OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc. Homepage SWFA     SampleList.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Mounts & Accessories > Rings and bases
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - PRW not fitting Picatinny rail???
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials.

PRW not fitting Picatinny rail???

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
lj973gm View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: March/16/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lj973gm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: PRW not fitting Picatinny rail???
    Posted: June/12/2007 at 23:15
Not to sure if I am at fault here or if I am just missing something.

I have a set of warne rings that clamp on like no ones business.

I opted for some lighter leupy PRW's for a light setup I am going for.

These are going on top of a AR15 variant flat top.

When looking at the PRW rings you can see there is two grooves cut into the side of the rings where it expects to remove-able side which tightens down to secure the setup. If the upper groove is utilized it lines up properly for the two bolts to go through but it does not allow for enough material to grasp the Picatinny rail enough it my eyes. You can see it sits higher on one side than the other.

Now if the lower groove in the side of the ring was used to mate with the remove-able side it would grasp nicely but the holes in the side do not line up with the threaded holes in the ring.

I am awaiting a return email from leupy but I am not to sure if they will understand or their response time.

Not sure if other have this setup and if they have noticed or not.

Is there possible two side pieces that are supposed to be included to allow the lower groove to be used????

any help would be greatly appreciated.

You can see the two sets of grooves machined into the sides of the rings in this pic here for reference.

http://www.swfa.com/pc-3295-419-leupold-prw-1-rings.aspx
Back to Top
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dale Clifford Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/13/2007 at 08:50

off hand it sounds like the removable side got flip-flopped and (put on in reverse)

Back to Top
lj973gm View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: March/16/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lj973gm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/14/2007 at 00:31
I wish it was that obvious or simple but there is not way to flip or change the pieces to make them work and grasp equally on each side of the rail.

Thanks for some input.
Back to Top
Dale Clifford View Drop Down
Optics Jedi Knight
Optics Jedi Knight


Joined: July/04/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5087
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dale Clifford Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June/15/2007 at 10:27
use several of these mounts in 1 and 30 mm without the problem you are discribing. on the side with only one screw undo it and remove the "slot" and see if it will fit now
Back to Top
wrbwrx04 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: December/22/2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wrbwrx04 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: December/22/2013 at 22:18
I'm having the same problem. I have a FNH PBR with a Near picatinny rail. The PRW's seem to favor one side or the other. After securing the rings to my scope and base i noticed that my scope has a definite lean to it.  After i looked at the rings its almost like i need a different "side clamp".
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 2.969 seconds.