For those who try to save money with cheap brand scope rings....with an update

[Kyguy]

Work is slow and I was bored this afternoon so I decided to do some torture testing, per se. I had an old egw rail that I screwed down to my workbench top. I then put different rings on the rail and tapped on them forcefully from the side with the 3 lb Sledge. I didn't BEAT on them. I had 5 styles of rings to try.... Tru-Glo 1" weaver style, Monstrum 1" Razorclaw, Vortex Tactical 1", Warne Mountain Tech 1" and a Weaver Quad-lock 1" extension ring.

The Monstrum and the Tru-Glo rings cracked at literally the first blow, and a couple of heavy taps had them completely off the rail.

The three brand name rings, they didn't come loose at all with repeated heavy taps. So then I did kind of wail on them a bit, enough that it was shaking a double bank toolbox/ workbench full of tools. None of them came loose. None of them cracked or broke. The rail finally failed when I had the mountain tech on it, so I moved it to a fresh section of rail and repeated it with no issues.

Food for thought.

 

[Kyguy]

I ordered some Monstrum Pro rings to give a run. $35 on Amazon. These are 7075 instead of 6061. I will give them their credit, they held up as well as the big brands. The rail started to fail and the ring didn't break. These have big screws, T25 head with 8/32 screws. They definitely would need paint or loctite on the rail screws, because they did work slightly loose as I was banging on the ring. These are chunky, right at 4 oz for medium 1". The Warne Mountain Tech medium are 3.55 oz. Burris Tactical low 1" are 4.5 oz. They are the same width as the Mountain Tech at .71, the Burris are just over an inch. I may try a few sets of these, if I can get over the chunkiness. I was looking for something narrower than the Burris to give a little more leeway for eye relief, and you can literally buy five sets of these for the price of one set of Warne Mountain Tech, which are $150 plus now.

 

[Kyguy]

Pics

 

[Kyguy]

A closer inspection revealed that these did actually start to bend/crack as well.... The rail just happened to give out first.

 

[JGRaider]

You must be really bored. Go hunt something.

 

[Steve300xcw]

You going to try and warranty the broke ones?

 

[Kyguy]

Can't hunt while I'm working from home. I can test crap though.

 

[Kyguy]

You going to try and warranty the broke ones?

Nope. Chalk it up to the cost of figuring out what's good and what's not.

 

[Kyguy]

I'm not posting any photos because I didn't take any, but I've since done this to a set of Vortex Tactical 6 hole rings and a set of SWFA rings on a different old EGW rail and they held with no issues as well.

 

[NorthIdahoDude]

I'm kind of shocked the QuadLocks held. Those are like $19.99 rings, as I recall.

 

[Kyguy]

If I wanted to piss away more money just to amuse myself, I'd buy some Arken, Athlon, Vortex rings that have two small screws for the clamp and the integral recoil lugs, similar to the Monstrums and see how they do. I honestly think that it has more to do with heat treating of the aluminum than it does with the clamp system. The ones that didn't hold fractured immediately. The Monstrum Pro bent out and maybe would have broken, but for darn sure held better than the RazorClaw and the TruGLo.

 

[grfox92]

I was thinking about doing some similar testing. Curious how the CVLife rings would do.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[kcm2]

I just stick with Weaver rings. Cheap, light and they work.

 

[brianwagan]

The Monstrum Pro rings are trash. Had three or four sets that either the rings and/or the clamp cracked. They were torqued correctly. Replaced with Vortex rings and no issues. I will give Monstrum credit they did replace them, have new rings in box but won't be using them.

 

[Wrench]

The only rings I have broken were talley ultralight. That cracked between the clamp thread and the base. I have rattled windage screw bases loose and I've had some not want to stay tight....which is something to say given my destruction history.

 

[grfox92]

The Monstrum Pro rings are trash. Had three or four sets that either the rings and/or the clamp cracked. They were torqued correctly. Replaced with Vortex rings and no issues. I will give Monstrum credit they did replace them, have new rings in box but won't be using them.

This is good to know. Rings arent something to go budget with. But with how good the Monstrum and CV Life rings "look" had me wondering what the real difference would be between them and the rings they are trying to copy cat. Four sets is enough for me to stay away. Still interested in their throw lever for my SWFA scopes though.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

 

[goalie]

I'm not posting any photos because I didn't take any, but I've since done this to a set of Vortex Tactical 6 hole rings and a set of SWFA rings on a different old EGW rail and they held with no issues as well.

The SWFA rings are bulky, but solid, and, IMO a steal for the price

 

[brianwagan]

This is good to know. Rings arent something to go budget with. But with how good the Monstrum and CV Life rings "look" had me wondering what the real difference would be between them and the rings they are trying to copy cat. Four sets is enough for me to stay away. Still interested in their throw lever for my SWFA scopes though.

Sent from my SM-S931U using Tapatalk

Found some pics of my rings that failed. I had some of the cheaper Monstrum rings that were like $15 and they had been fine on .22s so thought I could save some money and use the Pros on a few guns I put new scopes on, they "looked" good. I did leave a set of 34mm rings on a .243 and didn't have any issues but did finally replace them because I was going to take the gun on an Antelope hunt. I have a couple Monstrum bubble levels and they have been fine, I'm sure throw levers would be ok as well but the scope rings are a big no for me.

 

[SloppyJ]

I've had good luck with the mountain tech rings so that's not surprising and I don't consider them cheap at $150 or whatever they're going for these days. Unless you were using those as a control. Those and the NF Ultralight rings are about as "lightweight" as I get.

Just an observation, do you think that the rail being screwed down to wood is contributing to all of the bending and marring that we are seeing? With the rings being installed on a rifle, I would imagine there is a lot less "give" and typically, from what I've seen, the failures are more cracks and splits.

Thanks for beating the shit out of things to see how they hold up! One of my favorite past-times but typically it's not on purpose.

 

[Kyguy]

I've had good luck with the mountain tech rings so that's not surprising and I don't consider them cheap at $150 or whatever they're going for these days. Unless you were using those as a control. Those and the NF Ultralight rings are about as "lightweight" as I get.

Just an observation, do you think that the rail being screwed down to wood is contributing to all of the bending and marring that we are seeing? With the rings being installed on a rifle, I would imagine there is a lot less "give" and typically, from what I've seen, the failures are more cracks and splits.

Thanks for beating the shit out of things to see how they hold up! One of my favorite past-times but typically it's not on purpose.

Oh I don't consider the Warne rings cheap at all. I didn't intend for it to sound that way. I was really pointing to the various Amazon "brands". I was really just comparing the established name brands to the off brands.

I'm 100% sure that the rail being screwed the bench doesn't help, but I was really trying to see how rings survived an impact. Lots of talk on here about the scopes, but no one ever really mentions testing rings. I don't see how dropping a rifle on any appreciable thickness of dirt surface is going to crack a ring, but if it fell any distance and hit rocks or trees at a weird angle, it could. Same with having the rifle strapped to your pack or your back, and you lose your footing and fall back on it hard on a hard surface.

Maybe I should have made the title something about off brand rings instead of cheap. Weaver Quad-locks are cheap, but they really held up. Really, the only problem I have with the Quad-locks is that the thin straps will dent/mark a tube with any decent amount of torque. They sure seem to grab and hold though. Their spec on the straps is 15 in lbs, which isn't much. I don't think a scope would slide in those rings even at 15 in lbs, but I wonder if it would twist in the rings if it landed on a turret. I also wonder about that with the Weaver rings with the steel strap and screws on only one side.