Vertical split rings

[westsloper]

I've seen the threads on snipershide about vertically split rings. Main argument seems to be that they pinch some scopes, messing with the internals and causing all sorts of disfunction. I have several sets of Warnes sitting around, however, and I was wondering how they work with heavier duty scopes like SWFAs. Are those scopes robust enough to handle the vertical split rings?

 

[hereinaz]

It’s also because the bottom clamping force is divided between clamping on the rail and clamping the scope. That just sets you up for higher probability of failure.

 

[Titanium700]

Since putting a set on my Rem700 I will say.

I absolutely hate them.
I’m taking them back off and selling them.
What a pain in the butt.

 

[TaperPin]

The scope can’t tell the difference between horizontal and vertical split - any damage that happened is definitely from someone putting waaaaaay too much torque on them.

There are three types of vertical split rings, two are ok and one should be avoided.

Of course this kind is ok because the ring screws are separate from the ones that tighten to the base.



The kind below should be avoided at all cost because the lower screws are being asked to do two things at the same time - they clamp the mount to the base and are tightening around the scope at the same time. Too much torque on top and it loosens the clamping force on the base. The torque is also limited to he maximum the scope tube can handle. There are multiple makers of these, but if the lower screws also clamp to the base stay away from them.


The following mount is ok, because the screws for the scope tube are separate from the screw tightening on the base. I chose this picture because it also shows how the vertical split is designed to be snugged up tight on the bottom first with no gap remaining, then the top is tightened to clamp the scope. Only then do you tighten it on the base, and the screw (or lever) for the base is separate from the rings. Talley split rings built like this have been widely used on custom guns for almost half a century and have a very good reputation. When someone has an issue with them the first question I’ll ask is what order did they tighten the screws - usually they fail to tighten the lower scope screws first.

If someone were to tighten the upper and lower scope screws equally, leaving a gap at the lower split, when the base clamp screw is tightened it would put too much stress on the scope and that’s where guys are getting dents. It’s not the scope mount’s fault these guys didn’t read the directions or understand how they are intended to work. They are less idiot proof.

 

[westsloper]

Interesting, thanks.

 

[timbernomad]

An interesting case is the Warne Tikka dovetail mounts. They call for 25 inch lbs torque on the dovetail. I'm assuming they have to in because that same torque is being applied to the scope, right? Sportsmatch rings call for 38 inch lbs if I'm not mistaken, and Burris Tikka dovetail rings call for 60. I'm not sure how the Warnes are supposed to get away with so much less torque, unless the Sportsmatch (and especially the Burris) are just massively over torqued.

I'm not too worried about Warnes hurting my 10x42 mil quad. But I would be worried about the scope or the rings slipping and losing zero.

 

[SDHNTR]

It’s also because the bottom clamping force is divided between clamping on the rail and clamping the scope. That just sets you up for higher probability of failure.

Unless we’re talking about Talley Screw Lock (or lever lock) detachable rings. Separate bottom screws for the tube and the base.

 

[SDHNTR]

An interesting case is the Warne Tikka dovetail mounts. They call for 25 inch lbs torque on the dovetail. I'm assuming they have to in because that same torque is being applied to the scope, right? Sportsmatch rings call for 38 inch lbs if I'm not mistaken, and Burris Tikka dovetail rings call for 60. I'm not sure how the Warnes are supposed to get away with so much less torque, unless the Sportsmatch (and especially the Burris) are just massively over torqued.

I'm not too worried about Warnes hurting my 10x42 mil quad. But I would be worried about the scope or the rings slipping and losing zero.

Different torque specs for different sized screws are not comparable. 25 in lbs doesn’t necessarily mean less clamping force than 38 or 60 in lbs, it all depends on the hardware used.

 

[Balderdash]

Before I knew any better, I ran Warne verticals on a lot of rigs, including on a lot of Tikkas direct to the integral rail. Never noticed a tracking error on those rigs, but had it reported by enough sources and people I trust that I discontinued using them at least 8-10 years ago. The unequal clamping tension is logical. Lot of good ring options nowadays.

Still have a lot of set it and forget rigs so equipped. No plans to change anything on them.

 

[timbernomad]

Different torque specs for different sized screws are not comparable. 25 in lbs doesn’t necessarily mean less clamping force than 38 or 60 in lbs, it all depends on the hardware used.

Thanks for the info. I'm not an engineer and I appreciate the insight.

 

[douglasfir]

just another data point… famous/infamous big stick over on 24hourcampfire uses warne vertical split rings and recommends them

 

[TimberHunter]

Additional small data point, I had the warne split tikka dovetail rings for 3 seasons. The rifles went on many fairly tough hunts and took 5 mule deer and an elk. Avg shot around 450 yards. Rifle was never dropped or fell onto

I changed rings because I went to a 30mm SWFA and a pic rail but if I go back to the dovetail I’d consider the Sportsmatch or Unknown Munition rings. Not because warne had any issues, just something different


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RCST1111]

This is an old one, but I don't believe some of the information getting shared is correct. This has been been repeated on multiple threads. The Warne split rings fully contact at the bottom. The torque on the bottom screw clamps it to the base. This torque is only being asked to do that one thing as the gap between the rings is fully sealed with direct contact. The top screw clamps the actual scope and the force is distributed evenly. Their instructions are 25 bottom first, nothing on top, line up the scope, then 15 for the top.

I used to use horizontal rings, but have gone to these for all my uses and they are simple and strong.

The bottom screws do one things, not two. They fully engage the base only, with some minor pressure on the scope, which has nothing to do with the base connection. The top screw then sets the full torque on the entire perimeter of the scope.

Its wild to see how many people have taken incorrect info and scattered it to the winds and guys are parroting the "Don't use vertical" info. I ONLY use vertical split rings for the reason that you actually get more consistent and even pressure on the scope.

 

[TaperPin]

This is an old one, but I don't believe some of the information getting shared is correct. This has been been repeated on multiple threads. The Warne split rings fully contact at the bottom. The torque on the bottom screw clamps it to the base. This torque is only being asked to do that one thing as the gap between the rings is fully sealed with direct contact. The top screw clamps the actual scope and the force is distributed evenly. Their instructions are 25 bottom first, nothing on top, line up the scope, then 15 for the top.

I used to use horizontal rings, but have gone to these for all my uses and they are simple and strong.

The bottom screws do one things, not two. They fully engage the base only, with some minor pressure on the scope, which has nothing to do with the base connection. The top screw then sets the full torque on the entire perimeter of the scope.

Its wild to see how many people have taken incorrect info and scattered it to the winds and guys are parroting the "Don't use vertical" info. I ONLY use vertical split rings for the reason that you actually get more consistent and even pressure on the scope.

Yes.
Here’s a vertical Warne on the left and Talley on the right with the bottom screws tight showing the top gap that allows the scope to still rotate until the top screws clamps the scope as you described. Good designs with some differences, but both far stronger than any aluminum ring, and no drama as long as they are installed correctly.

 

[RCST1111]

Yes.
Here’s a vertical Warne on the left and Talley on the right with the bottom screws tight showing the top gap that allows the scope to still rotate until the top screws clamps the scope as you described. Good designs with some differences, but both far stronger than any aluminum ring, and no drama as long as they are installed correctly.

View attachment 850016

Thanks for the photo. I have removable ones like on the left for one of my takedown rifles and it does not change zero when you take it off and on as long as you follow the instructions and fully torque the bottom to 25 in-lbs. before setting up the top at 15 in-lbs. I hope this conversation dispels a lot of the myth surrounding these mounts. I find them ideal.

 

[Balderdash]

This is an old one, but I don't believe some of the information getting shared is correct. This has been been repeated on multiple threads. The Warne split rings fully contact at the bottom. The torque on the bottom screw clamps it to the base. This torque is only being asked to do that one thing as the gap between the rings is fully sealed with direct contact. The top screw clamps the actual scope and the force is distributed evenly. Their instructions are 25 bottom first, nothing on top, line up the scope, then 15 for the top.

I used to use horizontal rings, but have gone to these for all my uses and they are simple and strong.

The bottom screws do one things, not two. They fully engage the base only, with some minor pressure on the scope, which has nothing to do with the base connection. The top screw then sets the full torque on the entire perimeter of the scope.

Its wild to see how many people have taken incorrect info and scattered it to the winds and guys are parroting the "Don't use vertical" info. I ONLY use vertical split rings for the reason that you actually get more consistent and even pressure on the scope.

I don't have time right now to dig into it, but there's empirical data out there that substantiates the assertion that vertically split rings can effectuate tracking inconsistencies; by extension, it's not disinformation or internet myth to state that they do. There's also anecdotal evidence, which, of course, a reader can use or not based on source and context.

I've used many, many sets of vertically split rings for years and years - still have several sets of Warnes in service. Most didn't cause any issues that I'm aware of, but they were largely used on rigs that didnt get dialed frequently; however, I did experience tracking issues with 1 set of verticals that was resolved with a simple ring swap to horizontals.

To me, it's pretty clear how the fixed nature of the bottom screws, along with inconsistent ring gaps top and bottom, won't clamp a tube as concentrically as a top strap that's properly gapped with the base and torqued evenly on both sides.

Ultimately, if vertical rings meet your expectations and get you what you need on your rigs, that's great. I hope that both your luck and your zeros hold.

 

[RCST1111]

I don't have time right now to dig into it, but there's empirical data out there that substantiates the assertion that vertically split rings can effectuate tracking inconsistencies; by extension, it's not disinformation or internet myth to state that they do. There's also anecdotal evidence, which, of course, a reader can use or not based on source and context.

I've used many, many sets of vertically split rings for years and years - still have several sets of Warnes in service. Most didn't cause any issues that I'm aware of, but they were largely used on rigs that didnt get dialed frequently; however, I did experience tracking issues with 1 set of verticals that was resolved with a simple ring swap to horizontals.

To me, it's pretty clear how the fixed nature of the bottom screws, along with inconsistent ring gaps top and bottom, won't clamp a tube as concentrically as a top strap that's properly gapped with the base and torqued evenly on both sides.

Ultimately, if vertical rings meet your expectations and get you what you need on your rigs, that's great. I hope that both your luck and your zeros hold.

Good points made. I believe them to hold truth. I wonder if the rings are formed at a 1" diameter and then a gap is cut at the top or if the 1" diameter ring is "stretched", which would be an uneven application of forces on the scope tube. I guess my main problem was with improper mounting of both halves or torquing them out of order leading to some of the chatter about scopes being destroyed by installing them etc.

 

[TaperPin]

Good points made. I believe them to hold truth. I wonder if the rings are formed at a 1" diameter and then a gap is cut at the top or if the 1" diameter ring is "stretched", which would be an uneven application of forces on the scope tube. I guess my main problem was with improper mounting of both halves or torquing them out of order leading to some of the chatter about scopes being destroyed by installing them etc.

At least with the Talley, it’s completely machined with a perfectly round hole for the tube and additional metal is taken off to form the gap at the top. Looking closely at the Warne there are zero machining marks anywhere so it must be molded powdered metal and the bore for the tube is essentially a perfectly round hole and the gap is molded in as well. The Talley are heat treated 4140 chromoly and who knows what powdered metal Warne uses. I only ended up with the Warnes because they were mistakenly called Talleys on eBay and I didn’t look close enough.

 

[RCST1111]

At least with the Talley, it’s completely machined with a perfectly round hole for the tube and additional metal is taken off to form the gap at the top. Looking closely at the Warne there are zero machining marks anywhere so it must be molded powdered metal and the bore for the tube is essentially a perfectly round hole and the gap is molded in as well. The Talley are heat treated 4140 chromoly and who knows what powdered metal Warne uses. I only ended up with the Warnes because they were mistakenly called Talleys on eBay and I didn’t look close enough.

You have me talked into the Talleys for future mounts. Warne lists “Sintered Steel” which is powdered metal. There are some claims for vibration dampening benefits etc. but I don’t know how much of that is snake oil. I would rather have machined parts.

 

[Balderdash]

You have me talked into the Talleys for future mounts. Warne lists “Sintered Steel” which is powdered metal. There are some claims for vibration dampening benefits etc. but I don’t know how much of that is snake oil. I would rather have machined parts.

All else being equal, I would rather have the steel Tally units (lets not get started on the Talley LW); however, I've used 20+ sets of Warnes without a single issue, and some had/have a ton of use and shooting on them, so I wouldn't fret the Warnes. And the Warnes fit a number of mounts vs Tally using a proprietary design.