New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Two-piece bases - Scope torque?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Two-piece bases - Scope torque?

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options Page  1 2>
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/12/2007 at 21:21
trkyshootr View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/05/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 22

I have a Winchester 70 .308 with a Burris 3-10x40 Signature Select.  When I first mounted the scope with Warne rings and bases, I noticed that the scope was "tinking" when turned on its axis.  After some shooting, the sound stopped.  However, the gun gives from .3" (3/10) to 4" accuracy, so I think that the internals may still be loose.  Because of this concern, with hunting season over, I thought I'd re-mount the scope.  Well, I can't tighten the rings without the scope tinking (note that there are no ring marks on the scope, it is not kinked or bent, and the screws were actually slightly undertight, as I learned when remounting with the Warne torque driver).  I think that these two-piece bases, especially when used with their vertically split rings, make it difficult to assure that the scope's not being torqued.  That being the case, I'd like your thoughts regarding these options:

 

1.  Purchase a one-piece (steel) Weaver-style base.  However, the Warne is around $100, which I'm not willing to spend, and I'm unaware of other manufacturers.

2.  Purchase Burris Signature Zee rings that mount in the Warne bases.  The inserts should cure the torque problem, but I'm unsure of the strength of these mounts which rely on a single cross screw per mount, unlike the steel wedge used by Warne.

3.  Yank the Warnes altogether, and go with Redfield-style rings and one-piece base (to lessen the potential for torqueing).

 

Thanks for your insight.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/12/2007 at 23:55
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

This is a normal problem and is easyest solved by lapping the rings.

Warne is a bit more difficult to lap than others but it can be done.

So keep the stuff you have and get a 1" round bar and carborundum paste to lap with.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 00:49
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Lapping is highly necesary as mostly actions are everything else than true.

 

Mostly actions are handgrinded on a big beltsander after the machining and the lapping is essential, espesially if it's for a detachable mount. I use mostly Recknagel and Apel mounts, and their quality is superb, but i still lapp the rings. And so do I with mostly other rings that is mounted on separate bases.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 02:20
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103

Have you checked on the sample list for a one piece base?  I saw they had a bunch of model 70 stuff listed.

 

I understand the torqe you are describing.  The lapping will solve that problem. 

 

Smitty

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 10:02
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

When you say tinking, what exactly do you mean?  Also, when the scope is mounted, is it loose, at all?  I have used many Warne bases and rings, almost exclusively, except for some one piece Talley, both of which are excellent.  Never, have I had a problem.  I have mounted several Fullfield II scopes, but not a SS.  With the Warne rings, I do not lap, I have never felt the need to.  They all mount perfectly and the guns shoot perfect.  The vertical set up should not be a problem.  Does the scope make a tinking sound when moved and not mounted.  I have not used the torx wrench from Warne, thought about getting one, but I do fine without it and have mounted hundreds of scopes and/or remounted.  Let me know more and I am sure I can help

 

.



Edited by Dolphin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 10:26
silver View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: November/04/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2291

Originally posted by rootmanslim rootmanslim wrote:

I don't know how I can make it more clear. LAPPING IS NOT NECESSARY WITH THE SIGNATURE RINGS, THE S&K RINGS & MOUNTS OR FOR THAT MATTER CONETROL MOUNTS AND RINGS.Don't be B.S.ed into spending $ and time you need not. You see that 400 H&H? It weighs only 9 pounds fully loaded. I have shot a lot of ammo thru it. Nothing has slipped, loosened, misaligned or done anything but work 100%. Ditto for my 12 bore 7 pound slug gun that has had signature rings since the day they came out.
These are the most foolproof, simple rings made by anyone. They always work and they even offer eccentric inserts if you have a really crooked drilling job on the receiver.Go to this site:
http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigrings.html
if you want the facts.

 

The reason that they are doing this is because of the crappy quality control they and the gun makers have been putting out.  Slim is right, that you should not have to lap the rings.  That does not mean the samething as you need not lap the rings.    At some point you may need to put some hand work into it. 

 

My thought is the set up you have, warts and all is paid for.  You have nothing to loose by lapping them.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 11:15
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

I cant agree that all rings that not has plastic inserts is of inferior quality.

I can't either see the problems with lapping metal rings, usally it doesent take very long time.

 

Plastic inserts seems to be fine as long as you stay with light scopes, heavyer scopes is a different matter and there is the plastic rings not good enough.

 

Mostly of my guns have detachable mounts, and I like to have acess to iron sights when the weather is bad.

I don't know of any quality rings that are detachable with plastic inserts....

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 11:50
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

2. Latest problem we had was with a 2,5-10x52 Zeiss on a Tikka with optilock rings.

3. IF it rains or snows and the bikinis or butler creek is of no good. As soon as they have been open and are closed again there will be fog on the lenses. Iron sights always works and for many shots in the forrest at short distances they are absolutely adequate.

4. There is mounts that is stronger than burris and leupolds to, but as I never had a problem with Apels i have not had a reason to change. Dual dovetails doenst give me the oppertunity to swiths betwen aimpoint and various riflescopes.

I do very rarely want fixed mounts, even on the guns without iron sights i like detachable scopes.

6. Good lapping kits are almost for free, the 34 and the 1" did I turn out my self and the 30mm is standard dimension on the steel.

 

Regards Technika

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:07
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103

Ive used the burris signature rings and yes the do work but they are for a permanent installation and who here really has a permanent anything.  We are perfectionists and what we have now is only good until we find the next best thing!

 

My experience with the burris signature rings is that the screws go in easy but are a bear to remove.  My gunsmith replaced all the screws in my last set of signature rings and swore a bunch doing it.  He wont use them again and neither will I.  You also have to like what they look like and I personally dont like to see the plastic inserts.

 

Otherwise, I think the signature rings are really good for the one time installation for the do-it-yourselfer and I think they will hold against some pretty heavy recoil.

 

I have never seen a set of 2-piece bases line up perfectly. If you use them you must take great effort to align them and the rings to avoid torqing the scope and putting rings marks on it.  Lapping is the only sure way of doing this.

 

I prefer to use weaver type bases or a picatinny rail base because of the ability to use QDW rings.  I like switching things up and these allow plenty of tinkering.  I probably enjoy the tinkering as much as the range time with my rifles.

 

Thats my 2 cents on rings and scope mounting!

 

Happy shooting,

Smitty

 

 



Edited by smitty
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:20
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Nobody is really answering your question.  The Warne mounts and rings are superior to anything that has been mentioned thus far on the sight.  You do not need a one piece mount.   Most good quality rifles are milled to specs that do not require one piece mounts.  Believe me, I have mounted enought scopes on enough different brand of rifles to know.  However, they were all good quality rifles.  Stick with the Warne mounts and rings, answer my questions and we will come to a solution.   Trust me.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:22
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

Originally posted by rootmanslim rootmanslim wrote:

1. If they are not inferior why don't they fit? Yeah I know it's the rifle makers fault.
2. I guess you have never tried the Signatures. How about a 4-16x50 S&B Varmint on an 8 pound 300 H&H ? Heavy enough? Kick enough? work PERFECTLY, never come loose.
3. Access to irons may be important in Europe, I don't know BUT irons are really more fragile than a good scope in a good mount. Besides it's no big deal to carry a spare scope.Bad weather? That's why God gave us Bikini scope covers.
4. No QD mount is as strong as the Burris Double Dovetail (Ditto Leupold)
5. perhaps one of our materials engineers could chime in but IMO the Burris insert grips the scope tighter and conforms to any tube irregularites better than a metal ring.And since the S&Ks conform perfectly to the tube with one gap not two, I'm sure they hang on tight too.
6. Good lapping kits are expensive (see Brownells) and then you need 2 one 1" one 30mm. Then there's the nasty crap all over the receiver and if you ever remove the rings and put them back on, you're right back to square one because nothing goes back on exactly like it came off, especially turn in rings. If they did the rifle would rezero perfectly.... none do.

Dovetail mounts carry torque that is transferred to the scope.  They are a no no to high power mags.  Physics is physics.  Simple as that.  You probably attended Virginia Tech.



Edited by Dolphin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:26
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103

I have never used warn mounts or rings but might try them in the future.  they have QRW rings that are very similar to Leupold. they cost the same so I just stuck with the leupolds because they have worked well for me.  Ill try them on my next rifle.

 

 

My prefered set up would be a rifle that has intregral weaver type base such as the tikka T3 or the thompson/center icon.  They look very similar...does anybody know if they share the same receiver?

 

Smitty

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:54
tahqua View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Have You Driven A Ford Lately?

Joined: March/27/2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 8045

I can't believe that the Warne rings would be the problem. I don't think you need a one piece base for sure, they hinder loading. If you want the Weavers, I would get two piece bases. They may be ugly but they don't move and work good as a detachable with good re-zero.

I'm not sure what you mean by tinking, but I would look at the scope. Unfortunately I have broken internals on a Burris right now. Something might be loose inside yours, too.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/13/2007 at 21:03
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

ANY fixed, non-inserted rings or rings that do not self-compensate for misalignment (as the S&K does) will benefit from lapping!  I know many ring setups have been used with complete success without lapping, but I've yet to lap ANY fixed ring from any manufacturer without seeing some misalignment!  It would be extremely rare to find a rifle and ring/base combination that were in absolute perfect alignment.  I would even go so far as to say such a situation is almost non-existant, because both the receiver mounting holes, the base screw holes, and the mating contours of the receiver and bases are all made within acceptable production tolerances, meaning some deviation from perfect alignment.  Now, that doesn't mean you can't mount scopes on rifles and see no evidence of a problem, as most mounts work "o.k." most of the time, installed as-is out of the box.  But, chances are, you're using more W/E compensation that you would have had the rings been in perfect alignment with the rifle's centerline, and you're probably stressing the scope tube somewhat, even if your scope appears to be working fine.  You don't have to buy an expensive lapping tool if you have access to a lathe to turn a 1" or 30mm rod and make some sort of handle on it.  If you frequently install scopes as I do, a lapping kit from Brownells, including lapping tool and compound, can be had for about $50.

 

I have to admit the Burris Signature rings with the inserts and others like it (Sako Optilock, Jewell 1", etc.) are a good idea, because they do not require lapping, and for that matter, you couldn't lap 'em even if you wanted to.  I've found they hold a scope as securely as any other "non-tactical" type ring available.  The same is true for the S&K rings, for the reason RMS mentions -- they wrap around the scope tube, with only 1 split, and the base of the rings have a radial groove that mates with cone screws and self-compensates for misalignment.  They are also very sleek and nice looking.  I have S&Ks on 4 rifles at present, and I love them.  The same basically holds true for the Conetrols, which the S&Ks were modeled after.  Unlike the S&Ks, Conetrol rings are 3-piece, and they have less compensation for base misalignment, due to fixed cone screw engagement points.

 

That being said, a very valid argument can be made to use these self-compensating rings on all rifles.  However, being the type of person who just likes variety and using different rings on different rifles, I don't mind the little extra effort to lap rings every now and then, and I just like the way some ring and base combinations look on some rifles.  I personally detest the appearance of 2-piece bases protruding over the ejection port, (which sometimes rules out the Burris Sigs), so the base design is a consideration for which 2-piece bases/rings I'll select for a given rifle.  Lapping really doesn't take much time, and if you put a cloth on top of the receiver underneath the rings, it can be done without making a mess.  Plus, as Technika said, sometimes QD rings are a nice option to have on some rifles.  Lapping just gives me peace of mind that everything is done right, and if I'm planning for my scope to be permanently mounted, if done right the first time, you do it once and forget about it.

 

The Warne rings are very high quality, but again, they are made to certain production tolerances, and they cannot compensate for out of alignment receiver mount holes.



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 03:12
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103

The rings in that photo, do they align on the vertival plane? I can see they do on the horizontal.

 

Smitty

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 05:55
trkyshootr View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/05/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 22

Well, although the controversy here was not intended the many answers are very appreciated.  I had called Warne and spoken with a tech man previously, but without solution.  Since posting, I spoke again with a very helpful Warne representative - Dave.  I think that he likely answered the question - the tinking may well result from the Warne's cross key (for those unfamiliar with Warnes, they are Weaver-style mounts that use a steel key, instead of the standard cross-screw, to engage the base's mounting slot) moving within the base cutout or slot.  If the rings are not pressed forward while mounting, the key will remain loose enough to make this sound.

 

Dolphin, this perfectly addresses one portion of your question - the tinking sound does occur with the scope off.  However, only when in the rings.  The tinking then is significantly louder and obviously not coming from within the scope, and I didn't put two and two together (and, of course, I was assuming that the tinking resulted from torque being applied by the mounting process).  Also, if the scope is not in the rings, or if it is in the rings and I'm holding the ring keys, it makes no sound.  So, I am fairly confident that the tinking will be solved by assuring that I press the rings fully forward while remounting the scope (although the last time I remounted the scope, I rotated the rifle and listened carefully after tightening each screw, and the tinking did not reappear until I tightened the final two top screws on the front ring).

 

Unfortunately, the front base screws stripped when I loosened them prior to my original post.  I am now awaiting a new set from Warne.  I was upset with myself, and didn't understand how this occurred, since I was using their torque wrench to mount the rings and bases.  Well, I learned yesterday that the original shipment of wrenches was erroneously set at 31lbs., not the intended 25lbs.  The Warne tech told me that screws tightened to this degree could bugger up when trying to remove them.  Fortunately, despite the overtightening of all of my ring screws, there has been no kinking or marring of either of my Warne-mounted scopes.  I expect to have a new torque wrench from Warne by the end of this month - they have not yet received the shipment of 25lb. wrenches.

 

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies.  If my problem is not solved, I'll be back!



Edited by trkyshootr
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 06:55
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
I am sorry I failed to mention the cross key in the rings.  I just assumed that you had them mounted in properly.  If not, they will definately make a tinking sound.  Rifledude made some good points about lapping rings.  But, what I have found about Warne rings and one of the reasons I continue to use them, is in the vertical plane, if tightened properly, the rings are self compensating and torqueinging the scope is not an issue in that most imprortant plane.  Being the compulsive person that I am, I have checked the diameters and measurment on all sets of rings and mounts I have received and found no variation.  Now that does not account for inaccuracies in measurements or internal ring valleys and peaks or rifle mount screw variations, but with the quality of the Warne product, I have never found the need to lap these rings for the above noted reasons and have found many a rifle to be almost bore sighted at the range, without having to do anything.  Now these were new high quality rifles, never tried them on older rifles.  If I were a gunsmith mounting a scope for you for money, I would lap every one.  Why, for two reasons.  One, ultimate perfection and more importantly, to avoid damaging your scope and having to pay for it, as the rings and bases I would be using would vary.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 10:45
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313
Originally posted by smitty smitty wrote:

The rings in that photo, do they align on the vertival plane? I can see they do on the horizontal.

 

That's a good question, Smitty.  I can't prove it one way or another, but I believe they do have a slight compensation in the vertical because of the opposing 2-point cone screw engagement of the ring studs, which should allow the rings to tilt ever so slightly (only a few 0.001" or so would be required) before one side of the rig shoulders up against the base.  As you said, they definitely self-align in the horizontal because the clamping groove encircles the entire ring stud o.d., allowing the ring to clamp in any rotational orientation.  I personally like the much simpler S&K design even better than the Conetrol design, except I believe the Conetrols are a little better finished than the S&Ks.  S&K seems to be one of the best kept secrets in scope rings, as they don't advertise very aggressively.

 

Back to the Warne rings... I can see where the cross pin could be the source of the sound you're hearing.  Regardless, I still think you have nothing to lose by lapping them.  Vertically split rings are a little more tricky to lap, but it can be done.  Regardless of how geometrically true a set of rings and bases are made, no fixed ring can compensate for slight misalignment in the receiver, and it doesn't take much misalignment to cause problems.

 

Good luck! 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 15:15
smitty View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice


Joined: January/29/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 103
trkyshootr, when I mount my leupold rings I make sure the front ring is tight toward the front and the rear tight toward the
rear. This way any horizontal movement is reduced and my scope should mount onto the rifle the same way each time I
do it.

It looks like you have it figured out.

Smitty
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 20:38
trkyshootr View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/05/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 22

I am embarrassed that I didn't earlier figure out the noted error in mounting as the potental problem, and appreciate the feedback.  I am certainly hopeful that after receiving the new torque wrench and base screws, and remounting properly, that the tinking will be a thing of the past.  Now, from all of the replies, a couple of interesting issues arise:

 

1.  Lapping vertically split rings.  I don't understand how this could be accomplished.  Unlike horizontally split rings that can maintain their relationship to one another from lapping to scope mounting, the vertically split rings require removal from the bases prior to the remounting of the scope.  If the rings' relationship isn't constant, is the desired result accomplishable?

 

2.  Smitty, your last comment, regarding pushing the front ring forward and the rear ring aft has me thinking.  With the Warne rings, I think that the tinking is solved equally by pushing the rings forward or rearward.  However, I'm guessing that Warne suggests pushing them both forward to prevent movement due to recoil.  Have you ever found the rear ring sliding forward at all?

 

Again, thanks to all for your informative comments.

(Also, the S&K have really piqued my interest for use in the future, and I'm going to read up on them.)



Edited by trkyshootr
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 21:51
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
I am not sure what you mean by pushing the rings forward or backward.  With the bases there is only one way to inserst the rings.  Now you can reverse the Warne bases to take advantage of scope mounting options, but inserting the rings is a fixed option.  One position.  Another question I have to ask, is how are the S and K mounts self compensating.  The from and back mounts have windage screws, but I am not sure how that counts for self compensation.  They appear to be dovetail inserts, which I absolutely ahbor from the stand point of physics, as with recoil, especially on high power rifles the torque on the "loose" end of the dovetail is transferred to the scope, putting the stress on the tube of the scope.  I have not seen a failure due to this, but the physics involved, drives me nuts.  For lower power rifles, it does not bother me as much.  The dovetail mount can serve as self-compensating, but only to a point.  If the mounting screws on the receiver are that screwed up and the scope has to be compensated beyond the turning point of the dovetail, then you are out of room and screwed as well with other mounting systems.  Fortunately, most scopes are forgiving, as there are a lot of hunters shooting with cheapo scopes, shooting alot of deer, without missing and mounting their own scopes and have now idea what anyone on this forum is talking about.  But for us, its fun and intellectually stimulating and of course trying this new techniques on our rifles is one way of seeing if they work and more importantly, getting us out there shooting.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/14/2007 at 23:07
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

Of course you can lap Warne rings and then take it down and set i up again.

If the ring before the lapping was pointing 1 degree to the left it will of course point forward in angle with the other ring after the lap, regardless of the dismounting.

 

I am not interested in S&K or control rings.

I don't like the idea at all to have the small set screws to keep the rings togehter.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2007 at 06:24
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
If you have never mounted Warne mounts and rings, then you do not understand why lapping is not necessary.  With the vertical set-up, after you place the scope in the rings, there is provided, probably 5 degrees of latitude of lateral play, depending on how you tighten down the screws.  Therefore, it is essential to tighten the screws properly.  You can lap the rings all day long and if you do not tighten the screws properly, you still have an error in the mounting.  As I have previously said, scopes are very forgiving in these cases.  I have seen many a yahoo mount a scope and I have yet to see one destroyed by torque.  Maybe one or two crushed, but not by torque.  In a way, the vertical set-up could theoretically be used to correct for any misalignment of the receiver scope mounting base mounting screws, or as you would say and I would have to agree, go to the Burris rings with the off-set inserts.

Edited by Dolphin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2007 at 06:27
trkyshootr View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/05/2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 22

Dolphin, The only thing that I may have done incorrectly while mounting the rings was fail to push them forward within the base slots.  The base slots are wider, from front to back, than is the thickness of the rings' locking keys.  It was explained to me by the Warne tech that the rings need to be pushed forward in the base slots before securing the rings.  Otherwise, there will be enough looseness at their junction to allow the key to 'tink' inside the base slot.

 

If Smitty was referencing the base mounting, and reversing the bases to widen and maximize the space between the rings, I also do that - it seems as the scope is then better supported along its length.

 

Rootman, I am surprised that many professionals use Weaver-style rings with simple cross screws on their big game rifles.  To me (and I suggest no knowlege; admittedly speaking as a layman here) it seems that a dual-dovetail setup would be the strongest, but allow for less (no) adjustment.  Then, the Redfield-style seems to offer versatility if not as much strength.  And, in a Weaver mount, the Warne appears to be the strongest incarnation, with the solid steel locking key used in lieu of a screw (about which, I've read in several reviews, people have turned the head off while mounting).  If it turns out that the Warne tech's suggestion does not solve my problem, I will almost certainly use a Signature ring, the question then being whether to use the Zee style with the Warne bases, or to use Redfield style bases and Signature rings.

 

Thanks again to all.



Edited by trkyshootr
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/15/2007 at 11:11
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14313

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

If you have never mounted Warne mounts and rings, then you do not understand why lapping is not necessary.  With the vertical set-up, after you place the scope in the rings, there is provided, probably 5 degrees of latitude of lateral play, depending on how you tighten down the screws.  Therefore, it is essential to tighten the screws properly.  You can lap the rings all day long and if you do not tighten the screws properly, you still have an error in the mounting.  As I have previously said, scopes are very forgiving in these cases.  I have seen many a yahoo mount a scope and I have yet to see one destroyed by torque.  Maybe one or two crushed, but not by torque.  In a way, the vertical set-up could theoretically be used to correct for any misalignment of the receiver scope mounting base mounting screws, or as you would say and I would have to agree, go to the Burris rings with the off-set inserts.

 

Have to strongly disagree.  I've mounted quite a few Warne rings on rifles, and in some cases, regardless of what you may have been told, yes lapping is sometimes necessary.  First, scopes are not forgiving of misalignment.  The amount of misalignment in the system translates directly into scope tube bending, resulting in W/E correction or misaligned lenses, which can result in poor image quality.  At best, it can mar the scope tube.  Second, the vertically split rings actually have very little, if any vertical compliance because they have dovetail line contact on both sides, which pulls the rings down against the base.  The scope tube will bend slightly before the rings cock on the bases.  Third, even if this ring design did allow for compensation in the vertical plane, it doesn't in the horizontal plane, which is what you'd have with misaligned receiver screw holes.  Scope mounts can be made to extremely tight production tolerances, but they are still subject to how true the receiver front to rear bridge surfaces and screw alignment is manufactured to.  Fourth, even though it's true that if you install then remove rings, you aren't in exactly the same alignment as when they were lapped, you get darn close as long as you keep the ring halves in the same location front to back and side to side because at least one side of the rings maintains a fixed relationship to the base when installed.  Lapping will still remove gross misalignment problems even if you have slight variations when detached and reinstalled.  Case in point, with a setup I put together a year ago, involving a very high quality rifle (Cooper M21) and Warne rings, lapping was the only way I was able to get the rifle zeroed without using up all the left windage adjustment the Swaro PH 6-24X50 scope had!  This particular scope, though extremely nice, has only 2.1' of windage compensation at 100yds.  So, the rings aren't necessarily at fault if you have misalignment, and the price and quality level of the rifle isn't necessarily an indication of whether or not you will have misalignment in the screw holes or receiver mating surfaces.  Warne rings are very well-made, but they cannot compensate for misaligned receivers, affecting the horizontal plane.

 

As for the S&K mount questions, yes they have set screws, but the set screws are only used to squeeze the rings together.  Once the ends of the rings are squeezed together, the halves form a round ring stud.  This ring stud bears the recoil against the i.d. of the bases, not the screws.  The rings have horizontal compliance front to back because the round ring studs are able to rotate in the bases to conform to the scope tube orientation.  The setscrews used are coned type, and the ring studs have angled grooves to match the taped setscrew points and pull the rings into the bases.  This angled groove goes around the entire o.d. of the ring studs, so the cone screws in the base always lock into the ring stud groove in the center of the diameter regardless of slight rotational variation to compensate for horizontal misalignment.  The 1 piece rings with only 1 vertical split when closed means no screws in the rings themselves to strip out or fail.  It's a very strong, rigid setup.  Hope my description makes sense; it's easier to describe in person than in writing.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  1 2>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Two-piece bases - Scope torque?"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
Best, most HD two-piece scope bases Billy7 Rings and bases 16
One Piece / Two Piece Bases? Oculus Capitalis Tactical Scopes 2
One piece or Two pice or all in one scope bases flcooler Rifle Scopes 11
One Piece v’s Two Piece Scope Mounts 8shots Rings and bases 2 10/8/2007 6:03:08 PM
Two Piece Bases TPS_Phil Rings and bases 1 2/8/2007 10:49:08 PM
Bedding two-piece rings tsvalli Rings and bases 4
two scopes / two eyes / too funny Rich Coyle Rifle Scopes 63
Bedding 2-piece base on Rem 700 LA dpilot83 Rings and bases 0
Rail, 1 Piece, or base/rings? wamshane Rings and bases 7
2 piece base bedding mil169 Rings and bases 16


This page was generated in 0.360 seconds.