UM TIKKA Scope Rings

[Formidilosus]

How are they holding up compared to Britains finest? The sportsmatch are the elephant in the room as far as being the benchmark for comparison. Is there anything of note becoming apparent other than the improvement in mounting options?

There weren’t any failures with Sportsmatch, these are just an improvement on the design. The improvements- larger, better screws and a more robust clamp, larger surface area, and adjustable recoil pin locations in both rings are all very good things. I wouldn’t necessarily rush out to replace TO84’s with them, but new ones will be UM.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

There weren’t any failures with Sportsmatch, these are just an improvement on the design. The improvements- larger, better screws and a more robust clamp, larger surface area, and adjustable recoil pin locations in both rings are all very good things. I wouldn’t necessarily rush out to replace TO84’s with them, but new ones will be UM.

Makes sense. I never saw a review on the sportsmatch specifically but these seem to be an improvement in several structural areas.

Honestly even if these were fundamentally the same as the SM I’d still want a set. The fact that UM is listening and responding to the market and its customers here compels me to vote with my dollar and encourage this move.

 

[MidGAHunter]

I wouldn’t necessarily rush out to replace TO84’s with them, but new ones will be UM.

This is the approach I'm taking...sort of. I did pre-order 3 sets cause, well, why not...

 

[fwafwow]

I'm so late to this thread/party. Looking at ordering one or two sets for the Tikka RSS (in the "build stage" - a fairly BS term for my glacial assembly of parts) and possible 6.5 Creed/Bravo/ZP5 THLR (is that the final term @Dobermann ?) - but for the latter, I would also have to buy that scope, and of course before I buy the rifle...

 

[Pharmseller]

Tag

 

[Dobermann]

I'm so late to this thread/party. Looking at ordering one or two sets for the Tikka RSS (in the "build stage" - a fairly BS term for my glacial assembly of parts) and possible 6.5 Creed/Bravo/ZP5 THLR (is that the final term @Dobermann ?) - but for the latter, I would also have to buy that scope, and of course before I buy the rifle...

Wait! Are we codifying the UM rings for this build now?

I guess we could ... but I just bought not one, but two pic rails to test, thinking I was going with NF rings.

 

[fwafwow]

Wait! Are we codifying the UM rings for this build now?

I guess we could ... but I just bought not one, but two pic rails to test, thinking I was going with NF rings.

I think you are the leader on those build specs, especially since you hold the keys to the stickers.

 

[Dobermann]

I think you are the leader on those build specs, especially since you hold the keys to the stickers.

Yeah, ok. Tikka T3X in 6.5 Creed, KRG Bravo, UM rings, and ZP5 THLR for the win!

For the distances I'll be shooting with this rig, there's really no need for a 20 MOA base.

I'm going to reserve the right to allow some diversity, though ... mine's a Superlite (and I know Form has posted here about some of the possible problems with fluted barrels). I'm also going with an ultralight titanium suppressor, which weighs only 164 grams / 5.78 oz - which is not available in the USA.

Right, back to the UM goodness.

 

[JollyRoger]

I noticed it was asked earlier in the thread, but will the 30mm lows fit a 50mm objective (SWFA 5-20) with a 3b or Tikka D18 profile? I ask since it's between the factory Lite and carbon barrel profiles.

 

[Sundodger]

Any plans to make a folding anti-cant bubble level like US optics for the Tikka Rail?

Any plans to make 1" rings?

https://www.amazon.com/US-Optics-Fixed-Anti-Cant-Device/dp/B00I11YIZS/ref=sr_1_5?hvadid=589889620455&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9060230&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=9405314878718082700&hvtargid=kwd-7400107629&hydadcr=9380_13552940&keywords=anti-cant+device&qid=1687289377&sr=8-5

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

No plans to make a folding level or 1” rings at the moment.

Progress pic… here’s a whole shit load of the Tikka 30mm LOW in progress…

 

[Formidilosus]

To all:


I have been getting asked repeatedly about torque specs for these new rings. The torque required to achieve the same clamping load/force changes with screw size and thread. I am not an engineer, however I have access to world class ones. The numbers I am posting below come from a lead engineer of a major DOD contractor that does exactly this type of work doing the equations/math to arrive at these numbers while he had the rings in hand- let’s call him D.O. Then we mounted and shot them as such.
It interesting that when doing the math on a bunch of different rings- they vary wildly in their clamp force using manufactured recommended torque. So a scope company saying “14-16 in-lbs on rings” is utterly useless. Some brand of rings will put twice the clamping force into the tube as other brand of rings. There are rings out there that at 15 in-lbs you can smack the front of the scope and make the scope slide in the rings. There are rings that at 15 in-lbs provides the clamping “crush” force as other rings at 25 in-lbs. So we had to come up with a baseline. We chose NF Ultralight rings as the baseline because they are extremely well vetted and proven. Using Nightforce Ultralight rings as the baseline, to achieve an equivalent clamping force on the scope; UM rings need 28 in-lbs on the UM ring cap screws to equal 15 in-lbs on the NF rings. 34 in-lbs on the UM cap screws equals 18 in-lbs on the NF rings. Also, using the “K” value of blue loctite or a paint pen- DOES NOT materially add to the clamping force. It’s about 1 in-lb more. Oil causes noticeable changes in “wet” torque values, Blue Loctite and especially paint does not- it’s not as slippery and does not dramatically reduce friction over clean, dry screws.

I was mounting the scope, while D.O. was still working through the math/conversions/whatever, I used 15 in-lbs on the ring caps and knew instantly that wasn’t it- I told him “dude, 15 in-lbs feels like nothing by hand, it’s going to move”. He asked what I thought, and said probably twice that torque to feel the same as NF rings. When he finished, that’s what came out. 34 in-lbs on UM rings feels in the hand like 18in-lbs or so on normal rings.


So using the data from the D.O., this is what I would suggest with UM Tikka rings-

If you have a strong scope- NF, SWFA, Trijicon, S&B, etc- 34 in-lbs with Loctite. That equals 18 in-lbs in a standard NF ring.

If you have a scope that is “fragile” or one that is susceptible to binding the erector due to ring crush- 28 in-lbs with Loctite on UM ring cap screws equal 15 in-lbs on standard rings.


So far I am using 45 in-lbs on the base screws to attach it to the rail. That amount of torque feels about right and quick math said that should do. The base screw torque is subject to change.

 

[Randonee]

If you have a strong scope- NF, SWFA, Trijicon, S&B, etc- 34 in-lbs with Loctite. That equals 18 in-lbs in a standard NF ring.

I have a few sets of NF Ultalite 30mm rings. Both package cards list 25 in-lbs for the cap screws. I actually called NF about this bit ago to verify, and I was told that's what they recommend, and if less is used, I could get ring marks on the scope, which they said were the result of slight scope slippage. We didn't go over w/ or w/o loctite. Have you found 25 in-lbs in NF UL to not be necessary? Thanks.

 

[Formidilosus]

I have a few sets of NF Ultalite 30mm rings. Both package cards list 25 in-lbs for the cap screws. I actually called NF about this bit ago to verify, and I was told that's what they recommend, and if less is used, I could get ring marks on the scope, which they said were the result of slight scope slippage. We didn't go over w/ or w/o loctite. Have you found 25 in-lbs in NF UL to not be necessary? Thanks.

I use 25 in-lbs personally. With NF UL rings, 18 in-lbs is bare minimum.

 

[theunseenvw]

Neato looking stuff!! I like it.

 

[30338]

Everytime I hear someone complain about capitalism, I think of products and marketing like this. Great stuff. I'll take my chances with pure capitalism. You can keep the crony capitalism. But new products, people getting paid for their ideas and risk taking is what its all about.

I need to build a lefty tikka someday and these would be a great choice for rings. Good luck to UM.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

@Formidilosus this was with the tikka rings correct?

We thoroughly tested different torque specs on the UM Hinged rings. And with having 3 bolts across 1” we had a lighter torque to achieve very high clamp force

 

[Formidilosus]

@Formidilosus this was with the tikka rings correct?

We thoroughly tested different torque specs on the UM Hinged rings. And with having 3 bolts across 1” we had a lighter torque to achieve very high clamp force

Correct Tikka rings.

I sent pictures of all the math/formula that was done on them to Jake.

 

[2-Stix]

I have a set without the recoil pins or finishing to insure they work. Shot today with 15 or so drops and so far, so good.

View attachment 557699

what NF scope is that? and do you have a length from butt to ocular?

 

[Formidilosus]

what NF scope is that? and do you have a length from butt to ocular?

4-16x ATACR, and the scope is already off that rifle so can not measure.