UM Hinged Scope Rings

[Ryan Avery]

Hey Roksliders, Please read below regarding an issue we have with our Hinged rings that in no way applies to the Tikka rings. The Tikka rings have passed all extreme testing with flying colors.

We will always stand behind our products and be up front and truthful about any unforeseen issues.

This letter was emailed to all customers who purchased UM Hinged Rings:

Good morning,

You are receiving this email because you purchased and/or received our new UM Hinged Scope Rings.

It deeply burdens me to write this because this project has been a passion of mine since October 2022. I wanted to create a new scope ring design that put hunters first and checked all the boxes.

Shortly after shipping the first production run of rings, we identified a design flaw in the base clamp that prevented it from coming to full torque in certain installations.

The base clamp can crack, noticeably or unnoticeably, when torqueing to min spec rails or in pic positions with a slight gap behind the ring.

Please do not use or install the UM Hinged Scope Ring set you have received.

We spent the last 5 days trying to solve this issue with replacement clamps and have realized there is no way to cover all potential installations in its current design.

We will take the rings back to the drawing board and redesign the clamping of the base and scope to create a bomb proof set of rings you will be proud and confident to use on your hunting rifle.

You, our customer, have 2 options:

1. You can reply to this email and request a full refund, no questions asked, and we will send you a return label for the rings.
2. You can hold tight and wait for new rings to be delivered to you. We will automatically send these out to you once completed with a token of our appreciation for waiting. I can’t guarantee a delivery time for the revised rings but this project is at the top of our priority list in the shop and we’ll move as fast as quality allows.

Please know that we’ve been testing these Hinged rings for the last 6 months and completed 7 different design revisions to get to this point. Testing and design were not taken lightly.

This design issue does NOT affect our UM Tikka Scope Ring line in any way. The Tikka rings have hit the ground running as expected and have received rave reviews on Rokslide.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and for your continued support of Unknown Munitions, we appreciate you!

@Formidilosus @Ryan Avery

Great companies do the right thing even if it costs them money, time, and a little pride.

 

[Formidilosus]

It’s a bummer to see no more hinge,

What advantage does a hinge ring give in function?

I love my ARC rings
but a lighter weight option would have been great.

The issue is that ARC rings are two hinges and in function do not act like a hinge at all when interacting with the scope tube. A single hinge is same/same as normal vertical split rings which can, and will create all sorts of problems. Without straight copying ARC, the hinge introduces far more variables than it solves.

 

[dirtytough]

The issue is that ARC rings are two hinges and in function do not act like a hinge at all when interacting with the scope tube. A single hinge is same/same as normal vertical split rings which can, and will create all sorts of problems. Without straight copying ARC, the hinge introduces far more variables than it solves.

If that's true and I believe it is coming from you. Why would UM design a single hinged ring in the first place? What were the actual benefits to this pic ring over others if this ring hadn't failed?

 

[Unknown Munitions]

If that's true and I believe it is coming from you. Why would UM design a single hinged ring in the first place? What were the actual benefits to this pic ring over others if this ring hadn't failed?

There weren't a ton of benefits to the naked eye, as I wrote, we tried to take an unbiased look at scope ring design as hunters and check all the boxes for us. Eliminating hardware failure points and keeping the ring as slim as possible led to the hinge design. We gave it a solid effort and it passed all testing before being released to the wild which immediately produced an unforeseen issue. We were trying to do things differently and not just produce another scope ring.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

It’s a bummer to see no more hinge, I love my ARC rings but a lighter weight option would have been great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I loved the hinge also

 

[BBob]

Why would UM design a single hinged ring in the first place?

IMO marketing. Something different, new design.

we tried to take an unbiased look at scope ring design as hunters and check all the boxes for us.

Says it right there.

Not knocking the efforts. Sometimes that’s how we get new and better products.

 

[svivian]

There weren't a ton of benefits to the naked eye, as I wrote, we tried to take an unbiased look at scope ring design as hunters and check all the boxes for us. Eliminating hardware failure points and keeping the ring as slim as possible led to the hinge design. We gave it a solid effort and it passed all testing before being released to the wild which immediately produced an unforeseen issue. We were trying to do things differently and not just produce another scope ring.

were any prototypes sent out to shooters or gunsmiths to be tested prior to release? You would think this issue would have came up then.

 

[dirtytough]

IMO marketing. Something different, new design.

Agreed. It was a hybrid Spuhr/ARC which are a couple of the more popular out there right now.

If there are unseen benefits to the hinge like UM says I'm curious why they can't keep it? I thought it was the clamp that cracked? Other companies fixed the clamp by using steel instead of aluminum. Does the hinge somehow introduce force to the clamp that non hinged rings don't?

 

[MT_Wyatt]

Agreed. It was a hybrid Spuhr/ARC which are a couple of the more popular out there right now.

If there are unseen benefits to the hinge like UM says I'm curious why they can't keep it? I thought it was the clamp that cracked? Other companies fixed the clamp by using steel instead of aluminum. Does the hinge somehow introduce force to the clamp that non hinged rings don't?

This is a good question, I had that same thought in readying this.

@Unknown Munitions your engagement in here is really appreacited, a look under the hood on the design process and what you found is awesome. I order hawkins from you for my build for now. Not because I had to, but because I still wanted to support what you guys are doing. The failure sucks but love to see the effort pressing on so quickly.

 

[Formidilosus]

If that's true and I believe it is coming from you. Why would UM design a single hinged ring in the first place? What were the actual benefits to this pic ring over others if this ring hadn't failed?

Mainly the benefit would in sleek/slim design. And truthfully- speaking as me only, probably a bit of novelty. Being artistic or paying attention to visual appeal isn’t bad, however it must not come at the cost of function.

If there are unseen benefits to the hinge like UM says I'm curious why they can't keep it? I thought it was the clamp that cracked? Other companies fixed the clamp by using steel instead of aluminum. Does the hinge somehow introduce force to the clamp that non hinged rings don't?

It was not just the clamp. The clamp is relatively easy to correct. A single hinged ring has the same issues as vertical split rings- they pinch the scope tube. Could it be worked out? Probably. But it would most likely be extremely expensive and very complicated. In the end, from my POV it would not be a good use of resources. Simple is better when it comes to zero retention.

were any prototypes sent out to shooters or gunsmiths to be tested prior to release? You would think this issue would have came up then.

Yes there were. They went through seven or eight revisions that I know of.

I am speaking in broad strokes here, not about UM or any company/product- this is an industry wide issue. There is a very large difference between handing things out to “shooters” and getting “feedback”, and doing rigorous, long term, high density field evaluations (some would call testing) by people that broad base understand the use case, know and understand the possible failure points, and that have the knowledge and skill to reveal/induce those failures, as well as being able to replicate them in a “lab” so that the designers and engineers can see it first hand.
I’ve stated many times that when you get that brand new action/rifle/scope/trigger/rings/etc almost never was there thousands, to tens of thousands of rounds used in testing it, nor comparative performance against a known standard or against competing/compatible products done, broad spectrum multi-environment testing/evaluation, etc.
Almost always someone has an idea, lots of times engineers or people with little to no actual experience; then the engineer/designer takes what they are told, runs some calcs or plays in CAD/CAM, then makes the widget, sometimes though not as often as you would think- they hand a couple of the widgets off to “influencers”, those “influencers” do what amounts to an unboxing review, subject to the widget to no, or nearly no stress or actual use, then gives rave feedback to the company, the company takes that widget and markets it with “influencers” saying how awesome it is while holding an unmarked, functionally new in box version saying how they “tested” it. Then because the consumers have no idea one way or the other, accept an appeal to authority and buy the product. Then the company, or another one comes along, gives the widget a facelift, and the entire cycle repeats itself.


Again, I am in no way saying that UM did this, quite the opposite as their conduct in this matter shows. But, this is how it works industry wide.

 

[svivian]

Yes there were. They went through seven or eight revisions that I know of.

I am speaking in broad strokes here, not about UM or any company/product- this is an industry wide issue. There is a very large difference between handing things out to “shooters” and getting “feedback”, and doing rigorous, long term, high density field evaluations (some would call testing) by people that broad base understand the use case, know and understand the possible failure points, and that have the knowledge and skill to reveal/induce those failures, as well as being able to replicate them in a “lab” so that the designers and engineers can see it first hand.
I’ve stated many times that when you get that brand new action/rifle/scope/trigger/rings/etc almost never was there thousands, to tens of thousands of rounds used in testing it, nor comparative performance against a known standard or against competing/compatible products done, broad spectrum multi-environment testing/evaluation, etc.
Almost always someone has an idea, lots of times engineers or people with little to no actual experience; then the engineer/designer takes what they are told, runs some calcs or plays in CAD/CAM, then makes the widget, sometimes though not as often as you would think- they hand a couple of the widgets off to “influencers”, those “influencers” do what amounts to an unboxing review, subject to the widget to no, or nearly no stress or actual use, then gives rave feedback to the company, the company takes that widget and markets it with “influencers” saying how awesome it is while holding an unmarked, functionally new in box version saying how they “tested” it. Then because the consumers have no idea one way or the other, accept an appeal to authority and buy the product. Then the company, or another one comes along, gives the widget a facelift, and the entire cycle repeats itself.


Again, I am in no way saying that UM did this, quite the opposite as their conduct in this matter shows. But, this is how it works industry wide.

Yes I'm well aware of your thoughts on testing and do not disagree. I also understand what you see the industry doing and agree it could be better. I'm simply asking since this seems to be a defect caused during the installation process to crack like that. I ask as I would assume enough would have been mounted similarly to have found this sooner. That was my question

 

[Formidilosus]

Yes I'm well aware of your thoughts on testing and do not disagree. I also understand what you see the industry doing and agree it could be better. I'm simply asking since this seems to be a defect caused during the installation process to crack like that. I ask as I would assume enough would have been mounted similarly to have found this sooner. That was my question

Ah- from what I know, there was only one where the clamp broke. I believe that issue is a one off and not indicative of a persistent failure. I can say that in multiple of them even with clamping to 60’ish In-lbs I did not see a breakage.

 

[dirtytough]

It was not just the clamp. The clamp is relatively easy to correct. A single hinged ring has the same issues as vertical split rings- they pinch the scope tube. Could it be worked out? Probably. But it would most likely be extremely expensive and very complicated. In the end, from my POV it would not be a good use of resources. Simple is better when it comes to zero retention.

It seems like there are two different issues.

Failure point with the clamp breaking.

And an actual design issue "pinching scope tubes" as you put it. When was it found out it's pinching scope tubes? Same exact time that they found out a clamp could break? Or was the "pinching scope tubes" known about prior?

Regards, Branden

 

[eoperator]

Ah- from what I know, there was only one where the clamp broke. I believe that issue is a one off and not indicative of a persistent failure.

I was not the only one with a broken clamp, other guys did not post openly.

 

[Diced]

I remember when they announced these someone asked if they would pinch the scope similar to a vertically split ring. They said no. But now it seems they've decided it does pinch the tube? It just seems odd to completely throw out the design all of a sudden.

 

[MT_Wyatt]

I remember when they announced these someone asked if they would pinch the scope similar to a vertically split ring. They said no. But now it seems they've decided it does pinch the tube? It just seems odd to completely throw out the design all of a sudden.

Been wondering that same thing.

 

[Formidilosus]

I was not the only one with a broken clamp, other guys did not post openly.

Understood. I only posted what I know.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

were any prototypes sent out to shooters or gunsmiths to be tested prior to release? You would think this issue would have came up then.

Yes, there were several sent out along with 7 internal revisions until we were happy with them.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

Agreed. It was a hybrid Spuhr/ARC which are a couple of the more popular out there right now.

If there are unseen benefits to the hinge like UM says I'm curious why they can't keep it? I thought it was the clamp that cracked? Other companies fixed the clamp by using steel instead of aluminum. Does the hinge somehow introduce force to the clamp that non hinged rings don't?

I have elected to stop forcing the hinge into submission. The new revision will be tested with a steel and 7075 aluminum clamps, along with some other changes like a titanium recoil lug.

The decision to abandon the hinge design was mine and mine alone and came with a large price tag, but I believe in the end we will have a much better product for the hunting and shooting communities.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

This is a good question, I had that same thought in readying this.

@Unknown Munitions your engagement in here is really appreacited, a look under the hood on the design process and what you found is awesome. I order hawkins from you for my build for now. Not because I had to, but because I still wanted to support what you guys are doing. The failure sucks but love to see the effort pressing on so quickly.

Thank you for your support sir, my team and I appreciate you.