Scope moving in rings

[SDHNTR]

A few points to clarify here given some of the above responses: Talley lightweight are not round, by design. That means when you torque them down you induce stress. That’s why they crack. Well, one of the reasons. Lapping relieves this stress and gives you more contact. Surface area matters wrt clamping force.

Loctite is specifically designed to not effect torque values. Just ask them. You won’t overtorque using loctite and a good torque wrench. I use a Proto. Arguable if loctite is necessary. I use it and have NEVER had a scope slip after installing many dozen. What is not arguable is thoroughly degreasing all of your screws, screw holes, ring surfaces and scope tube. Degreasing is a must. I also use Loctite 243, not 242 (standard blue). Same holding strength, just oil resistant.

Swaro’s torque recommendations are a joke. They are telling you something. They don’t trust their own scopes. Swaro makes awesome glass. Love their binos and spotters. I learned the hard way to pass on their scopes.

 

[4th_point]

A few points to clarify here given some of the above responses: Talley lightweight are not round, by design. That means when you torque them down you induce stress. That’s why they crack. Well, one of the reasons. Lapping relieves this stress and gives you more contact. Surface area matters wrt clamping force.

I want to make sure that I understand what you wrote in your post.

• Please define what you mean by "not round". Get as technical as you want. I understand inspection processes.
• It seems that you have performed failure analysis on Talley rings? Would you please share the details?

Thanks

 

[4th_point]

Loctite is specifically designed to not effect torque values. Just ask them. You won’t overtorque using loctite and a good torque wrench.

Is that what Loctite tech support told you, or what you read some place?

The last time I had to deal with this, several years ago, a small study was needed. At that time, Loctite could not provide a factor to compensate for the reduced friction. It might be due to the fact that it could vary from batch to batch. And Loctite will tell you that it does affect the friction, but not enough to matter for many applications.

For critical applications, they will tell you to perform your own study. And adjust torque values accordingly.

 

[SDHNTR]

I want to make sure that I understand what you wrote in your post.

• Please define what you mean by "not round". Get as technical as you want. I understand inspection processes.
• It seems that you have performed failure analysis on Talley rings? Would you please share the details?

Thanks

Not biting. It’s been covered ad naseum.

 

[SomeJackassOnAForum]

OP if it's sliding in the rings, the rings aren't going to crimp the tube. I'd start increasing your torque and looking for signs that the tube is being affected.

Every couple of years this thread comes up. People say to lap the rings, but basically every manufacture of rings tells you not to lap them.

There are all sorts of different specs on torque for ring tops, more is not better. If it were, everyone would be using these rings, with their torque spec of 55 in-lbs: https://www.americanrifle.com/shop/m-brace-scope-rings-1414#attr=207,304

A ring's torque spec is the amount of force required to have the ring make proper contact with the scope. It's dependent on the size of the bolts, their thread pitch, and the material of the rings.

Any scope will take the 55 in-lbs of the ARC rings, and 55 in lbs on any other ring (that I'm aware of) will crush any scope.

 

[sndmn11]

Not biting. It’s been covered ad naseum.

I've never read whatever testing or study there is on here or else where. Can you link it? While it might be ad nauseum for you, it would be helpful information for others.

The best search result on here is the thread below, where the slipping was solved by hitting 25inlb.

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

Okay, I would have sworn I had ring issues. Contacted Talley, they offered to take them back and spec them out. Ordered Leupold backcountry in the meantime, same exact result. Gun is a Weatherby Cinderlite (lightweight Mark V) in .308. Bone stock. Scope is a SWFA SS 3-9x42 FFP 30mm...

rokslide.com

 

[LaHunter]

I have a 23 oz 30 mm scope that is in Talley Lightweight rings on a 300 WSM CA FFT. It's moving in the rings when I shoot. I have it at max scope torque of 18 in-lbs. I added a little nail polish to the bottom half of the ring to create some friction so it didn't slip but that didn't help. I would appreciate hearing suggestions on what I can do to keep the scope from slipping. I bought MDT elite rings with a 2 piece picatinny, but it adds 5 ozs to my setup. I was hoping to keep it as light as possible given what I want to add to the set up including scope and suppressor. That being said, if light doesn't work, then I'll add weight for function. Thanks in advance.

I didn't even need to read the rest of the post once I saw "Talley Lightweight rings".

 

[Marshfly]

Hawkins will fit a CA FFT. They look really similar to Talleys. What makes them better?

Talleys are extruded. Hawkins are Machined.

Oh, and they don't crack. haha

 

[mcdil]

Not only here, but on other forums too, there are a lot of reports of Talley rings not holding up. Interestingly enough, I think some of the biggest issues aren't even with holding the scope, but rather slipping on the receiver. Nonetheless, I hope you get it solved or change them out to something that solves your issue. I feel like Talley really made their hay with that design back when the norm was an 8 lbs sheep rifle shooting a 13oz Vari-XIII. We were all excited to get away from the dovetail/windage norm at that time. Times have certainly changed.

 

[BRTreedogs]

When I ran talleys I had to lap them to the point I thought the cap was gonna touch the body, to get even contact. But good news is they are soft enough they lap easy.

If your dead set on using junk lap them. If that doesn't work and you actually trust that scope bed it with JB weld

 

[Weldor]

Just mounted a Trijicon on my 308 with Burris medium Zee rings. Burris says 30-35 in lbs for ring screws. I think thats over kill, made me nervous. I only torqued them to 20 in lb worked fine at the range yesterday. They are steel of course. I do have Talley's on my PRC' S no problems so far about 500 rds ea.

 

[Marshfly]

Just mounted a Trijicon on my 308 with Burris medium Zee rings. Burris says 30-35 in lbs for ring screws. I think thats over kill, made me nervous. I only torqued them to 20 in lb worked fine at the range yesterday. They are steel of course. I do have Talley's on my PRC' S no problems so far about 500 rds ea.

You Trijicon can handle the 35 in lbs. I've mounted two Credos in UM rings at 35 within the past couple of months. Scopes function perfectly as they should.

 

[MaraviaDave]

Swaro’s torque recommendations are a joke. They are telling you something. They don’t trust their own scopes. Swaro makes awesome glass. Love their binos and spotters. I learned the hard way to pass on their scopes.

I agree 100%

I’ve used Swarovski products for 33 years. Currently I own ATX and BTX eyepieces, 65 and 95 mm objectives, 8x and 12x NL Pures, 15x56 SLC. No doubt I’m an avid user and supporter of their products.

However, I believe their riflescopes are comparable in quality to other scope brands, which are sold in the $300 - $400 price range. (single leaf spring erector assemblies, plastic windage/elevation components, etc.).

From my perspective, if a person’s goal is to keep the rifle weight down. I would not use a suppressor …. in exchange for a heavier and more durable scope, along with heavier more reliable scope rings.

 

[TaperPin]

I don’t remember any discussion of the importance of degreasing the rings and scope. (Edit: sdhntr did mention it)

I‘m a huge fan of lapping rings for two reasons - bare aluminum or steel has a higher coefficient of friction than any metal finish, anodizing or blued. Second, if you torque down on rings, some will leave marks from burrs or sharp edges - lapping eliminates that.

If you look at a cutaway of a rifle scope, where the rings sit doesn’t have anything important directly against the tube - for a reason - tight rings are often needed and it does squeeze the tube.

Scope manufacturers list ridiculous torque values to prevent calls complaining about marks from rings.

 

[Chad717]

Use the Burris rings with plastic inserts, I have used them on many heavy recoiling rifles with zero issues. The other benefits to them are moa elevation and side to side adjustment. I always put the scope in the middle of its adjustment and then mount it you can’t do that with standard rings,a lot of times you end up having to click it left or right one way and the scope will not be as clear if it’s adjusted out of its center.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I don’t remember any discussion of the importance of degreasing the rings and scope.

I‘m a huge fan of lapping rings for two reasons - bare aluminum or steel has a higher coefficient of friction than any metal finish, anodizing or blued. Second, if you torque down on rings, some will leave marks from burrs or sharp edges - lapping eliminates that.

Though you can skip all that by just buying quality rings.

 

[fwafwow]

I don’t remember any discussion of the importance of degreasing the rings and scope. (Edit: sdhntr did mention it)

Maybe easy to overlook (especially if you have better things to do and spend less time on here), but degreasing comes up a lot. I did a quick search of “degrease” and got 10 pages of results. Probably not all on point, but lots. And I would have never known.

 

[atmat]

1) Talleys aren’t great. They’re prone to cracking.

2) Swaro and Leupold do not make robust scopes in terms of holding zero or handling clamp force. A good scope (Trij, S&B, SWFA, NF) can handle higher clamp force.

3) There’s plenty of independent studies on Loctite, and it doesn’t increase torque values vs dry. Lookup published k values. That said, Loctite is going to help prevent screws from backing out; but if the screws aren’t tight enough then lack of Loctite is not the issue.

 

[4th_point]

Loctite is specifically designed to not effect torque values. Just ask them. You won’t overtorque using loctite and a good torque wrench.

3) There’s plenty of independent studies on Loctite, and it doesn’t increase torque values vs dry. Lookup published k values.

I understand what you guys are trying to convey, but torque doesn't change whether lubed, dry, wet, whatever. That's because the operator limits the applied torque with a wrench or limiter. Torque is torque.

However, when you apply oil to threads the friction can be reduced. Same with thread locker. Reduced friction will affect the clamp load. No change in torque though.

Now some will claim that adhesive such as Loctite will not affect the friction. That's only partially true. The friction changes, but it may not be enough to matter depending on application. That seems to be what people are banking on when they make these sorts of claims.

If you actually look at some published material from Loctite, it shows a change in lubricity. It might be a small change, but their tech support will tell you to conduct your own study for critical applications. It's even stated on some of their literature - to determine the K-factor.

I'm not suggesting that people stop using thread locker. I use it for mounts, but mostly as a gap filler instead of a 2-part epoxy.

And using thread locker may help reduce variability in friction between several fasteners, which in theory could be good for evenly distributed clamping. But we can't tell people that thread locker never changes lubricity since someone may run with that information and create a problem.

 

[atmat]

But we can't tell people that thread locker never changes lubricity since someone may run with that information and create a problem.

Actually, we can tell people here that thread locker on their firearm fasteners is not going to create a problem. There aren’t practical differences in lubricity of Loctite in this application.