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.