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

[SDHNTR]

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.




No hardware has broken.




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.

So an unwitting consumer buys these rings and they aren’t on Rokslide, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of hunters, and somehow they are supposed to magically know who df you are and listen to you over the product manufacturer? Or even if they were aware of RS, they are supposed to listen to some dude with a fictitious name over the name on the packaging of the very product they just bought? Dream on. That’s insane. Common sense would dictate following the damn instructions!

If you were somehow involved and doing the testing, and you figured out what worked and what was a reliable specification, then UM should’ve listened to you and published your method in the instructions. But they didn’t. You can’t blame the consumer on this one. Bottom line, UM just screwed the pooch. Not the first time.

 

[cuerro viejo]

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.

That’s exactly what I went too. Mountain tactical rail with pin, NF UL rings.

 

[nm.otter]

I don’t think the tikka dovetail is optimal amount of surface area but I’m not an engineer.

The dovetail is more than strong enough as long the base clamps take advantage of it.

 

[cuerro viejo]

So an unwitting consumer buys these rings and they aren’t on Rokslide, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of hunters, and somehow they are supposed to magically know who df you are and listen to you over the product manufacturer? Or even if they were aware of RS, they are supposed to listen to some dude with a fictitious name over the name on the packaging of the very product they just bought? Dream on. That’s insane. Common sense would dictate following the damn instructions!

If you were somehow involved and doing the testing, and you figured out what worked and what was a reliable specification, then UM should’ve listened to you and published your method in the instructions. But they didn’t. You can’t blame the consumer on this one. Bottom line, UM just screwed the pooch. Not the first time.

Only rings I’ve received with factory appropriate torque specs are Arc Brace and NF, Grant it neither are dove tail mounts and UM & sportsman maybe worried about damaging the dove tail more then rings.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The dovetail is more than strong enough as long the base clamps take advantage of it.

There is a significant difference in surface area between a rail and tikka dove tail. With that said most 6061 clamps with two holes seam to crack out at much lower torque spec the titanium clamps.

 

[Cdnance]

I for one didn’t hear about UM through this forum. I joined the forum after following UM on some other sites. I liked the look and apparent quality of the product.

Don’t get me wrong, I still think the product is top notch, and I’m gonna try to use it on my 300wm but there is no denying that to randomly add that after having been out for quite some time is odd.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

That’s exactly what I went too. Mountain tactical rail with pin, NF UL rings.

Nothing wrong with my UM Tikka rings but I'd like to be able to swap my scope around easily with other non-Tikka rifles so I'm probably gonna go this route. Only thing stopping me is the durn thing shoots so dang well, taken a few light falls, 2500 mile trips, and never had to touch the scope zero.... hate to mess with that.

 

[Formidilosus]

So an unwitting consumer buys these rings and they aren’t on Rokslide, as is the case with the overwhelming majority of hunters, and somehow they are supposed to magically know who df you are and listen to you over the product manufacturer? Or even if they were aware of RS, they are supposed to listen to some dude with a fictitious name over the name on the packaging of the very product they just bought? Dream on. That’s insane. Common sense would dictate following the damn instructions!

No- common sense is that the industry doesn’t know what they are doing, and that being the “fictitious name” was stated repeatedly by the owner of the company was the person that conducted the testing- that name might know something.

If you were somehow involved and doing the testing, and you figured out what worked and what was a reliable specification,

What do you mean “if”? This is exactly why it’s hard to take what you wrote serious- it’s fake outrage. From day 1 it was open that I was involved and conducted the testing. There is no “if”.

then UM should’ve listened to you and published your method in the instructions.

Of course they should have. But why at this point is it still surprising that you can’t take a companies position in the gun world as gospel?

But they didn’t. You can’t blame the consumer on this one. Bottom line, UM just screwed the pooch. Not the first time.

What are you talking about?

I haven’t blamed anyone but UM. Of course they should have listened- but companies do what they want for a variety of reasons.

You clutching pearls like you are concerned for the common man… it’s just ridiculous. If the average person did exactly what the UM site says- they will have very little change of having a problem- even if it isn’t optimum.

 

[SDHNTR]

Only rings I’ve received with factory appropriate torque specs are Arc Brace and NF, Grant it neither are dove tail mounts and UM & sportsman maybe worried about damaging the dove tail more then rings.

That’s just the thing, unless you have a degree in mechanical engineering and know how to compute actual necessary clamping force imparted by certain hardware specifications to hold said object (scope) in place, all one can do is rely on the data from the manufacturer and assume they did the calculations and performed the testing.

In this case, it’s obvious either those calculations and the necessary testing was not done, or if it was truly done, as is claimed here, it was ignored or overruled.

 

[nm.otter]

I'm still hoping for details on @Aaron Davidson 's observations of mount shifts on picatinny rails.

 

[SDHNTR]

No- common sense is that the industry doesn’t know what they are doing, and that being the “fictitious name” was stated repeatedly by the owner of the company was the person that conducted the testing- that name might know something.




What do you mean “if”? This is exactly why it’s hard to take what you wrote serious- it’s fake outrage. From day 1 it was open that I was involved and conducted the testing. There is no “if”.




Of course they should have. But why at this point is it still surprising that you can’t take a companies position in the gun world as gospel?




What are you talking about?

I haven’t blamed anyone but UM. Of course they should have listened- but companies do what they want for a variety of reasons.

You clutching pearls like you are concerned for the common man… it’s just ridiculous. If the average person did exactly what the UM site says- they will have very little change of having a problem- even if it isn’t optimum.

You are blaming the consumer and heavily leaning on narcissism, assuming the average guy knows you or your role and/or should’ve listened to you over the instructions. I don’t know if you are or were involved and really couldn’t care less. I didn’t and don’t pay attention to your involvement or uninvolment with anything. For you to think that others should is pure comedy. Your sense of self importance is what’s ridiculous.

I don’t think expecting manufacturers to provide accurate specs for their products is a stretch. I think that’s a very rational expectation. When they don’t, they need to be called out, and they need to own it. The latter hasn’t happened.

To ultimately have to admit a product is not holding up to a very average amount of recoil with published specs is a failure on many levels, even if the affected number is minimal. They aren’t building rocket ships. And yes, the same could be said for a multitude of products and manufacturers, but that still doesn’t make it OK!

 

[Sundodger]

Guys, I think there needs to be some grace given here.

First off, because UM is more transparent people are getting a peek into how the sausage is made. The more people get to see behind the curtain the more negative they get. Talk to engineers on a program that is going relatively well, and you will think the sky is falling because they see all the problems and much less of the wins.

No one likes it when a product isn't what they had hoped, but the fact of the matter is aftermarket companies rarely have the engineering expertise, product development/verification/validation experience, and budget to make products as reliable as OEM's targets. This goes for firearms, automotive, etc. Toyota has army's of engineers to ensure that your Corolla goes half a million miles on nothing but oil changes.

If I were to design and validate a set of rings to lets say six sigma standards with the goal of an optimized design, it would prob cost more than UM makes in a year.

About the best we can hope for aftermarket companies to follow best practices, load up tons of safety factor, have lots of exposure, and redesign as issues come up, which it sounds like UM is doing.

Trust me, as an engineer that has spent his career fighting tooth and nail to make the best products possible, seeing all the poorly designed slop out in the world in all fields is infuriating. But we all have to take the world for what it is, not what we want it to be.

You guys must have caught me on a Zen day, because normally I would go off on an hour long rant about how 99% of everything in the world is junk.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Everyone holding pitchforks need to chill out here. Otherwise, you’re going convince people that pushing the envelope of products is a waste of time, energy, and effort.

The company is proactively working on this and being transparent, after having made a new solution to something. As it stands, they are already the best product for the design goals and you don’t have a problem with the versions now.

 

[SDHNTR]

Everyone holding pitchforks need to chill out here. Otherwise, you’re going convince people that pushing the envelope of products is a waste of time, energy, and effort.

The company is proactively working on this and being transparent, after having made a new solution to something. As it stands, they are already the best product for the design goals and you don’t have a problem with the versions now.

I will agree and applaud UM for innovating, disrupting and attempting to build better mousetraps, but if you can’t do them right, slow down and fry one fish at a time. They seem to be chasing so many projects at once. The customer, with their hard earned money, is not your beta tester.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

Everyone holding pitchforks need to chill out here. Otherwise, you’re going convince people that pushing the envelope of products is a waste of time, energy, and effort.

The company is proactively working on this and being transparent, after having made a new solution to something. As it stands, they are already the best product for the design goals and you don’t have a problem with the versions now.

What's funny is nobody would've known about the issue if they didn't stick their neck out to try to mitigate it for future customers and publish the new torque spec and add the disclaimer. Probably not a good idea to punish a company for seeing a problem and trying to fix it. They could've just let it ride and I doubt anybody would've been complaining.

 

[rbutcher1234]

What's funny is nobody would've known about the issue if they didn't stick their neck out to try to mitigate it for future customers and publish the new torque spec and add the disclaimer. Probably not a good idea to punish a company for seeing a problem and trying to fix it. They could've just let it ride and I doubt anybody would've been complaining.

EXACTLY

peoples reactions here are disincentivizing the exact pattern of behavior that exclusively benefits them, and I would not like that sequence to conclude itself.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

What's funny is nobody would've known about the issue if they didn't stick their neck out to try to mitigate it for future customers and publish the new torque spec and add the disclaimer. Probably not a good idea to punish a company for seeing a problem and trying to fix it. They could've just let it ride and I doubt anybody would've been complaining.

Agreed, I think part of the reason for people being disgruntled is finding out about it on the forum. An email to the customer base would likely have been received better than just updating the product page.

 

[Liv2HntBigBullz]

At any rate, an email to customers that bought these would have been a better approach than just "updating the website". While I appreciate the update and conditions I do find this to be a bit shady of your rings have to come into question on anything bigger than a 7prc (weird choice to draw the line btw).

The Rok community has been a huge part of UM success but the more we see stuff like this, the less faith I have in where I choose to spend my cash. Rokstock, UM rings, etc...seems like a company over their skis and I also find it interesting how quickly Avery passed the buck early in this thread. Whoops, now I'm too busy and too many irons in the fire wasn't my idea...

 

[rbutcher1234]

At any rate, an email to customers that bought these would have been a better approach than just "updating the website". While I appreciate the update and conditions I do find this to be a bit shady of your rings have to come into question on anything bigger than a 7prc (weird choice to draw the line btw).

The Rok community has been a huge part of UM success but the more we see stuff like this, the less faith I have in where I choose to spend my cash. Rokstock, UM rings, etc...seems like a company over their skis and I also find it interesting how quickly Avery passed the buck early in this thread. Whoops, now I'm too busy and too many irons in the fire wasn't my idea...

You do know that Ryan has nothing to do with running unknown munitions right? He owns this site and a podcast.

 

[SDHNTR]

EXACTLY

peoples reactions here are disincentivizing the exact pattern of behavior that exclusively benefits them, and I would not like that sequence to conclude itself.

This is a valid point, but at the same time they aren’t building complex devices. Not figuring out sufficient torque specs for a scope mount is basic stuff. Engineering 101. Some very simple and inexpensive testing should’ve and would’ve revealed this issue early on. Not getting something so simple figured out at the testing stage is inexcusable.