightening sequence exactly as described in the mounting instructions.
 
Using the Warne Maxima split rail. Torqued to spec with a fat wrench. Definitely not anywhere close to maxed out.
 
I guess my question is, "If you're having issues, and you know split rings can cause issues, why are you not just moving on to better rings?" At some point your time, ammo and range fees, spent chasing down issues is well worth just upgrading to some other quality rings, and be done with it.

JMTCW...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 260284, LG65CM, Gohring65 and 4 others
MarinePMI said:
I guess my question is, "If you're having issues, and you know split rings can cause issues, why are you not just moving on to better rings?" At some point your time, ammo and range fees, spent chasing down issues is well worth just upgrading to some other quality rings, and be done with it.

JMTCW...
Click to expand...
x1000, why spend any time messing with any vertically spling ring? If money is tight,which I assume it is if your running Warne verticals, then go try a pair of these: https://swfa.com/swfa-ss-tac-30mm-1-rings-6.html.
 
Money isn't that tight, I just bought what rail and rings would fit my Savage at Sportsman's warehouse (this was a few years ago before I really got into shooting). I am between the ARC rings and the Seekins rings.
 
You can't go wrong with ARC M-10's. Started using them a few years ago, and hands down, they are one of the best type of rings available. Especially from an ease of installation perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 260284 and Tunnuh
Don't use vertically split rings and you'll save yourself so much time, trouble & money.
Frank has a pretty good article on how much trouble they cause.

The last time I paid for a fairly expensive set of vertically split rings and went out shooting, I gave up after about $100 in ammo as I was shooting like a Muslim, couldn't stay on track for anything.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1911hombre, 260284, strat81 and 1 other person
MachoKing said:
I like how easy they make moving the scope between rifles.
Click to expand...

this could be just me but I don't move scopes in rings between rifles. if I care to do that I use a one-piece mount.

it's possible, maybe probable, that the two rails are not machined exactly alike and torquing two separate rings attached to a scope, onto the rail, can impart distortion forces into the scope body.

if I had to do this I would first loosen the ring screws then remove the scope in the rings from the rail and reverse when mounting on new rail...
 
W54/XM-388 said:
Don't use vertically split rings and you'll save yourself so much time, trouble & money.
Frank has a pretty good article on how much trouble they cause.

The last time I paid for a fairly expensive set of vertically split rings and went out shooting, I gave up after about $100 in ammo as I was shooting like a Muslim, couldn't stay on track for anything.
Click to expand...
We're you firing over a berm holding the gun over your head? That can cause issues.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1911hombre and 260284
At the shooting bench on a bench rest and each shot would wind up on a different part of the target backing board.
 
I know your just asking a harmless question, and I respect that, but I wish like hell this vertically split rings thread would just fucking die already... No offense OP, it's like it just won't die.. EVERYONE QUIT BUYING VERTICALLY SPLIT RINGS! This needs to be posted at the top of the forum so people will shy away from them..
 
  • Like
Reactions: SRPowah, MarinePMI and W54/XM-388
I have ARCs and they are great but why aren’t they considered vertical splits?
 
Oh shit, you've done it now. You wrote "Vertically split rings." Not only did you write it you USED them. Wait till Frank finds out.
 
It's not just the fact that they are split vertically, its how they clamp to the base then "pinch" the scope tube rather than evenly tighten like a traditional ring cap. ARC's don't seem to create problems so I'm guessing their design applies even clamping force around the entire ring.
 
Come to think of it I did pinch a tube on an HS-T with them but I thought it was me.
 
If you use them, and you want to avoid problems, ensure you tighten them in the exact specified sequence and to manufacturer's recommended torque settings.

Again, note I said AVOID problems! No guarantees.
 
Does all that's written here regarding vertically split rings also apply to ADM or other vertically split rings used on AR's? Asking, because I've got a good handful of them mounted from 223 to 308's, and they seem to hold zero, and they do get worked, but not 200 rounds per weekend. All but the 34mm have been lapped prior to mounting scopes, and are torqued properly in sequence. Curious to what other's results reflect.
 
Try to find Frank's post about it. I believe he didn't single anything out, but just a generalization that was based on his observations over a period of time. I would imagine that ADM is not immune to the issues, unfortunately. It's too bad because I like their stuff.
 
You already have doubt in the rings.
It’s a well vetted issue, so I would ditch the rings.
Nothing will ruin confidence more, than doubt in your rig.
 
If properly designed and manufactured, shouldn't vertically split rings work the same as standard rings?
You're just rotating the mounting 90 degrees.
I doubt 25 in/lb would warp any decent quality scope tube.

Unless the discussion is regarding a specific type of vertically split rings?
Because I've seen ones which have one fixed side, ones that are literally normal rings rotated 90 degrees, ones that pinch on top, ones that hinge on, and rings that clamp and screw on at an oblique angle, and rings that are 2 separate halves that attach on each side.
 
Frank talked about this; I recommend you find his post. He wasn't talking anything about theory, it was his observations on quite a few occasions. There is some x factor that we cannot absolutely quantify about why the vertical rings f up the internals as of yet, just conjecture. But the effects are observed. Mind you, I am just going off what I have read in a few places, not just Frank, and I haven't seen it myself.
 
BarrettBoy said:
If properly designed and manufactured, shouldn't vertically split rings work the same as standard rings?
You're just rotating the mounting 90 degrees.
I doubt 25 in/lb would warp any decent quality scope tube.

Unless the discussion is regarding a specific type of vertically split rings?
Because I've seen ones which have one fixed side, ones that are literally normal rings rotated 90 degrees, ones that pinch on top, ones that hinge on, and rings that clamp and screw on at an oblique angle, and rings that are 2 separate halves that attach on each side.
Click to expand...

No, because two of the screws are tightening to the rail, which is a much higher torque value. Instead of a clamping action, when you tighten down the upper screws a pinching action is created, distorting the tube, at least that's the way I understand it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jasonliu and 260284
Here's one of Frank's posts:

"During the June classes, we had many scopes go down. In one class, 5 out of 15 scopes failed to return to zero. We try to diagnose the problems, and when relating the stories, we often get the attention of the various manufacturers. They will call me directly when reading the posts on Sniper’s Hide, usually within minutes of me posting. The June class was no different. I was in direct contact with the companies explaining my observations.

We found the biggest contributor to the problem was vertically split rings. I know right, who would have guessed? I was never a fan of them, they aren’t precision. They started out as affordable AR rings and then somehow morphed in to go to precision rifle equipment. I never advocate inexpensive for the sake of cost, as you get what you pay for in this case. Stuff designed for the AR crowd is not my idea of quality in the context of a precision rifle. The Airsoft stuff used is worse.

No this does not include the ARC rings, they are not true split rings which were the root of the problems. Since that class, we have paid more attention and in July we replaced two sets of split rings and loaned a good scope to a shooter with a third set. Clearly, they are turning out to be an issue."
 
MachoKing said:
No, because two of the screws are tightening to the rail, which is a much higher torque value. Instead of a clamping action, when you tighten down the upper screws a pinching action is created, distorting the tube, at least that's the way I understand it.
Click to expand...

I see. That makes sense since half of the rings were clamped at higher torque ratings onto the rails. But are they the only problem design?

There are so many price ranges and variations of vertical rings. $2.40 Tasco, $60 Aero precision, $180 ADM, $250 larue.
All these vertical rings have different mechanical designs, and there are some pretty popular oblique rings that you could consider vertical, since the left and right sides are on different halves.
Has anyone that's been having problems been more specific with what kinds of vertical rings they're running?
 
Like mijp5 said, all you guys that do not know are ending up just rehashing what's already been discussed ad nauseum. All of the questions and points being brought up here have already been discussed, answered, argued about, fought over and settled already.

And yes, specific rings were discussed, and yes, it means ALL true vertically split rings. ARC rings are not the same and are a precision ring. Yes, ADM rings and mounts have been cited in many occasions to do this too. I used an ADM mount on a good scope (properly mounted and torqued specifically to the included instructions) and ended up sending the scope in for repair. Sold the mount, bought a pair of Seekins rings to use on that scope and problems are gone for good.

Defenders of their own vertical rings mounted a huge defense by saying that all of us having issues must be idiots and not following directions or otherwise doing it wrong. My question to all of the defenders is, "Why would I ever even bother to mess with something that must be worried to the nth degree to get it right or it will trash my scope?" Especially when there are so many top quality other options to choose from. Who would even bother in order to save a couple bucks? Ask yourself some honest questions and answer them honestly. Then, if you still feel that you must have the vertical rings, it's on you. Don't say that you have not been warned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silentheart and MarinePMI
Okay so, we know that they're shit. So what are good? Seekins? ARC? Also what's a good rail for a Savage?
 
Badger rings and rails. Never had a problem with either
 
MachoKing said:
Okay so, we know that they're shit. So what are good? Seekins? ARC? Also what's a good rail for a Savage?
Click to expand...
Good rings and mounts, to name a few that I can remember off the top of my head:
Seekins, Vortex Precision, Badger, Nightforce, ARC, MPA, Spuhr, RRS... There are some more, but they escape my memory at the moment. Here's the bottom line. Protect your high dollar scope and get the most out of your system by buying quality rings and mounts. Quality costs money, in almost all cases. Don't spend $1000 for your first good scope and then save $40-50 by putting it in cheap rings.

Good high quality rails can be had from Seekins, Ken Farrel, Badger. Again, you do get what you pay for.
 
NEAR makes an outstanding precision rail and mount called the alpha mount. I had 3 of them and recently sold one 30mm because I don't have a scope for it anymore
 
I understand the price for the rings but what makes a quality rail so expensive?
 
Same thing as the rings...attention to detail. The longer an item is, the more attention is required to keep everything parallel.
 
Like MarinePMI said, it about tolerances and detail. In addition, some of the lesser rails, like EGW are aluminum. Not all aluminum rails are bad, but again, the right materials and machining detail with tight tolerances are key.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MachoKing
Yeah, well, it depends on how much you want that Savage to shoot straight, and without problems. FWIW, EGW makes an aluminum rail for Savage that I never had issues with, and the price wasn't too bad.

But yeah, at some point, savage rifles fall into the "sow's ear" prospect of making a purse. It just depends on what you can afford at the moment, and what you're willing to dump into it getting it to the next level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
MarinePMI said:
Yeah, well, it depends on how much you want that Savage to shoot straight, and without problems. FWIW, EGW makes an aluminum rail for Savage that I never had issues with, and the price wasn't too bad.

But yeah, at some point, savage rifles fall into the "sow's ear" prospect of making a purse. It just depends on what you can afford at the moment, and what you're willing to dump into it getting it to the next level.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm sitting here with a $1000 scope, APA brake, laminate stock on this $400 rifle. In hindsight I should have bought my wife a Tikka, then I wouldn't feel like I was flushing money down the drain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 260284 and lash
MachoKing said:
Right. I'm sitting here with a $1000 scope, APA brake, laminate stock on this $400 rifle. In hindsight I should have bought my wife a Tikka, then I wouldn't feel like I was flushing money down the drain.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that hindsight sure is useful...for next time, lol. BTDT
 
What rings and bases would you put on your wife's Savage? Haha.
 
MachoKing said:
What rings and bases would you put on your wife's Savage? Haha.
Click to expand...

You dont want to invest a bunch of money into it or so youve said. A set of Talleys like your hunting rig. Skip a rail and all that jazz all together, be done for 50 bucks.
 
Like Marine said, the EGW rail is decent, as long as you make sure that it is either bedded or confirmed a straight, tight fit. I would use good rings of your choice, per my recommendations above. Rings can always be reused on any other scope or rifle, plus the good ones retain their value pretty well for resale as used.

Or, since I was interrupted in my post and Spife beat me to it, just go with the Talleys as he said.
 
Now that I know what constitutes a good ring and base I doubt the Talley's are going to be on my rifle for very much longer. I've got plans for my Tikka that my wife doesn't need to know about.
 
lash said:
Like mijp5 said, all you guys that do not know are ending up just rehashing what's already been discussed ad nauseum. All of the questions and points being brought up here have already been discussed, answered, argued about, fought over and settled already.

And yes, specific rings were discussed, and yes, it means ALL true vertically split rings. ARC rings are not the same and are a precision ring. Yes, ADM rings and mounts have been cited in many occasions to do this too. I used an ADM mount on a good scope (properly mounted and torqued specifically to the included instructions) and ended up sending the scope in for repair. Sold the mount, bought a pair of Seekins rings to use on that scope and problems are gone for good.

Defenders of their own vertical rings mounted a huge defense by saying that all of us having issues must be idiots and not following directions or otherwise doing it wrong. My question to all of the defenders is, "Why would I ever even bother to mess with something that must be worried to the nth degree to get it right or it will trash my scope?" Especially when there are so many top quality other options to choose from. Who would even bother in order to save a couple bucks? Ask yourself some honest questions and answer them honestly. Then, if you still feel that you must have the vertical rings, it's on you. Don't say that you have not been warned.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more......Why go through all the bullshit ("Defenders of their own vertical rings mounted a huge defense by saying that all of us having issues must be idiots and not following directions or otherwise doing it wrong".) of using a product that is known to be error prone, as opposed to using a tried and true SIMPLE topology ? As Lash has pointed out, there are so many "traditional" ring/one piece mount manufacturers out there, I can see zero justification with attempting to re-invent the wheel by adding variables and complexity. It generally buys you nothing but headaches. Me ? I've gone to Spuhr 4006's, which are also a one piece mount, which elimnates the possibility of individual (set of) ring(s) misalignment. Yeah, they are expensive. Once you get your first one, you'll look at it and wonder why you didn't do it sooner. I did. Since I bought my first Spuhr, I have moved away from individual rings altogether. The fact that the bore for the scope and the machining of the mating rail for the base are machined on the same setup is probably the biggest selling feature of the Spuhr for me. (Unless they were manufactured incorrectly), there is no way for the scope to be out of parallel with the rail. Of course, the parallel relationship of the rail and the action can be a factor, that is beyond the mount manufacturers responsibility/ability to influence it. I have seen less costly one piece mounts such as the Badger and they look very good as well.
 
Last edited:
lash said:
Like mijp5 said, all you guys that do not know are ending up just rehashing what's already been discussed ad nauseum. All of the questions and points being brought up here have already been discussed, answered, argued about, fought over and settled already.

And yes, specific rings were discussed, and yes, it means ALL true vertically split rings. ARC rings are not the same and are a precision ring. Yes, ADM rings and mounts have been cited in many occasions to do this too. I used an ADM mount on a good scope (properly mounted and torqued specifically to the included instructions) and ended up sending the scope in for repair. Sold the mount, bought a pair of Seekins rings to use on that scope and problems are gone for good.

Defenders of their own vertical rings mounted a huge defense by saying that all of us having issues must be idiots and not following directions or otherwise doing it wrong. My question to all of the defenders is, "Why would I ever even bother to mess with something that must be worried to the nth degree to get it right or it will trash my scope?" Especially when there are so many top quality other options to choose from. Who would even bother in order to save a couple bucks? Ask yourself some honest questions and answer them honestly. Then, if you still feel that you must have the vertical rings, it's on you. Don't say that you have not been warned.
Click to expand...

This subject really has my interest now.
I've done pretty thorough forum searching and googling and have found some good info on this.
But I still haven't been able find any thorough discussion about specific rings or mechanisms of failure that weren't conjecture. Could you please direct me to these ad nauseum discussions?

I'm debating whether or not to change my larue vertical mount at this point, but with the sunk cost of the old mount and the additional cost of a new mount, I'd really want to see more specific information, and see what the mechanical evidence is before taking that plunge.
 
Where did I say studies were presented? I certainly didn't, nor do I have any charts and diagrams for you. I could make some up and post them as fact if it would help you. At this point, it's all conjecture, anecdotal and apparently still ripe for argument. I said what I know and what I observed. Data point of one. I didn't post it on facebook or instagram, so I guess you can take it for what it is. :cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs
h3dgehawk said:
I've used Warne rings for a number of years and won't use anything else. They are superb. And I have never, ever had a ring mark or any mark whatsoever on a scope properly mounted in Warnes.
Click to expand...

You obviously shoot enough precision rifle enough to give a fuck where your zero is at. You must have like a 2 MOA handicap. I would never compete against you. No sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Looking for some old scope rings, need some help.
Replies
6
Views
301
aprocast
A
J
Scope ring/base options for a split rail
Replies
0
Views
366
j-shooter
J
N
Vertical Stringing
Replies
15
Views
664
Nigel Nobody
N
BigScoot45
SOLD Defiance Tenacity/Proof Carbon .300WM + UM Ammo
Replies
10
Views
849
BigScoot45
BigScoot45
CDrill97
Firearms Vudoo prs setup, will split up
Replies
26
Views
3K
warddanger
warddanger
Top Bottom
Back