Scope rings to avoid?

[Klransom]

I recently listened to the shoot 2 hunt podcast on scopes that have passed the field eval. He mentioned having issues with some rings but doesn't mention what ones to get or not get. I have been using the seekins or vortex matched rings but would like to make sure I get good rings on my next rifle.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Avoid:
Anything vertical split
Talley light weight
Zeiss
Seekins/vortex

Ones that work:
Nightforce ultralight 4 screw
Warne mountaintech
Burris xtr signature
Leupold mark 4
For a Tikka, sportsmatch or unknown munitions

 

[Klransom]

Avoid:
Anything vertical split
Talley light weight
Zeiss
Seekins/vortex

Ones that work:
Nightforce ultralight 4 screw
Warne mountaintech
Burris xtr signature
Leupold mark 4
For a Tikka, sportsmatch or unknown munitions

I have tried some vertical split Warnes and totally agree with you on that. Is there a reason you say to avoid the Seekins rings? Sounds like a lot of people like them.

 

[MallardSX2]

What’s the beef with the warne vertical split? I have run those for years. Never had an issue.

 

[MallardSX2]

Should note though that the only reason I went with that style of ring was because they were the only silver ring I could find to match my scope.

 

[Fireflyfishing]

What’s the beef with the warne vertical split? I have run those for years. Never had an issue.

I don’t care for them as I find them to be annoying when you need to mount a scope.

I’ve never had mechanical issues with them though.

 

[Klransom]

What’s the beef with the warne vertical split? I have run those for years. Never had an issue.

They worked fine while mounted it was just a pain if you wanted to move the scope to another rifle you had to completely remount it.

 

[Reed104R]

What’s the beef with the warne vertical split? I have run those for years. Never had an issue.

The vertical split Warne rings are cumbersome to deal with, but fine if you plan to mount on one rifle and leave it there. Not for switching from gun to gun. I would stay away from the current production standard Leupold rings as well. They are not durable like the older USA models.

 

[RMM]

What’s the beef with the warne vertical split? I have run those for years. Never had an issue.

I believe the issue with the vertical split is to get them torqued to the right spec, you will potentially crush scope tubes

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I believe the issue with the vertical split is to get them torqued to the right spec, you will potentially crush scope tubes

that's basically it in a nutshell. to actually grip the base you have to torque the bottom screws to like 55 in-lb before you do the top ones, this can crimp the scope tube.

@Klransom Seekins rings can split at the clamp, I posted a picture probably a month ago of a set that had done it, you can find it easily with a search. One of the common themes across the rings that work is that most of them are are not using aluminum in the clamp pieces.

 

[Klransom]

that's basically it in a nutshell. to actually grip the base you have to torque the bottom screws to like 55 in-lb before you do the top ones, this can crimp the scope tube.

@Klransom Seekins rings can split at the clamp, I posted a picture probably a month ago of a set that had done it, you can find it easily with a search. One of the common themes across the rings that work is that most of them are are not using aluminum in the clamp pieces.

Good to know, thanks for the info. Now I just need to decide what ones to use from now on.

 

[RMM]

Good to know, thanks for the info. Now I just need to decide what ones to use from now on.

FWIW the UM rings seem to be a fan favorite. I have a pair waiting to go on a Tikka that is getting put together this week.

 

[Macintosh]

…One of the common themes across the rings that work is that most of them are are not using aluminum in the clamp pieces.

Do you have details on this? Ive been using seekins or vortex pmr (manufacteted by seekins) rings for 8 years or so, I think 5 sets, always torqued per ring instructions (ie tight!). These rings are very popular and I think between folks I shoot with these are by far the most common rings I see, I think Im “near” another dozen sets. I have seen the photo you posted of the broken ring clamp, heard Form mention he has seen a couple problems. On the flip side I’ve never had a problem or seen a problem on any of the ones Im familiar with, and while I have heard of a few issues it seems uncommon…I hear of far more issues caused by the uni-mounts for instance. Question is, 1) is this really widespread enough to put them on a “stay away from…” list? And 2) my understanding, possibly wrong, was that at least most of the other rings listed also have aluminum base clamps…am I mistaken on this point? It looks like UM premier might use a titanium clamp on one side but their tikka rings are aluminum, warne mtn tech appear to be aluminum, etc.

Curious on this point, as for a long time these rings were the ones many people recommended after someone had a problem.

 

[NevadaMike]

Seems like some folks do not care for Seekins rings but that is all I use from my 300 PRC on down. I think they are heavy but if there is an issue Seekins will always take care of you. They seem stout to me and I just bought another set to mount a new scope. I have not had a set of the UM rings but I saw a set of the newest version fail at a recent NRL hunter event. Like Seekins UM will always make it right if that is what you go with.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Do you have details on this? Ive been using seekins or vortex pmr (manufacteted by seekins) rings for 8 years or so, I think 5 sets, always torqued per ring instructions (ie tight!). These rings are very popular and I think between folks I shoot with these are by far the most common rings I see, I think Im “near” another dozen sets. I have seen the photo you posted of the broken ring clamp, heard Form mention he has seen a couple problems. On the flip side I’ve never had a problem or seen a problem on any of the ones Im familiar with, and while I have heard of a few issues it seems uncommon…I hear of far more issues caused by the uni-mounts for instance. Question is, 1) is this really widespread enough to put them on a “stay away from…” list? And 2) my understanding, possibly wrong, was that at least most of the other rings listed also have aluminum base clamps…am I mistaken on this point? It looks like UM premier might use a titanium clamp on one side but their tikka rings are aluminum, warne mtn tech appear to be aluminum, etc.

Curious on this point, as for a long time these rings were the ones many people recommended after someone had a problem.

nightforce ultralights use titanium for one clamp, the leupold mark 4's i had were entirely steel, burris xtr uses steel clamps around an aluminum ring. Warne mountain tech appear to be aluminum, and i don't have a set of sportsmatch anymore but the side that the screw heads were on seemed to be a different material I'd guess was steel - someone else can check.

Warne & NF in particular use a thicker looking clamp. Sportsmatch is very thick on the side the screws actually thread into, if you look at them compared to seekins there is a good bit more material in the clamp area - which is particularly important for aluminum.

When clamped on the rail, there's a stress concentration area at the upper corner of the ring dovetail, which when combined the fatigue limit behaviour of aluminum, means that there is potential for long-term issues. to handle the required forces. The solution set for these things to survive is basically to use a different material (steel or titanium), or to make the aluminum extra thick so even as it fatigues over firing cycles the failure point gets pushed far enough that the ring has a useable lifetime.

If you recall, even UM had to do some early recalls/redesigns on their rings because of issues with the clamps.

for those who haven't had the pleasure of studying fatigue limits before, wikipedia isn't a bad place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit

 

[BradArnett]

I've only had a couple of rings break on me. Talley's and seekins. The seekins broke at the base clamp. To be fair that pair of rings were old. They were from when Glen first started making them and I broke them last year. They sent me another set after sending pics and I am still using them. Not sure just how common it is for them to break there, but it can happen.

I have some badger and old tps rings that are steel and clamp down with a nut that have been bombproof for years. They are heavy though.

 

[Airohunter]

Interesting, I have Talley lights on all of my rifles currently up to/including a 300 PRC and I have had no issues of slipping, screws coming loose or failure of any kind. I do lap my rings and while my rifles see a lot of miles strapped to my pack or riding in an Eberle scabbard I tend to make it a point to not abuse my equipment. Based on my experiences I have no reservations about recommending them.

 

[wapitibob]

Buy some NF ultralights if cost isn't an issue or Vortex Pro's on the cheaper side and you'll be fine. The early NF and Vortex used to be made by the same shop, might still be.

 

[sdupontjr]

The issue with vertical rings is that they work perfectly fine. I have some on a rifle that has been in use for as long as I can remember. The issue that some have is they do not torque them correctly. There are detailed instructions on how to do it, and about 90% of the people that buy them don't follow the instructions. Most try and torque the top and bottom evenly..... Nope. Need to torque to rail 1st, then torque the top on both. And you will not crush the scope.

 

[RyanC]

I've had good luck with Precision Hardcore Gear Force Recon Scope rings. In support of UM, I am trying their Premier rings on my latest rifle. Hope they hold up as expected.

Nothing I have tried in the past failed on me so can't give advice on what to avoid.