Drop Test Approved Rings/Bases

[JMundy84]

I'm curious if the rail was bonded to the action?

No it wasn't

 

[Halligan]

Do the DNZ one piece mounts work well? I like the concept...

So far so good for me, banging it around on my 7600 last season
Haven’t really seen an negative reviews on them in my research

 

[1000yards]

Vertically split rings are the quickest way to mess a scope up.

I have some questions about this. When you say it messes up the scope, does that mean it messes up the tracking and zero retention, or does it actually damage a scope beyond cosmetics?

And is there any difference in this issue between a Warne style where the bottom screws also clamp onto the rail, versus a Talley style where there's a separate screw that locks to the rail?

Finally, I have a CZ 550 30-06 with a S&B 8x56 and split Talley rings, no issues so far but it's only seen a few hundred rounds. Should I leave it alone or replace those rings?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I have some questions about this. When you say it messes up the scope, does that mean it messes up the tracking and zero retention, or does it actually damage a scope beyond cosmetics?

And is there any difference in this issue between a Warne style where the bottom screws also clamp onto the rail, versus a Talley style where there's a separate screw that locks to the rail?

Finally, I have a CZ 550 30-06 with a S&B 8x56 and split Talley rings, no issues so far but it's only seen a few hundred rounds. Should I leave it alone or replace those rings?

I think the general consensus is vertically split rings that aren't ARC M-Brace rings are suspect.

 

[1000yards]

I think the general consensus is vertically split rings that aren't ARC M-Brace rings are suspect.

I appreciate the input, but that's not what I was asking.

 

[Bama67]

Has anyone ever had an issue with the regular American-made Warne horizontal steel rings?

 

[Kyguy]

I have some questions about this. When you say it messes up the scope, does that mean it messes up the tracking and zero retention, or does it actually damage a scope beyond cosmetics?

And is there any difference in this issue between a Warne style where the bottom screws also clamp onto the rail, versus a Talley style where there's a separate screw that locks to the rail?

Finally, I have a CZ 550 30-06 with a S&B 8x56 and split Talley rings, no issues so far but it's only seen a few hundred rounds. Should I leave it alone or replace those rings?

I think the thing with vertically split rings is that they act like a clam shell, more or less, and don't apply even pressure across the tube. Of course, if you go with 15-18 in lbs on the screws like most scope makers state, maybe it's a non-issue, but less than 20in lbs seems to allow scopes to move in the rings.

 

[1000yards]

I think the thing with vertically split rings is that they act like a clam shell, more or less, and don't apply even pressure across the tube. Of course, if you go with 15-18 in lbs on the screws like most scope makers state, maybe it's a non-issue, but less than 20in lbs seems to allow scopes to move in the rings.

Yes, I understand the theoretical argument against them. But I haven't seen or heard of any issues specifically caused by that "clam shell" situation. By the way, Talley recommends 20-in lbs, not 15-18. I torque mine to 25 and I haven't seen issues in my limited use. But let me be clear: I trust the rokslide consensus on these rings, I'm just looking for specific examples.

 

[2rsquared]

I like Nightforce's stuff. I went with the 6 screw rings. May be overkill but makes me feel more confident.

Interested as well. Does vertical vs horizontal clamp matter?

I tend to switch scopes and share scopes between rifles.

I had a set of Zeis vertical rings. They required you to loosen the screws that were also clamping the scope tube to get the scope off of the rail. This could (and did) allow the reticle to move and no longer be level.

With horizontal clamping rings, there are a separate set of nuts/screws holding the rings to the base/rail. Scope stays level.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I appreciate the input, but that's not what I was asking.

I was directly addressing your middle question of whether there's a difference depending on the style of vertical ring. I guess maybe I could have used more words to say it. If you were asking about whether one is worse than the other (for academic reasons) my bad but I figured you wanted practical/actionable information since that's the modus operandi for most guys on here.

 

[Kyguy]

Yes, I understand the theoretical argument against them. But I haven't seen or heard of any issues specifically caused by that "clam shell" situation. By the way, Talley recommends 20-in lbs, not 15-18. I torque mine to 25 and I haven't seen issues in my limited use. But let me be clear: I trust the rokslide consensus on these rings, I'm just looking for specific examples.

If you dig on the good ole interweb, you'll find information about it. Vertical rings seem most likely to leave serious marks on tubes, in my experience and from what I've read from others, and that's not good for the internals. Like I said, Vortex quit marketing/making vertical rings because they found out that they cause more issues than horizontally split rings. Talley's may be the exception to that rule. I had some steel Talley vertical split rings and they didn't seem to cause any issues other than they were a pain in the ass to remove and remount with the springs in the screw holes. And note, I said "scope makers" when I talked about torque.... not the ring makers. If you call most ring makers and ask the about specific torque numbers, they will indubitably tell you to use whatever the scope maker says to use.

 

[1000yards]

I was directly addressing your middle question of whether there's a difference depending on the style of vertical ring. I guess maybe I could have used more words to say it. If you were asking about whether one is worse than the other (for academic reasons) my bad but I figured you wanted practical/actionable information since that's the modus operandi for most guys on here.

All good my friend, I was not being sarcastic when I said I appreciate the input -all discourse is good. It just seems to me like this whole "split rings are bad" trope is often repeated without evidence or direct experience backing it up. I'm here to learn, not be a blind follower. I've moved away from split rings on my M77s, but there's not many other options for the CZ 550.

 

[1000yards]

If you dig on the good ole interweb, you'll find information about it.

And that's my point, all the info I can find is about the Warne style which uses the same screws to clamp the rings and the rail.

Talley's may be the exception to that rule. I had some steel Talley vertical split rings and they didn't seem to cause any issues other than they were a pain in the ass to remove and remount with the springs in the screw holes.

Here's hoping on that. I have seen a scope marked up pretty bad by Warne rings. But I haven't seen it on several sets of Talleys (which I believe it's important that they are installed correctly or else they will damage a scope pretty quick). ADM mounts also function the same way.

And note, I said "scope makers" when I talked about torque.... not the ring makers. If you call most ring makers and ask the about specific torque numbers, they will indubitably tell you to use whatever the scope maker says to use.

I missed that, you're right.

 

[NevadaMike]

Area 419 rings are final machined in pairs to ensure perfect alignment and concentricity.

 

[Formidilosus]

I have some questions about this. When you say it messes up the scope, does that mean it messes up the tracking and zero retention, or does it actually damage a scope beyond cosmetics?

All the above.

And is there any difference in this issue between a Warne style where the bottom screws also clamp onto the rail, versus a Talley style where there's a separate screw that locks to the rail?

Yes there is a difference- however I haven’t used the Tally QR’s enough to say whether they are solid or not.

Regular vertically spilt rings that the base screws tightens to the rail and clamps the scope absolutely cause inconsistent tracking, shifting zeros, and damages scopes. I have had several normally very reliable scopes damaged (mechanically) before figuring it out.

Finally, I have a CZ 550 30-06 with a S&B 8x56 and split Talley rings, no issues so far but it's only seen a few hundred rounds. Should I leave it alone or replace those rings?

Well, that’s up to you. I doubt that Tally QR’s with their small ring screws would be as durable as I would want, but I haven’t used them heavily enough to say.

 

[SDHNTR]

I have some questions about this. When you say it messes up the scope, does that mean it messes up the tracking and zero retention, or does it actually damage a scope beyond cosmetics?

And is there any difference in this issue between a Warne style where the bottom screws also clamp onto the rail, versus a Talley style where there's a separate screw that locks to the rail?

Finally, I have a CZ 550 30-06 with a S&B 8x56 and split Talley rings, no issues so far but it's only seen a few hundred rounds. Should I leave it alone or replace those rings?

The Talley Screw Lock and quick detachable vertical split rings are solid. There are separate screws for the base clamp and the ring clamp. They do not pinch and nutcracker the scope tube. That said, I don’t trust the QD version. The screw locks are fine tho. The base clamp screws are larger and quite robust.

 

[1000yards]

All the above.
Yes there is a difference- however I haven’t used the Tally QR’s enough to say whether they are solid or not.
Regular vertically spilt rings that the base screws tightens to the rail and clamps the scope absolutely cause inconsistent tracking, shifting zeros, and damages scopes. I have had several normally very reliable scopes damaged (mechanically) before figuring it out.
Well, that’s up to you. I doubt that Tally QR’s with their small ring screws would be as durable as I would want, but I haven’t used them heavily enough to say.

I read you clear on all of that, thank you Form.

 

[SDHNTR]

I think the general consensus is vertically split rings that aren't ARC M-Brace rings are suspect.

I’ve had several sets of ARC rings that pinch tubes. They snapped on the tube, even with the top clamps wide open. Not a fan of many things over engineered by ARC.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I’ve had several sets of ARC rings that pinch tubes. They snapped on the tube, even with the top clamps wide open. Not a fan of many things over engineered by ARC.

I personally moved away from ARC to Nightforce Ultralights for my stuff.

 

[1000yards]

The Talley Screw Lock and quick detachable vertical split rings are solid. There are separate screws for the base clamp and the ring clamp. They do not pinch and nutcracker the scope tube. That said, I don’t trust the QD version. The screw locks are fine tho. The base clamp screws are larger and quite robust.

I have the base screws at 65 in lbs and the rings to 25. I'm going to keep using them and see what happens. From searching the interwebs for robust CZ 550 rings, seems like my only other option is to have the receiver drilled and tapped for a rail.