Scope Ring Evaluation

[ResearchinStuff]

The 419 rings and ARC rings limit scope roll when mounting. Kinda nice. Is there reason to think they don’t hold up?

via visual and material spec comparisons to the other rings that are known good / known not good, they look more like the good options. given the cost differential to warne mountain tech or sportsmatch, it's sure not going to be me trying them out to verify. i'm generally not on the early adopter side of the market penetration curve.

 

[plebe]

via visual and material spec comparisons to the other rings that are known good / known not good, they look more like the good options. given the cost differential to warne mountain tech or sportsmatch, it's sure not going to be me trying them out to verify. i'm generally not on the early adopter side of the market penetration curve.

Those rings were launched before UM rings hit the market.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Yeah I don't own those either. But other guys do and are showing their results publicly, they're doing well.

 

[TaperPin]

Ken Farrell have options. . .

I’m a big fan of Ken Farrell bases. Comparing them side by side with others makes me wonder why all one piece bases aren’t made that way. Nice that 10 MOA is an option.

 

[SDHNTR]

Hate Nightforce rings?

Said no one ever.

 

[jimh406]

I've grown partial to EGW rings. As a US real machining company, I expect their rings are about as solid as possible with very high quality manufacturing. I don't think it's probably possible to have them fail.

I don't think it makes sense to save weight on rings or bases. You are potentially introducing a failure point for 2-3 ounces.

My thought is many of the scope issues are related to the mounting. Again, it's something to be done right with extreme care. YMMV.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I sent @robby denning and @Justin Crossley a query last fall to do a ring evaluation. My plan was to test zero retention via the drop test, and also return to zero when being taken off and put back on. Warne Mountain Tech, Area 419, Talley Modern Sporting, SWFA, Unknown Munitions, ARC, MDT, all came to mind.

It didn't garner much interest.

I remember you sending that. I thought it was a good idea but can't remember where we left off. Maybe send a reply to that email chain to see if we can get something in the works.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I've grown partial to EGW rings. As a US real machining company, I expect their rings are about as solid as possible with very high quality manufacturing. I don't think it's probably possible to have them fail.

I don't think it makes sense to save weight on rings or bases. You are potentially introducing a failure point for 2-3 ounces.

My thought is many of the scope issues are related to the mounting. Again, it's something to be done right with extreme care. YMMV.

A decade ago egw rails were implicated in a few issues, mostly related to insufficient material thickness under the screw heads, allowing shifts and egg shaped holes to develop. Broz was the guy most vocal about the problem. Anyhow, I haven't heard anyone talk about egw since, didn't even know they made rings.

Sometimes mounts/ rings cause shifts in zero. Sometimes it's the scope. For the average guy using typical stuff, everything is allowing the zero to move.

 

[passinggas33]

I appreciate a repetitive process that has some measurable outcomes. Hence the reason I value the scope and trigger evaluations. I HATE “make believe science”. Aka I had some and they failed, so all of these rings (or style) must all fail. Or Joe blow said these failed, so now all of this brand failed. I want to know, how, why or where did they fail? What do you consider a fail? What caused them to fail? I want answers like that. I lack the knowledge, ability, and resources to measure this repeatedly. So I was hoping somebody else had the same questions and had found some answers.

Design plays a huge role in failure or success as does material used, machining technique, etc. As well as a combination of the above. From my understanding, the man, the myth, the legend, form, prefers a rail and that style of rings. I agree that seems like the most likely to not fail. But what about times when a rail won’t work? Or somebody doesn’t want that? Not the lightest setup by any means. Anyway, I appreciate the “lists” that have been compiled so far, but WHY do they make the list? Reputation?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

You've been provided a procedure. Go forth and drop stuff, you'll learn a lot in the process.

 

[jimh406]

A decade ago egw rails were implicated in a few issues, mostly related to insufficient material thickness under the screw heads, allowing shifts and egg shaped holes to develop. Broz was the guy most vocal about the problem. Anyhow, I haven't heard anyone talk about egw since, didn't even know they made rings.

I thought everyone either expoxied or at least used locktite on bases/rails. In either case, the rails shouldn’t move. It’s been my experience that rounded holes are due to being loose. That seems like a user install issue, but I can’t say I had a EGW base/rail 10 years ago.

 

[LBWV]

Bummer to hear about those Zeiss rings ...I recently bought a pair. Wish I had seen this page.

 

[walk2112]

I’m a big fan of Ken Farrell bases. Comparing them side by side with others makes me wonder why all one piece bases aren’t made that way. Nice that 10 MOA is an option.

Would you happen to have any experience with Ken Farrell rings? I’m eyeballing their 30mm steel low rings and wondering from a durability/zero retention aspect if they’ll cut the mustard (i.e. would they pass the RS drop test when properly mounted).
Probably end up taking the plunge and experimenting myself but figured they’re more expensive than a vintage Farrah Faucet poster so worth an ask (ha). Thanks.

 

[TaperPin]

Would you happen to have any experience with Ken Farrell rings? I’m eyeballing their 30mm steel low rings and wondering from a durability/zero retention aspect if they’ll cut the mustard (i.e. would they pass the RS drop test when properly mounted).
Probably end up taking the plunge and experimenting myself but figured they’re more expensive than a vintage Farrah Faucet poster so worth an ask (ha). Thanks.

Oh Farrah. . .

I ended up with a Ken Farrell base not knowing what it was at first, and to be honest I’ve never seen his rings in person and can only go by what others have said. I am a big fan of steel rings and it sure looks like they are overbuilt - the dovetail clamping surfaces and the whole thing are nice and thick. It really surprises some folks how heavy steel rings are so prepaid yourself. A pair of Mark 4 aluminum rings was purchased by mistake and it’s half the weight of the same ring in steel. The one you are looking at might weight 7 or 8 oz in steel, but you’ll never have to replace them. Should work really well.

 

[walk2112]

Oh Farrah. . .

I ended up with a Ken Farrell base not knowing what it was at first, and to be honest I’ve never seen his rings in person and can only go by what others have said. I am a big fan of steel rings and it sure looks like they are overbuilt - the dovetail clamping surfaces and the whole thing are nice and thick. It really surprises some folks how heavy steel rings are so prepaid yourself. A pair of Mark 4 aluminum rings was purchased by mistake and it’s half the weight of the same ring in steel. The one you are looking at might weight 7 or 8 oz in steel, but you’ll never have to replace them. Should work really well.

View attachment 905523

Haha copy that, thanks for the insight and reminder on the weight. Some things are worth cutting weight on, to a degree, I say reliable optics isn’t one of them!