Cliff Grays Podcast with Aaron Davidson

nagibson1 said:
If someone did this for all the scopes and simulated all the things Form does I would think it IS superior to Form's tests. It would be great to have that Night force guy in a booth at a shot show testing 35 different scopes with those tests and more. I admit that eliminating system variables is better scientifically.

In following Form's stuff, I have learned as much about bases, rings, torque, and rails as scopes. Also, seeing him "get to the bottom" of the Montana Rifle was also good medicine- there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

But when Form has a few systems that he has worked all of those things out of, his tests become more and more helpful. I think he has done a great job of doubting his findings if something else could be an issue. And his transparency seems pretty generous.

The benefit of true innovation or prophetic action (calling bull crap on something no one wants to talk about) is that people rush into the market. Form will not be the only game in town for long, but that will mean that he won. And we might get better scopes- which was the point all along. As someone that lives 40 minutes from Vortex central, and seen the generosity of the owners, I'd love to see it effect the whole industry. When iit hits the whole industry, there will not just be higher standards, but downward price pressures. And more options: like bomb proof with just ok glass and only 10moa of adjustment.
Click to expand...
I ran Vortex in prs for several years and left after the zero retention caused me many big problems for years and years. Everyone at the company was AWESOME. That is, except the engineers that would deny that my problems were real design issues because very few were returned. Nevermind what it takes to see a .2 mil shift with what was common knowledge back 7 or 8 years ago. The engineers wanted to gloss over it and deny, deny, deny. That was it for me, but I felt guilty not supporting them after the way everyone else in the company handled the problems for years.
 
I finally had enough drive time to finish the podcast. It was a great listen. Ryan asked great questions. Aaron is bright, articulate and says what he thinks. Didn't duck any questions. It probably helps that I agree with his takes on virtually everything discussed.
 
Aaron Davidson said:
The barrel joint doesnt stay locked up for magnums with 60deg thread joint, we run 100ftlbs. I don't think it matters if it's 50 or 115. Just don't yield it or the action.
Click to expand...
This'll sound very ignorant but it's way over my head engineering-wise, is this something I should be concerned about (for zero-shift) for non-magnum rifles built on Lone Peak, Mausingfield, or Tikka actions?
 
wind gypsy said:
The 60 degree thread joint part threw me for a loop and i'm not following.
Click to expand...
I think he’s referring to the standard “V angle” used for ISO spec threading. Joint meaning where barrel and action meet I’m assuming?

I’ve seen this “joint” cause impact shifts on a couple different Remington clones. Christensen Arms as a recent personal example.

I have not ever observed this issue with properly torqued (factory spec) Sakos and Tikkas. I’ve seen multiple tikkas with prefits have this issue, normally an error by the smith.
 
Aaron Davidson said:
smooth threads and square face is your only hope (unless you want to glue the shit out of it!)
Click to expand...
Would it be worth pinning (like older S&W revolvers) barrels into the receiver or does that just introduce a stress variable that could create more problems than it solves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top