It wasn’t Talley - it’s apparently me. Scope won’t stay fixed - Update: fixed. Added to first post

[Bluto]

Loctite is anaerobic, anywhere it is exposed to air it will not set. It will only set in tight confines of places of close fitting parts like threads or bearing races to a bore. Some products are designed to work with larger clearances and some with less. Some applications require a primer or will do better with a primer. There are different primers for different product and or applications. Confused yet?

Yes! That’s the odd thing though, the wet residue was left even at the top of the threads, and where any excess was between the ring bases and the action. Pretty tight fit. Of note, the Leupold screws ship with a dry, blue locking compound on the threads. But since I had the wrong ones, unknown if it made any difference.

Are you going to remount now with bedding or loctite?

I'd still do 28inlbs, I use orange thread locker.

Permatex® High Strength Removable Threadlocker Orange Gel, 5 G - Permatex

www.permatex.com

Not planning on it since everything checked good. Bedding doesn’t look to be exactly complicated, but the less variables I have right now I think the better. I’ll reevaluate over the winter and see what I think.

The magic question is - I need to true the reticle. I didn’t expect this to really work so I didn’t plumb level everything perfect. This will be the third installation on the cap screws, should I buy new ones? Seems like a lot of stretch put on pretty small threads.

 

[SDHNTR]

Yes! That’s the odd thing though, the wet residue was left even at the top of the threads, and where any excess was between the ring bases and the action. Pretty tight fit. Of note, the Leupold screws ship with a dry, blue locking compound on the threads. But since I had the wrong ones, unknown if it made any difference.




Not planning on it since everything checked good. Bedding doesn’t look to be exactly complicated, but the less variables I have right now I think the better. I’ll reevaluate over the winter and see what I think.

The magic question is - I need to true the reticle. I didn’t expect this to really work so I didn’t plumb level everything perfect. This will be the third installation on the cap screws, should I buy new ones? Seems like a lot of stretch put on pretty small threads.

Call Talley and they will send you new screws. Although I personally wouldn’t worry about it. The screws are steel, the female hole is aluminum in the base. If anything is gonna strip, it’s gonna be the base hole. If it were me, fresh Loctite 243, and send her home. Maybe put an extra in/pound of torque on it to make up for thread stretch.

 

[Formidilosus]

Lessons learned:
- Form has a great detailed writeup on installation on another forum with good photos. But, he also lives in a world where he shoots/observes more rounds fired every month than I have shot in my adult life. If you do as well, press on, brother. My feel for it is substandard. I’m pretty good at flying, but it’ll be a torque wrench for me from now on.

Haha. If your in the teens with the wrench…. You need the gym.


In any case, I almost always use a paint pen or nail polish.

 

[Bluto]

Haha, no doubt. While that’s also probably true, it’s more of an irrational fear of bending something. Too many years of “do it to spec or don’t touch it” brainwashing.

And the gym.

For sure on the paint polish.

 

[Dos Perros]

Hey OP, I wonder if it might be useful to update your first post with your 'solution' ? Might be helpful to people so they don't have to read through the 13 pages of your saga, entertaining as they were.

Interesting thread, I learned a lot.

 

[sndmn11]

Yes! That’s the odd thing though, the wet residue was left even at the top of the threads, and where any excess was between the ring bases and the action. Pretty tight fit. Of note, the Leupold screws ship with a dry, blue locking compound on the threads. But since I had the wrong ones, unknown if it made any difference.




Not planning on it since everything checked good. Bedding doesn’t look to be exactly complicated, but the less variables I have right now I think the better. I’ll reevaluate over the winter and see what I think.

The magic question is - I need to true the reticle. I didn’t expect this to really work so I didn’t plumb level everything perfect. This will be the third installation on the cap screws, should I buy new ones? Seems like a lot of stretch put on pretty small threads.

I don't think new screws are needed. Hit 25inlbs.

 

[Pdog06]

Glad it all worked out.

Funny thing is that this evening I will be mounting a scope on my new 6.5cm and shooting it tomorrow… after following this all week I will now be watching for scope movement after every shot…lol.

 

[Bluto]

Hey OP, I wonder if it might be useful to update your first post with your 'solution' ? Might be helpful to people so they don't have to read through the 13 pages of your saga, entertaining as they were.

Interesting thread, I learned a lot.

Good call. I’ll do that.

I don't think new screws are needed. Hit 25inlbs.

On it. And thanks for the help.

Glad it all worked out.

Funny thing is that this evening I will be mounting a scope on my new 6.5cm and shooting it tomorrow… after following this all week I will now be watching for scope movement after every shot…lol.

Haha, me too. Carpenters pencil and make tic marks on the scope tube where the caps split from the bases. Easy glance to check movement in any direction.

On to my next saga - how the F does the focus ring work on this scope? Because I’ve run it full in to full out and don’t see a bit of change.

 

[SDHNTR]

Focus ring meaning the ocular adjustment?

Crank the scope up to max power. Look through the scope a few feet away from a blank white wall. Or up into blank sky (make sure no neighbors can see you!). Look through scope only for a couple seconds at a time. You don’t want your eye adjusting. Look at the reticle crosshair and markings. Rotate ocular adjustment until the reticle appears sharp and clear the instant you look through scope. Again, just a second. Should be immediately clear without your eye adjusting.

 

[BjornF16]

Crush ‘Em

Eagles at Kadena. Honorary boys choir member for a weekend in 2010’ish. Best/worst 72 hours of my life.

I work with a couple of twin tail drivers

 

[JDMBEND]

Screw all that noise. 25in-lbs won’t hurt and will hold of the rings are broke. Tally’s ain’t my choice not close, but shouldn’t cause slippage.


Additionally, I’ll buy the scope from you…?

Look

 

[BRTreedogs]

I've had much better luck with loc tite gel,

The old school liquid seems to separate after awhile. I may not shake it up enough, but I've had trouble getting it to set. But always older tubes.

 

[amassi]

I reread the info I found and they could be referring to the magnum action. Something about .012” difference.

Someone had a rem 700 rail then since that is the exact difference in height between the rem 700 and wby mark V.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[fwafwow]

Thanks again to everyone with substantive responses. And btw, it prompted me to check my torque wrench - I had neglected to reduce the setting before putting it away…

 

[Balderdash]

No, not those. Those are rings for standard 1913 pic rails.

The Screw Lock Derachable rings are a vertically split ring that mounts onto Talley two piece bases. Those bases have a recess that the ring fits into before clamping down. And the rings then stay on the scope, like a pic rail, if you ever want to remove it. Then you can later put scope back onto bases and retain zero (pretty much), like on a rail. They are pretty slick. You get a lot of the functionality of a rail setup but without that fugly thing dorking up the look of your rifle. They are steel and very robust.

Screw Lock Detachable Rings

Quick-Detachable Scope Rings Talley Quick-Detachable Scope Rings are known for precise tolerances. CNC automated equipment and stringent quality control have vaulted Talley products to the top of the scope ring industry. Simply said, Talley scope rings are the best. Our ring system provides...

www.talleymanufacturing.com

I've used the Talley vertically split steel rings on a few rigs. They are well built and solid, but I will no longer use vertically split rings due to the fact that the uneven clamping force they exert on a scope tube can effectuate inconsistencies in scope tracking.

I had many sets of Talley LW's through the years. Had 2 sets split and they often exhibited very poor action to base fit. They were also usually eggs shaped and, resultantly, had to be forced into round by the scope tube. I was told by Talley that this was designed into the rings. Perhaps they've improved since I stopped using them, but I no longer use them.

For a Weatherby MKV 6 lug, if you don't like a rail, I'd use the Warne Maxima 2 piece bases. They're purpose built for that action, they've always fit fantastic, they're very low, and they are very solid. SKU For WBY 6 lug: M888/875M.

For rings on a Lightweight hunting rig, I like the NF LW's or the Warne Mountain Tech's.

 

[Bluto]

Thanks for adding all of that. I think my long term solution will be the Warne bases, but the other Warne rings if I can find good reviews on them.

I received my EGW and Leupold rails and the Seekins and Vortex rings today.

I much prefer the Leupold rail. Haven’t figured out why the EGW has an extended portion far beyond the mounting surface, but it looks kinda ridiculous. Leupold rail fit down extremely well. The Seekins rings are really nice. 55 in-lb on the rail clamps, good grief. If these things move I’ve clearly done something wrong.

Fit and finish is nice. It’ll get the job done. Everything I thought I wouldn’t like about the rail…turned out about exactly like I thought. It hides the chamber, tight fit when loading rounds, looks silly. But I’ve never cut one, and now isn’t the time to figure it out. It’ll have to do until off season. I may try and just cut it before I tear it all back down and order yet more bases and rings. No doubt in my mind this will work though for this season.

Thanks again for all of the advice going through. Taking it to an outdoor range tomorrow to wring it out and stretch it’s legs a little. I’m just glad it’s 308 and I can find ammo. I almost bought it in 280 Ackley. Ouch.

 

[SDHNTR]

FYI, the actual clamping force imparted by stated inch pounds of torque is a function of the size of the screw. The bigger the screw, the more torque it requires to impart the same force as a smaller screw. So that 55”lbs sounds like a lot, but the clamping force is less than you’d think, especially after using smaller Talley screws. Certainly a lot less than if you put 55# on smaller ring cap screws like Talley’s.. Nightforce wants 68# on their base clamps because that’s a big old bolt. ARC MBRACE (man I wanted to like those rings) uses 55# on their ring caps even, because it’s a big old screw there too. I wish there was some standardization in scope mounting hardware! It’s especially confusing when the ring manufacturer says to you use X torque and the scope manufacturer says to use Y torque setting.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Correct for clamping force, completely agree. There's another factor at play too though, which is how hard it is to get the screws to start backing out again and loosening over time. Loctite helps stabilize things, but in my mind the real value of the higher applied torque is that it also raises the breakaway torque, making it tougher for the thing to actually loosen accidentally.

If we standardize it needs to be on what actually is dependable, meaning bigger than 6-48.

 

[nobody]

...the EGW has an extended portion far beyond the mounting surface, but it looks kinda ridiculous...

The reason there's an extended area is to increase the size of the mounting area. Traditional, two piece bases don't leave much flexibility to adjust for eye relief and scope position relative to head position on the stock. Not as big of a deal on a short action, but it can be a real issue on some long action rifles.

Additionally, to quote @Formidilosus and his scope mounting thread (Scope Mounting to Maintain Zero) on this and many other forums, "ring spacing is a thing." Greater ring spread = greater stability on the mounting platform = less torque imparted on your ocular or objective bells when the scope potentially takes a tumble. If you want a secure mounting platform, you want a wide mounting platform.

Think of a lineman, do they stand with their feet together on the line? NO. They have a low, wide stance. This allows for greater stability. It's simple physics, and EGW has offered the wider platform to accomplish that stability. Using low rings and a wide ring spacing should be what you're after. Like mentioned in an earlier post, it's been designed function first rather than to be the "bell of the ball." I'd rather my rifle look like Olga than Cinderella, as long as it is as strong as Olga.

But hey, I'm just some random guy on the internet...

 

[Bluto]

Makes sense to me. I would have moved my front ring even further but it would just barely clear the objective bell. Except this rail is manufactured for short action only. But I assume tooling cost isn’t worth it truly make a unique rail for each gun. That said, the Leupold rail is shorter. I suppose someone could want to put a giant optic on a lightweight short action, so the EGW should work.

I agree on pure appearance, that’s why I don’t see adding unnecessary weight, blocking view of the chamber, and taking up space. Seems like appearance is driving the market over function. I don’t need my rifle to look like a super cool sniper rifle. Kinda like I don’t need Velcro on my hunting jacket to wear patches. Simple, effective, and preferably light (without going to point of unreliable.) Pretty good quote by a mountaineering clothing maker - “it isn’t perfect when you can’t add anything else. It’s perfect when you can’t take anything else away.”

To each their own. The rail adjustability is a good feature as far as mounting space. I ended up in roughly the same position as the Talley’s, though that’s probably different for each rifle.