Ruffs Precision Rings

[Clark33]

Has anyone messed around with these yet? Has some interesting features, besides the bottom half integrated level, it looks like it has a notch that helps mate the upper and lower half. Just saw this video from GoHunt, haven't checked the price on them or anything.

 

[RWT]

They are made of 6061 vs 7075 alum. Softer material lower torque values at 18” ring cap and 45” side bolt. 18” lbs is proven to slip with scopes. For the same $ you can buy NF. Why take the risk?

The level is nice but I can add one for $20 that is good enough.

 

[Brucebarker024]

I have a set of them and they seem nice. I have mine torqued to 20 in for the caps and 55 for the bases without any issues so far.

The level is in a nice spot for me.

 

[svivian]

Bumping this to see if anyone has some hard use with these? they are on sale at gohunt for a good price

 

[Balderdash]

Yes. I have 1 set. Been running them maybe 18 months. Plenty of shooting on them. No drops. Like them well enough. Only downside is that they have to be used with scopes that have a smaller diameter occular housing; otherwise the level can't easily be seen. Very high quality, though. Would buy again.

Here's a set with a Maven RS1.2 on a MT 20 moa rail:

 

[Patrickjr]

I’ve had mine since August 2024 and have been happy with them. The set I ordered originally had a ring with a physical defect on the “key” that fits into the pic rail slot, RPM replaced this ring without any issue.

Since install, the rings have not budged at all and I really appreciate the locations of the bubble but some throw levers can block it if I am on max magnification

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I just wanna bump this thread and see if anyone here has more long term reviews with these rings. My greatest concern is their listed specs. I absolutely would torque the crossbolt to 65 in/lbs, and the caps to 25. Has anyone torqued to these specs?

Also, how does everyone like the position of the level? Any comparisons to the UM premier rings?

 

[SonoranPrecision]

I helped a buddy mount a scope in one of their one piece mounts. I was thoroughly unimpressed.

The scope body wouldn’t even sit fully down in the ring until I started torquing the ring cap screws, making it exceptionally difficult to get everything even remotely level (no this was not an issue of mismatched ring vs tube diameter, 30mm for both). The cerakote also started coming off on the scope tube after just trying to press the tub down into the mount when setting eye relief.

For the price you can just get a set of Nightforce and know they will be good.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I helped a buddy mount a scope in one of their one piece mounts. I was thoroughly unimpressed.

The scope body wouldn’t even sit fully down in the ring until I started torquing the ring cap screws, making it exceptionally difficult to get everything even remotely level (no this was not an issue of mismatched ring vs tube diameter, 30mm for both). The cerakote also started coming off on the scope tube after just trying to press the tub down into the mount when setting eye relief.

For the price you can just get a set of Nightforce and know they will be good.

Any more details to share? Did the hardware seem quality? Clamps? Machining?

 

[SonoranPrecision]

Any more details to share? Did the hardware seem quality? Clamps? Machining?

Hardware seemed fine, the cross bolt and clamp seemed like the highest quality part of the whole thing. The cerakote seemed to be applied very thick, which is my guess as to the weird/tight fitment. IMO that’s something you need to take into account when designing/machining something, but what do I know. Couldn’t see much detail about the machining due to the cerakote.

They also did not have the slight relief cuts that Nightforce rings have, to prevent the rings from binding/creasing the scope tube when tightened down. Don’t know if this will ever be an issue, as the scope may never get removed. But it’s just an another small thing that I’ve come to expect from high quality rings, that these didn’t have. But just my $0.02

I also reached out to them to ask why 6061 vs 7075, and their response was “there's a handful of reasons but the big one is that during our testing we found nearly no measurable gain to increasing the cost of the overall package.” Which is interesting considering how much they charge. I interpret that as, “we make more money by using cheaper inferior materials.”

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

Hardware seemed fine, the cross bolt and clamp seemed like the highest quality part of the whole thing. The cerakote seemed to be applied very thick, which is my guess as to the weird/tight fitment. IMO that’s something you need to take into account when designing/machining something, but what do I know. Couldn’t see much detail about the machining due to the cerakote.

They also did not have the slight relief cuts that Nightforce rings have, to prevent the rings from binding/creasing the scope tube when tightened down. Don’t know if this will ever be an issue, as the scope may never get removed. But it’s just an another small thing that I’ve come to expect from high quality rings, that these didn’t have. But just my $0.02

I also reached out to them to ask why 6061 vs 7075, and their response was “there's a handful of reasons but the big one is that during our testing we found nearly no measurable gain to increasing the cost of the overall package.” Which is interesting considering how much they charge. I interpret that as, “we make more money by using cheaper inferior materials.”

Do you happen to know if the black rings are cerakoted? I thought most rings were nitrided, but I could be mistaken.