Scope Ring Evaluation

[passinggas33]

I’m just curious if there would be a way to determine a ring for pass/fail evaluation consistently? We’ve seen drop tests on scopes, freeze/snow tests on triggers, but I’ve never seen this part tested. Wouldn’t it be important to see if the thing that holds the scope is worth anything? I truly don’t know and am genuinely curious.

Some people love talleys. Some hate them. Some like Nightforce rings. Some hate them. I know not all rings are created equal, so just curious if there was a way to test to see if certain ones could actually handle the stresses they are put under. In some situations, are scopes “failing to hold zero” not as much due to the scope, and more due to mounting (whole other thread) and rings?

Recovering from back surgery so I’ve got an idle mind right now worrying about things that might not be worthwhile.

 

[Deere_Man]

I like the Talley Lightweights. But, for people who shoot enough to wear out barrels on their rifle, the Talley Lightweight is apparently not enough meat on the bone. They will come apart after significant amounts of shooting. I don’t do much shooting. I’m a hunter predominantly and I shoot at sub-300 yards 100% of the time. So, once I confirm zero and then ring the 6” gong several times at 300, I generally call it good. I use Weaver Grand Slams, Talley LW, Vortex’s cheapest offering, Warne Vapor, ect. But, I think that once a shooter starts going through more than 100 rounds per outing on an individual setup, perhaps it’s time to get into something heavier duty.

 

[morgaj1]

I’m just curious if there would be a way to determine a ring for pass/fail evaluation consistently? We’ve seen drop tests on scopes, freeze/snow tests on triggers, but I’ve never seen this part tested. Wouldn’t it be important to see if the thing that holds the scope is worth anything? I truly don’t know and am genuinely curious.

Some people love talleys. Some hate them. Some like Nightforce rings. Some hate them. I know not all rings are created equal, so just curious if there was a way to test to see if certain ones could actually handle the stresses they are put under. In some situations, are scopes “failing to hold zero” not as much due to the scope, and more due to mounting (whole other thread) and rings?

Recovering from back surgery so I’ve got an idle mind right now worrying about things that might not be worthwhile.

I've thought this too. Tagging in.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The method would be very simple, use a known scope and rifle, swap rings, do drop tests. But, there are already a few well known rings that consistently are holding together drop tested rigs:

Nf ultralight 4 screw
Sportsmatch
Um tikka
Warne mountaintech
Burris xtr signature
Leupold mk4

And a few rings with multiple failures reported from multiple users:
Seekins/vortex pro
Talley
All vertical split rings
Zeiss

Given the availability and relatively low cost of the known commodities, there's no real reason to test further besides the pure chase of knowledge.

If you're designing new rings, look at the commonalities of the rings that work:
- steel or titanium clamping pieces
- no sharp angles to concentrate stresses in thin pieces of aluminum
- 4 screws per side
- high clamping torque spec on the rail, 55in-lb minimum, most 65+

 

[sndmn11]

I’m just curious if there would be a way to determine a ring for pass/fail evaluation consistently? We’ve seen drop tests on scopes, freeze/snow tests on triggers, but I’ve never seen this part tested. Wouldn’t it be important to see if the thing that holds the scope is worth anything? I truly don’t know and am genuinely curious.

Some people love talleys. Some hate them. Some like Nightforce rings. Some hate them. I know not all rings are created equal, so just curious if there was a way to test to see if certain ones could actually handle the stresses they are put under. In some situations, are scopes “failing to hold zero” not as much due to the scope, and more due to mounting (whole other thread) and rings?

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.

 

[Tanner]

I have to say I must be extremely lucky as I shoot quite a bit and have beat the ever loving shit out of a few hard use hunting rifles and haven’t had a failure *yet*, but I recognize its possibility and am down to one set..:

 

[Tanner]

The method would be very simple, use a known scope and rifle, swap rings, do drop tests. But, there are already a few well known rings that consistently are holding together drop tested rigs:

Nf ultralight 4 screw
Sportsmatch
Um tikka
Warne mountaintech
Burris xtr signature
Leupold mk4

And a few rings with multiple failures reported from multiple users:
Seekins/vortex pro
Talley
All vertical split rings
Zeiss

Given the availability and relatively low cost of the known commodities, there's no real reason to test further besides the pure chase of knowledge.

If you're designing new rings, look at the commonalities of the rings that work:
- steel or titanium clamping pieces
- no sharp angles to concentrate stresses in thin pieces of aluminum
- 4 screws per side
- high clamping torque spec on the rail, 55in-lb minimum, most 65+

I’d throw the Hawkins Hybrid LR in there as they seem to be a pretty popular one piece choice for the Tikkas.

 

[Clark33]

I use ARC M10 and the updated M Brace rings on all my rifles, zero issues with zero retention on proven scopes, mainly NF and SWFA optics. They are in my opinion the easiest to set up when mounting. Never had a scope get torqued/misaligned when mounting.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I’d throw the Hawkins Hybrid LR in there as they seem to be a pretty popular one piece choice for the Tikkas.

People mention them, but ive never seen photos of the rifle or zero retention checks. I *think* they are just held on top of the receiver with some tiny screws, which means every report of an unbonded Pic rail or talley base coming loose also applies to them, because the failure mode is the dink screws not holding well enough.

 

[Tanner]

People mention them, but ive never seen photos of the rifle or zero retention checks. I *think* they are just held on top of the receiver with some tiny screws, which means every report of an unbonded Pic rail or talley base coming loose also applies to them, because the failure mode is the dink screws not holding well enough.

The Talley failures I’ve seen were busted top caps it seemed like. Have people had issues with the screws pulling out?

Suppose that unless your rifle has an integral rail or you tap for bigger screws, all mounting systems using the same screws should be viewed as being susceptible to the same failures.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

I have to say I must be extremely lucky as I shoot quite a bit and have beat the ever loving shit out of a few hard use hunting rifles and haven’t had a failure *yet*, but I recognize its possibility and am down to one set..:

What rings are you speaking of?

 

[ResearchinStuff]

The Talley failures I’ve seen were busted top caps it seemed like. Have people had issues with the screws pulling out?

Suppose that unless your rifle has an integral rail or you tap for bigger screws, all mounting systems using the same screws should be viewed as being susceptible to the same failures.

there's definitely been pictures of talley's cracking at the base around the screw holes.

the 6-48 sized screws can't take much shear stress at all, you need something else to take that load. the alternatives to tapping bigger holes are bonding the rail, and/or using a recoil lug (the classic r700 pinned rail) to handle the shear loads between the rail and the action itself.

 

[5811]

I guess it depends on if we are lubing the ring bases or not.....

 

[Tanner]

What rings are you speaking of?

Talley Lightweights.

I haven’t paid as much attention here, but there were a lot of guys busting them or rusting them out on 24HR CF.

 

[Tanner]

there's definitely been pictures of talley's cracking at the base around the screw holes.

the 6-48 sized screws can't take much shear stress at all, you need something else to take that load. the alternatives to tapping bigger holes are bonding the rail, and/or using a recoil lug (the classic r700 pinned rail) to handle the shear loads between the rail and the action itself.

I gotcha’.

I really loved on my Barrett Fieldcrafts, that they used (5) 8x40s. That was a very solid mounting setup.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Talley Lightweights.

I haven’t paid as much attention here, but there were a lot of guys busting them or rusting them out on 24HR CF.

10-4. Yeah those rings work until they don’t. There doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it in what I’ve seen. Some last and some crack, they also seem to hairline crack and you don’t notice it until it slowly gets worse or you disassemble.

 

[TaperPin]

Since Farrah Faucet posters came out I’ve been interested in rings that can be removed and replaced with minimal point of impact change. On any rifle the scope is the least durable part and I’m a believer in being able to swap scopes and quickly rezero. Too many want to think of their scope as more durable than they really are and resist even having a spare scope, let alone one that’s been zeroed to make replacement quicker.

Old school Weaver rings aren’t great. Factory steel Ruger rings aren’t great. Leupold QD rings with the two posts aren’t great. Burris Zee rings should be good since it’s a one piece lower ring design with a flexural joint to clamp on the base, but on low mounted scopes it’s rare that the scope can slide forward or back enough to come off before hitting the scope bell. Vertically split steel Talley on narrow Talley dovetail bases are good - these vertically split rings are fundamentally different from most other vertically split rings that have issues and are drama free and a popular choice on lots of high dollar custom rifles. The downside is only two piece bases are available and not many other brands will fit it.

That brings us to modern pic rail rings. Original Mark 4 Leupold rings and steel pic rails have worked well since the 1980s, but were expensive back in the day. Time has show these OG rings are still hard to beat. Kids at the range say, “Pops I’m surprised to see modern rings on your vintage POS scope.” I have to tell ‘em their grandma was in the backseat loosing her virginity at prom when those came out. Honestly my search stopped with mark 4 rings. They are heavy, and other designs may work just as well, but all my mark 4 rings will make it to the eventual estate sale working as good as they ever did.


I do get a good chuckle when guys trip over themselves to put lightweight rings on and then spend the life of the rifle wondering if brand X or brand z might fail.

 

[Skydog]

Since Farrah Faucet posters came out

Haha...I had that exact same poster of Farrah hanging in my room...we are showing our age!

 

[plebe]

The method would be very simple, use a known scope and rifle, swap rings, do drop tests. But, there are already a few well known rings that consistently are holding together drop tested rigs:

Nf ultralight 4 screw
Sportsmatch
Um tikka
Warne mountaintech
Burris xtr signature
Leupold mk4

And a few rings with multiple failures reported from multiple users:
Seekins/vortex pro
Talley
All vertical split rings
Zeiss

Given the availability and relatively low cost of the known commodities, there's no real reason to test further besides the pure chase of knowledge.

If you're designing new rings, look at the commonalities of the rings that work:
- steel or titanium clamping pieces
- no sharp angles to concentrate stresses in thin pieces of aluminum
- 4 screws per side
- high clamping torque spec on the rail, 55in-lb minimum, most 65+

Ring height is a reason to pursue other models. APA and Ken Farrell have options you can’t get in those listed.

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

 

[plebe]

I’d like to see how some scopes with integral rails would do. Say a Schmidt Bender with a convex rail.

And saddle mounts on rifle systems like the Blaser. Wonder how those manage banged about.