Scope rings to avoid?

[204_ruger]

Steel or Aluminum rings does it matter? Putting them on a new 280AI rifle.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

I wouldn't say avoid these rings... but definitely avoid over torquing them . I had a brain fart and forgot these bases only get torqued to 25 pounds. Guess who tried to torque them to 65? Totally my fault. These are the Warne Maximas.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Maybe. But I'd be real curious to know if 25 in-lb on those screws is actually enough to hold the rings in place. My gut says probably not.

 

[Darryle]

Maybe. But I'd be real curious to know if 25 in-lb on those screws is actually enough to hold the rings in place. My gut says probably not.

If the clamp area is machined correctly and rail or base is machined correctly, 25 inlbs is more than enough. You know as well as anyone, maximizing surface area is key.

We lap rings because we are worried about the fit of the scope in the rings and to maximize the contact patch. How often have you thought about the contact patch on the rings/base combination?

Sometimes we get caught up in getting the scope where we want it using mismatched brands and we forget about looking at the interface between the two. Tolerance stacking is a problem.

Get the scope where you want it (eye relief) and then figure out how to get your eye where it needs to be. There are plenty of solutions for that shared here to get your eye lined up.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Surface area is one factor. But the rings that are proving to be reliable also have a lot of clamping force, which you can't really accomplish at 25 in-lb on a size 12 screw.

I kind of want to start a separate thread taking measurements of the clamp screw, calculating the clamping force, and measuring the clamp thickness on rings that work and those that don't. Just not sure if I care enough to take apart stuff that is currently working.

Unlike scopes, everything that matters about a ring is easy to determine from the outside.

 

[Grundy53]

I wouldn't say avoid these rings... but definitely avoid over torquing them . I had a brain fart and forgot these bases only get torqued to 25 pounds. Guess who tried to torque them to 65? Totally my fault. These are the Warne Maximas.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Just wanted to update this. I contacted Warne to see if I could purchase a new clamp instead of a whole set. I explained what I did and that it was totally my fault. They sent me a clamp for free. Great customer service. I'll definitely be a Warne customer going forward.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[oldbay]

Just wanted to update this. I contacted Warne to see if I could purchase a new clamp instead of a whole set. I explained what I did and that it was totally my fault. They sent me a clamp for free. Great customer service. I'll definitely be a Warne customer going forward.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I have 3 sets of warn rings and 2 one-piece msr mounts. THe maxima rings have been great for the cost. Hard to beat for made in the usa. Vortex pro rings were the worst ive tried in the same price bracket. Actually cost a little more than the warne maximas. I would have thought it was more than 25inch lbs for those bases too. its been a while since i torqued em. Their MSR mounts are 65in lbs. But thats a bigger base too.

 

[oldbay]

Vortex is sneaky with their labels on their rings. THe Package says in big letters "MADE IN THE USA" and then real small right below it "with globally sourced parts".

Thats some garbage trickery. Looking at pics on the interweb you cant read the fine print. I had a long talk with their customer service who i admit was great and easy to get ahold of. he admitted that the design of their 1inch pro-rings was messed up on the couple he tried and they were all doing the same thing mine were (pinching at the scope tube). my 3 sets all did this too. Im sure their match rings and higher level stuff are better but that was enough to say bye bye to vortex. for $70 i expect better. no amount of lapping could fix that issue.