UM Tikka rings are not recommended for cartridges larger than 7mm PRC?

[Marbles]

50in-lbs is not enough to hold the base in place. Degrease everything, thread lock, push forward on the ring against the pin, torque to 60 or 65in-lbs on the base screws. Go shoot.

I can see that. Looks like at present they recommend 55 in-lbs. I think when I mounted mine it was lower at around 35-45 in.lbs if I remember correctly. I felt that was too low and went a touch higher.

Why go light and or skimp on the hardware for a base clamp on a dovetail in the first place? There’s no scope tubes to crush or receiver holes to strip. Odd to me that this issue shows up now.

Concern about taking the fastener to the yield point or stripping the aluminum threads.

Edit, I misread your question, ignore the reply.

 

[Cdnance]

Pretty sure the issue was first brought up by me. It is caused by not enough torque on the base bolts and not pushing the ring forward against the pin when tightening. At 65in-lbs they have not slipped with way more recoil than a 7PRC. UM is uncomfortable with blanket stating that 65in-lbs is the way- not sure why, but that’s it. They are working on an updated clamp design.

This is not UM speaking, this is me:

This is not “something was wrong”. with the UM tikka rings. They are the strongest rings on the market that use the integral dovetail. It’s that the dovetail itself needs a high clamp force and to hold with repeated recoil- this is true of ALL the dovetail tikka rings. UM is finding a solution to make them better than they are- that’s it. Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill- mount them as I state below and go shoot.

50in-lbs is not enough to hold the base in place. Degrease everything, thread lock, push forward on the ring against the pin, torque to 60 or 65in-lbs on the base screws. Go shoot.

I don’t think anybody is making a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a legit question. It has obviously caught some folks of guard other than myself.

I don’t remember seeing that disclaimer when I purchased the rings so I brought it up.

Appreciate the info and possible solution.

 

[BLJ]

28in-lbs for thin scopes tubes- Leupold, Vortex, Swarovski, etc. 32in-lbs for good ones- Nightforce, SWFA, Trijicon, etc.

What torque wrench do you use?

 

[Formidilosus]

What torque wrench do you use?

Quite a few different ones- mostly a Fat Wrench.

 

[TxLite]

Isn’t the clamping force on the dovetail alone supposed to be enough to hold it? I thought the pins weren’t even necessary.

This is my concern as well. If the pin is being bent, then clearly the dovetail clamp isn’t holding. I haven’t taken mine apart to look at the pin but now I’m wondering if I should. They were torqued to the original recommended torque spec with a fat wrench.

In all honesty I haven’t shot that rifle much since installing the rings. Less than 100 rounds of 7mm-08 so I don’t expect there to be any issue with it at this point.

 

[BLJ]

Quite a few different ones- mostly a Fat Wrench.

Same. Thanks.

 

[Harvey_NW]

This is my concern as well. If the pin is being bent, then clearly the dovetail clamp isn’t holding. I haven’t taken mine apart to look at the pin but now I’m wondering if I should. They were torqued to the original recommended torque spec with a fat wrench.

When I initially assembled mine they did slip forward on me (old torque spec 45in/lb, no recoil pin), as you can see on the cerakote in the picture. Since my spacing, level, and plumb reticle had already been set, I installed a recoil pin in the front base only and torqued to 55in/lb, have not had an issue or zero shift since, and now the cerakote wear is a witness mark of a sort.

There is a point where the clamp would hit the end of the dovetail and essentially be pinched, to where it couldn't slide any further forward without deforming.

 

[deltadukman]

So once we get them taken apart and re-torqued to new specs, do we go back to dropping rifles and scopes and reevaluate the ones that have failed to maintain zero?

 

[DangerRanger]

Pretty sure the issue was first brought up by me. It is caused by not enough torque on the base bolts and not pushing the ring forward against the pin when tightening. At 65in-lbs they have not slipped with way more recoil than a 7PRC. UM is uncomfortable with blanket stating that 65in-lbs is the way- not sure why, but that’s it. They are working on an updated clamp design.

This is not UM speaking, this is me:

This is not “something was wrong”. with the UM tikka rings. They are the strongest rings on the market that use the integral dovetail. It’s that the dovetail itself needs a high clamp force and to hold with repeated recoil- this is true of ALL the dovetail tikka rings. UM is finding a solution to make them better than they are- that’s it. Don’t make a mountain out of a mole hill- mount them as I state below and go shoot.

50in-lbs is not enough to hold the base in place. Degrease everything, thread lock, push forward on the ring against the pin, torque to 60 or 65in-lbs on the base screws. Go shoot.

Mine are torqued to 55in-lb like the website says.

They are also fingernail polished like rokslide says

I’ve not had any movement at all in zero for the last year they’ve been installed, I’m about to fly out for a hunt next week… would you increase that torque to 65? Will it break the seal on my nail polish? I’m just shooting a measly 6.5 creed.

 

[Formidilosus]

Mine are torqued to 55in-lb like the website says.

They are also fingernail polished like rokslide says

I’ve not had any movement at all in zero for the last year they’ve been installed, I’m about to fly out for a hunt next week… would you increase that torque to 65? Will it break the seal on my nail polish? I’m just shooting a measly 6.5 creed.

I wouldn’t change until I came back, and yes it will break the bond of the nail polish.

 

[Formidilosus]

Let’s put some perspective to this “issue”.

I have seen well over 200 sets of the UM tikka rings used for more than 500 rounds- most for more than 1,000 rounds. About 20-30% have been on rifles with as much or more recoil than a 7 PRC. A good number of those rings/rifles have had more than 2 barrels replaced on them. All that I have mounted have been at 60in-lbs or 65in-lbs. Not one of those has had a ring move or pin bend. Not one screw or clamp has broken or failed.
I have seen multiple rings slip when mounted at 40-50in-lbs, and a couple with bent pins there- logically.

From what I have seen and in testing them, 55-60in-lbs is the cutoff. I’ve used several at 55in-lbs without issue in heavy use- though all of mine are at 60+.

 

[Ajsomp]

Now I’m second guessing if I did 55 or 65. Guess I’m checking it tonight

 

[SDHNTR]

I find this ridiculous. Any sort of product roll out should have included extensive prior testing well beyond normal use. Did that not happen? How on earth was this issue not identified during beta testing? It’s not like this is a complex problem that would be difficult to replicate .

Unfortunately there seems to be a pattern here.

 

[SDHNTR]

Let’s put some perspective to this “issue”.

I have seen well over 200 sets of the UM tikka rings used for more than 500 rounds- most for more than 1,000 rounds. About 20-30% have been on rifles with as much or more recoil than a 7 PRC. A good number of those rings/rifles have had more than 2 barrels replaced on them. All that I have mounted have been at 60in-lbs or 65in-lbs. Not one of those has had a ring move or pin bend. Not one screw or clamp has broken or failed.
I have seen multiple rings slip when mounted at 40-50in-lbs, and a couple with bent pins there- logically.

From what I have seen and in testing them, 55-60in-lbs is the cutoff. I’ve used several at 55in-lbs without issue in heavy use- though all of mine are at 60+.

Then why didn’t the packaging/instructions indicate to torque them to 55-60 instead of 45#? If UM didn’t trust the hardware, why didn’t they use better/bigger hardware?

For those of us who followed the manufacturer’s instructions, it doesn’t help us that hundreds of rings have held up using the “Form method”. That’s not the method we used, as we trusted the manufacturer. This is a total bush league failure.

 

[Formidilosus]

I find this ridiculous. Any sort of product roll out should have included extensive prior testing well beyond normal use. Did that not happen? How on earth was this issue not identified during beta testing? It’s not like this is a complex problem that would be difficult to replicate .

More testing than any scope ring has ever had before being sold in all probability. UM chose to publish the torque specs they did for whatever reason they did- most likely due to fear that the specs were higher than other companies. Since the first rings were sold, the answer has been the same from me. The reason why the torque spec I have given was discussed repeatedly.

This is not some new issue.

Unfortunately there seems to be a pattern here.

There is a pattern- part of it is that you aren’t paying attention. The other part, is that the industry and consumers are largely ignorant.

 

[Formidilosus]

Then why didn’t the packaging/instructions indicate to torque them to 55-60 instead of 45#?

Because they didn't (don’t?) understand it, and/or were worried about people damaging their scope, or freaking out and calling them endlessly- which happened when I wrote the initial specs and why on this forum: they got call after call apparently from people freaking out about “28in-lbs” on the ring caps as that’s waay above any other companies- with zero understanding that the clamping force was correct for the screw size.

If UM didn’t trust the hardware, why didn’t they use better/bigger hardware?

No hardware has broken.

For those of us who followed the manufacturer’s instructions, it doesn’t help us that hundreds of rings have held up using the “Form method”. That’s not the method we used, as we trusted the manufacturer. This is a total bush league failure.

You’re on Rokslide. You learned about them on rockslide. They were my initial idea to Ryan. I am the one that tested them to ensure they worked correctly. I am the one that posted the torque specs, clamping force numbers, and why. Companies are going to do what companies are going to do- but at some point common sense would point to just listening to the guy(s) who actually did the work.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Then why didn’t the packaging/instructions indicate to torque them to 55-60 instead of 45#? If UM didn’t trust the hardware, why didn’t they use better/bigger hardware?

For those of us who followed the manufacturer’s instructions, it doesn’t help us that hundreds of rings have held up using the “Form method”. That’s not the method we used, as we trusted the manufacturer. This is a total bush league failure.

I have no dog in this argument but Sportsmatch rings slipped on me at 38 and 45lb. I have since bonded a rail to it. I don’t think the tikka dovetail is optimal amount of surface area but I’m not an engineer.

 

[Harvey_NW]

I have no dog in this argument but Sportsmatch rings slipped on me at 38 and 45lb. I have since bonded a rail to it. I don’t think the tikka dovetail is optimal amount of surface area but I’m not an engineer.

What cartridge, and with or without recoil pin/s?

 

[cuerro viejo]

What cartridge, and with or without recoil pin/s?

308, Honestly Im pretty sure with the one pin but cant remember. I remember thinking about bonding them to rifle after words then said hell with it and ordered rail and bonded it.

 

[Marbles]

I have no dog in this argument but Sportsmatch rings slipped on me at 38 and 45lb. I have since bonded a rail to it. I don’t think the tikka dovetail is optimal amount of surface area but I’m not an engineer.

Yeah, I ignored the Sportsmatch recommend torque of 38 in.lbs and went for 50. Used the recoil pin as well, so no slipping.

I agree, a straight dovetail is less than optimal. I currently use bonded rails with a recoil lug and NF UL rings.