Ring torque specs exceed scope manufacturer's recommended specs

SDHNTR

WKR
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
What do you do when the ring manufacturer's torque specs far exceed the max recommended by the scope manufacturer? I'm attempting to use a DNZ Game Reaper and they recommend 30 in lbs on the rings! That seems incredibly excessive. I usually do around 20 in lbs, have for many years and have never had a problem. Over the years I've used Leupold, Weaver, Talley, Warne, Nightforce, Burris, Sako and Seekins rings, that I can remember. From what I recall, most of those recommend around 20in lbs max. I know some scope manufacturers like Vortex and Swaro, for example, recommend 15-18lbs. Heck even Nightforce recommends a max of 25 in lbs on their rings.

I asked DNZ customer service in an email if their rings were designed differently to take higher torque specs, yet impart less clamping force than other makes, so as not to crush the tube. Their response did not answer that question. What I got instead was a rather unprofessional and sarcastic response that "if you use 18 in lbs on our rings or anyone else's, you better invest in lots of ammo and have fun re-zeroing constantly." And that "even a $40 Walmart scope can take 30 in. lbs." Besides using another mount (which I'm inclined to do based solely on their snarky customer service response), what do I do, who do I believe? The scope or the ring manufacturer? I don't fret the negligible difference between 18 and 20 inch pounds, but the difference between 18-20 and 30, seems like a lot and asking for scope damage. What say ya'll. Is there something different with DNZ that will not risk crushing the tube at such high torque values?
 
I have 3 or 4 pairs of ARC’s…55 in/lb on those. That’ll make a Leupold, Vortex, or Swaro guy blush lol

I think you’ll be fine anywhere from 20-30.
 
I have 3 or 4 pairs of ARC’s…55 in/lb on those. That’ll make a Leupold, Vortex, or Swaro guy blush lol

I think you’ll be fine anywhere from 20-30.
The ARC rings work in a completely different way than standard cap and screw rings. The owner will back that up as well if asked. I don’t think it’s fair to compare. Or even compare something from arc to dnz

They are thee picatinny ring as far as I’m concerned.
 
Yes, obviously different ring designs will impart different levels of clamping force at a specified torque setting. That is essentially what I was getting at when I asked the DNZ customer service if their 30 inch pounds recommendation resulted in a similar clamping force as someone else’s 20 inch pound recommendation with a different design. I was asking for a somewhat intelligent response to help me understand the engineering differences behind that recommendation for torque, and what I got was Snark.
 
I have 3 or 4 pairs of ARC’s…55 in/lb on those. That’ll make a Leupold, Vortex, or Swaro guy blush lol

I think you’ll be fine anywhere from 20-30.

Funny enough, ZCO is the only company that I’ve seen publicly state not to use 55# with ARCs. No idea if Leupold or Swaro have said anything, but I’m pretty sure Vortex said they’re g2g.

OP, I have a couple game reapers and have done 25# with no issues.
 
I truly don’t get why some folks just love the dnz mounts. Myself, I’ll not waste my money on another set. I’ve read over torque on a vortex scope is one of the leading causes of failure for them. I don’t know why. But I wouldn’t go over 20 on the rings.
 
The ARC rings work in a completely different way than standard cap and screw rings. The owner will back that up as well if asked. I don’t think it’s fair to compare. Or even compare something from arc to dnz

They are thee picatinny ring as far as I’m concerned.

Yes, this is accurate. One screw vs four is an entirely different application of force.
 
Based on the DNZ response I would not use their rings or suggest anyone else use them until they fix their customer service problem (fire the jerk). Different rings have different number of screws and this affects the clamping force applied by the ring. Ring mfgs should be willing to discuss the issue with purchasers regarding the limits specified by different scope mfgs.

How a ring effects a scope tube is dependent on how much of the surface area of the ring is in contact with the tube AND the torque applied to the screws. Ultimately those two variables determine the pounds per sq inch applied to the tube. With a lot of torque applied and minimal surface contact between the scope tube and ring you may create a problem. I had no problem using a higher torque value than recommended by the scope mfg with Burris Signature rings that have the flexible poly inserts, but I would be very wary about exceeding the recommended max torque value for rings with out inserts especially if I had not lapped the rings or verified the alignment was very good.
 
Last edited:
Well I got a very informative and intellectual response back from ARC. This was the exact type of info I was hoping to get from DNZ instead of the wisecracks.

He said that their recommendation of 55 in lbs roughly equates to about 18 in lbs on other rings that employ a 4 screw design. He said that, assuming same torque value, larger screws will impart less clamping force than smaller screws, and single screws less force than double screws or 4 screws. Makes perfect sense.
 
Our specs on the 8-32 screws on our ring cap screws is 25-in lbs. You can also run them down to 20 in-lbs with no troubles. Some folks that want to run lower we've talked to have used rosin between the scope tubes and rings.

We use 25 in-lbs without issues on S&B, Vortex, Leupold, ZCO, Burris, etc.
 
I just ordered a game reaper off Amazon. It showed up in an unmarked plastic bag without original packaging. I opened it up and there was clearly thread locker on the receiver screws and wear marks in the screw holes. I was going to exchange it but after reading this thread I’m just returning it.

The reused mount could be an Amazon problem so I’ll give a pass there but poor customer service is a hard no for me. “a Walmart scope can handle it” is not a good enough answer for me to trust my vortex in those rings.

PS- thank you to ARC and Hawkins for reassuring and professional responses.
 
For what it's worth I emailed Leupold regarding the ARC M-Brace mount and the VX5-HD, as I was about to use that combination and was a bit concerned. Here is their response:

Torque specs are determined by the ring and mount manufacturer. They do all the testing on their mounts to determine proper torque specs.
 
Well I got a very informative and intellectual response back from ARC. This was the exact type of info I was hoping to get from DNZ instead of the wisecracks.

He said that their recommendation of 55 in lbs roughly equates to about 18 in lbs on other rings that employ a 4 screw design. He said that, assuming same torque value, larger screws will impart less clamping force than smaller screws, and single screws less force than double screws or 4 screws. Makes perfect sense.
That is some useful information
 
I know this is a zombie thread.....but in case this helps someone that is looking at the same issue.

It's because they only have 2 bolts versus 4 bolts. Picture 1 rope holding 100 lbs vs. 2 ropes holding the same weight. In the two rope scenario, each rope pulls against the weight with 50 lbs of force. If you only used 1 rope then that rope would have to pull twice as hard to hold the same weight. Same weight here is analogous to clamping force. It's not a coincidence that 17 inch-lbs is a common spec for 4 bolt rings and a 2 bolt ring is almost exactly double that at 35 inch-lbs.

I'm a scientist and not an engineer. I asked an engineer at work about this, and he said that I am roughly correct and then started discussing details that make it not 100% correct. But it is close enough.

I put the scope rings on based upon this with zero fear.
 
Back
Top