Rifle Scopes Why are rings still separate from scopes?

[dbooksta]

Rings are such a serious source of scope error: Not only are there four to six separate points of attachment slippage (each ring to gun, and each ring or side of the ring to the scope) but they also introduce problems with alignment between the front and back rings, and with rotational alignment of the scope within the rings.

So why are hardly any optics manufacturers integrating rail mounts with their tubes, thereby reducing all potential mounting errors to two points: Rail to the barrel, and scope to the rail?

I understand that prior to adjustable combs and stocks it might have been helpful to be able to adjust scope height, but that seems like an obsolete reason.

 

[BOLTRIPPER]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

really ?

 

[KYS]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

not every scope rail is the same
Different people might want different positioning of the scope. having fixed rings might limit you to where the scope can be placed

not all applications can use one set height. seems like more of a headache then a solution.

 

[Tony.]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

The europeans do that a lot. Have you see the cost, the pain in the ass and the limitied options that it causes.

 

[AlabamaShooter]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

I think it has to do with several things first of which is ease of manufacture. Its easier to extrud the tube and machine/forge the remaining components that are used in the assembly. Also by only focusing on the optics you allow a greater number of applications for the end user of the same optic. Because if you integrated the mounts it would limit the applications, for example a scope and mount combination could be tailored for an AR platform but end up not working at all with a 10/22. Hope this helps.

 

[AXEMAN]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

not to bash, but look at the rings that come with the Millett LRS. they did good by offering them with the scope, but they are so high most people dont like them. you would end up with a bunch of take off rings in a drawer. scope bases and rifles are all different, i cant imagine any scope maker being able to make one set of rings that would suit everybodys style or needs. plus as soon as they did it, someone somewhere in some internet forum would start a post saying "How can scope makers tell us which rings to use?"

 

[Walsh]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Dosen't USO have a 4x with an intergrated mount?

 

[BMelton]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Well.......Lets see.......If every human being and every rifle was built the EXACT same way and tolerances and every man/woman had the exact same neck length and build then rings of different height and so forth wouldnt be of much use now would they. As mentioned above....its the options and DIFFERENT rails and such and the simple fact that NOTHING is the same.....

Try figuring the cost of what it would take Optics manuf. to make their product with integrated rings in low, med, and high. then you would have 3 different models not one. This would be stupid expensive rather than taking ONE scope and then buying the rings which are substantially cheaper than a scope.

....I thought this would be a no-brainer.

 

[Graham]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Rings are not a source of scope error. Good rings do not cause alignment problems unless they are adjustable for windage. And one can't adjust the height of a cheek piece instead of the scope to achieve the same result.

 

[EddieP]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Barrel contour can make the diff between perfect height and contact.

Some people like turn in rings others like picatinny rail style.

What about if you wanted apel style swing off mounts.

If a company such as Swarovski included mounts of comparable quality and the customer wanted something else then its $200 wasted.

Its enough of a problem with ruger including rings with their rifles, let alone if the optics manufacturers started playing the game.

 

[BobinNC]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbooksta</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rings are such a serious source of scope error: Not only are there four to six separate points of attachment slippage (each ring to gun, and each ring or side of the ring to the scope) but they also introduce problems with alignment between the front and back rings, and with rotational alignment of the scope within the rings.

So why are hardly any optics manufacturers integrating rail mounts with their tubes, thereby reducing all potential mounting errors to two points: Rail to the barrel, and scope to the rail?

I understand that prior to adjustable combs and stocks it might have been helpful to be able to adjust scope height, but that seems like an obsolete reason. </div></div>



In current systems in use you have:

1) Receiver
2) Rail, or base
3) Rings (two)
4) Scope

In your proposed "system" you will have:

1) Receiver
2) Base
3) Scope with rail

So yes, you have eliminated one element. But now have created a whole new set of problems.

You have drastically reduced flexability. If you replaced scope A and it's 4" eye relief, and put scope B and it's 3.25" eye relief. Now you have to chop your stock to get the proper view through the scope.

Additionally, how about height over the barrel, or is the scope maker going to build in enough height to clear all barrels? Which is the problem now with some Euro scope designs that use integral rails. They are so high, that the shooter gets a nosebleed trying to use them.

It is flexibility and modularity that makes the current system shine. You have a variety of base and ring selections to accommodate multiple rifle types, scope types, different applications, and the varying anatomy of the shooter.

Fortunately cookie cutter approaches are best left to baking. Integral rails on scopes has been tried before, with only limited success. And it was limited in that success for one simple reason: Modularity is a better and more flexible....

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Just as the rings often are causing various problems, the separate rails are causing even more problems.
In my opinion the best solution would be actions with integrated rails, and scope with integrated mounts.
I cannot see any downside with it, unless you are a ring manufacturer.

When it comes to rails or bases the whole idea about placing such important as a scope on a round piece of metal attached togehter with two to four tiny small screws is a way that NEVER would be used in any industrial application.
In an industrial solution such as various tools or machines the base would be attached with bigger screws AND pins to secure it's placement.

So in my opinion the starter of the thread are absolutely right, technically.

But as Fashion is a major factor in the firearms world, and people are generally old fashioned the round scopes, and tiny screws in betwen will stay for many years to come.......

Håkan

 

[Natty Bumpo]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

There are plenty of red-dot sights with integral rails to attach to a picattinny or weaver base. Of course a lot of these have unlimited eye relief and no objective hanging out over the barrel.

I like the idea, but see the limitations with folks needing different sized rings; some preferring standard, windage adjustable rings; and, a general resistance to change.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

The reason why people want different ring heights are partly caused by the fact that the stocks are to old fashioned to.
A good rifle stock are adjustable for lenght, buttplate height and checkpiece height.
And for such a gun, the height on the scopemount is no longer crictical.

As different stances requires different buttlengths and buttplate positions I find if very strange that not those features are standard on Sniper stocks today.

Håkan

 

[eleaf]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

It would seem that there is a place for rings and optics being a single unit. But even that would have to come in different varieties.

I will soon be running, when my NF arrives, an NXS 5.5-22x56 in the NF Direct mount which combines base and rings in to a single unit. I like cutting down on the number of separate parts. Making a base/ring/scope combo seems a great idea and should be explored as we're only talking 1 part and not 4.

It may well turn out to be a horrible idea, but we will never see if someone with some clout in the optics world give it a shot.

 

[Spuhr]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Eleaf

Hensoldt 3-12x56 SSG and SSG-P does already exist in that configuration. But there is some drawbacks.
The SSG series are old, and they are very high, they only come in 3-12 that many shooters to day feel is to low magnification.

A second drawback is that there is very limited possibilitys on such a scope/scopemount to add on extra assesories, such as levels, ACI etc.
So if such a concept should be a winner, it has to be a completely new solution.

Håkan

 

[rezmedic54]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

It seems to be more of a personal choice as to the rings people use. Some like Leo. other Weaver and so on. It is and for the most part what works for you. Personally I like and use the Millet Angle-Loc rings. They stay where there put never had one come loose or any other problem that was blamed on the rings had bases that where screwed up and screw holes threaded back wards or off to one side or to close to each other or to far apart.

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as the rings often are causing various problems, the separate rails are causing even more problems.
<span style="font-weight: bold">In my opinion the best solution would be actions with integrated rails, and scope with integrated mounts.</span>
I cannot see any downside with it, unless you are a ring manufacturer.

<span style="font-weight: bold">When it comes to rails or bases the whole idea about placing such important as a scope on a round piece of metal attached togehter with two to four tiny small screws is a way that NEVER would be used in any industrial application.</span>
In an industrial solution such as various tools or machines the base would be attached with bigger screws AND pins to secure it's placement.

So in my opinion the starter of the thread are absolutely right, technically.

But as Fashion is a major factor in the firearms world, and people are generally old fashioned the round scopes, and tiny screws in betwen will stay for many years to come.......

Håkan </div></div>

Totally agree...

The things is that tradition, and making things to try to fit most people (who like to "customize" everything, for good reasons or just for the sake of it) goes against the better technical solution.

At least for sniper systems, the new developments like long integrated rails, need for inline NV in front of the scope, stocks with adjustable buttplates and cheekpieces, etc. will render many of the arguments about sight height, barrel diameter, scope location, etc. less important.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TiroFijo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Spuhr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just as the rings often are causing various problems, the separate rails are causing even more problems.
<span style="font-weight: bold">In my opinion the best solution would be actions with integrated rails, and scope with integrated mounts.</span>
I cannot see any downside with it, unless you are a ring manufacturer.

<span style="font-weight: bold">When it comes to rails or bases the whole idea about placing such important as a scope on a round piece of metal attached togehter with two to four tiny small screws is a way that NEVER would be used in any industrial application.</span>
In an industrial solution such as various tools or machines the base would be attached with bigger screws AND pins to secure it's placement.

So in my opinion the starter of the thread are absolutely right, technically.

But as Fashion is a major factor in the firearms world, and people are generally old fashioned the round scopes, and tiny screws in betwen will stay for many years to come.......

Håkan </div></div>

Totally agree...

The things is that tradition, and making things to try to fit most people (who like to "customize" everything, for good reasons or just for the sake of it) goes against the better technical solution.

At least for sniper systems, the new developments like long integrated rails, need for inline NV in front of the scope, stocks with adjustable buttplates and cheekpieces, etc. will render many of the arguments about sight height, barrel diameter, scope location, etc. less important. </div></div>

Kicking open Pandora’s Box.

What will be the standard diameter for the rings?

1”, 30mm, 34mm, 35mm? What about the scope manufacturers who decide that the “standard” is not the “best” solution for some reason?

What happens when you really dork the scope mount/rings? Do you now get to throwaway an action?

How do I run a 42mm S & B and a 72mm Hensoldt? The rings are going to be too high, too low, or just vanilla (which still does not help)

 

[TiroFijo]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?

Chiller, we are talking about an integral mounting system on the scope, like this:

http://swfa.com/Zeiss-3-12x56-SSG-P-Tactical-Hensoldt-Telescopic-34mm-Sight-P41077.aspx

What about a rifle chassis with a long (or even continuous) picatinny rail with a section ahead of the scope for NV? You just drop you scope on it, on the desired position, torque the screws, done! The scope is mounted with a height compatible with NV. Adjust the cheek weld and butt to your preference.

No more fitting/bedding of scope base to the action, then careeefully tighten a few small screws taking care not to strip them. No more carefully aligning/verifying the scope rings, lapping them if necessary, and then careeefully tighten those small screws. I'm personally guilty of stripping a couple of those dammed little screw heads in my life

 

[Fighthard]

Re: Why are rings still separate from scopes?



The shooter is the biggest variable with any weapon system...in most cases, not high quality scope rings.