Rifle Scopes American Rifle Company does it again!!!

[bohem]

<span style="font-weight: bold">American Rifle Company Rings – Generation 3 Review:</span>

So, long story short, I have 2 Razor HD’s and I needed some good rings to put them both in. It’s no secret that I really like the American Rifle Company M3 rings (ARC) rings. From the results of my own T&E testing and my profession as an aerospace structures engineer I believe them to be a superior design from the traditional and flawed ring design. As a competitive shooter if I’m going to be serious about competition and willing to spend the money on high end optics then the right rings are part of the equation in my view.

Given that nothing is ever perfect I’ve heard from users in response to my earlier review of ARC rings that sometimes (depending on the actual tube size) the M3 rings (single hinge pin) would make the scope roll slightly during final tightening. I had good luck using feeler gauges to stop the roll but some other users reported that it wasn’t solving the issue for them.

ARC’s owner (Ted) was aware of the issues that shooters reported and was working on a solution.

As luck would have it, Ted had finished a set of the new design and so I have the chance to compare the new generation of ARC with the previous version on the rifle as well.

I wasn't in a huge hurry for a second set (considering that I'd spent a big pile of cash building two complete, full custom rifles this year) so waiting a couple weeks to get some new and improved product in hand was a reasonable wait for me.

Here are the specs for the primary test rifle:

• BigHorn Arms, Short Action Lefty cut for AICS mags
• Manners T4 with mini-chassis
• Shilen #7 contour 8tw 6.5mm barrel finished at 21.81” from breech-face to crown
• LR-Accuracy “F-Class” Bipod
• TacOps stock pack with foam cheek piece riser underneath
• Hornady brass and 140 Amax’s shooting 41.9gr of H4350 at 2.810” OAL
• 20 MOA BigHorn base
• Razor HD with EBR-1 (MOA/MOA setup) and ARC Rings

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 1 – Test rifle with both sets of rings and both scopes</span>

The goal was to do a somewhat unconventional evaluation on the ARC rings.

Verify that the new rings from ARC don’t roll the scope during tightening (the first set does roll both Razor optics).
Verify the Return to Zero (RTZ) qualities of the ARC design - New and Old Gen
Validate that the ARC rings don’t mark up the tubes no matter how tight the screws are set.
Validate that the ARC rings don’t slip on the tube under heavy recoil.

I used a plumb bob hanging from a door frame and a machinist level across the rail to level out the scopes before torquing them down. Once they were torqued to the recommended spec I then re-checked the reticle alignment to the plumb bob string.

Generation 2 Rings – Appx 0.5 degrees of roll towards the cap tension screws
Generation 3 Rings – No perceptible roll in either direction

The initial field trial was to shoot a set of 3 shots, removing the scope between each shot, so I did something somewhat unorthodox. I took each scope and zero’d it at 100yd and designated them A and B. Scope A I shot to a zero, scope B I shot dialed slightly off zero to get a second group nearby.

Scope A = Gen 1 ocular, Gen 3 rings
Scope B = Gen 2 ocular, Gen 2 rings

Then I simply pulled out 6 rounds and started with Scope A. Fired a round, swapped to scope B, fired a round, swapped back to Scope A, etc for all 6 rounds (3 shots with each scope).

Then I dialed Scope B back to zero and started with Scope B (since it was still on the rifle from the last test) and fired a shot with B, swapped and fired a shot with A. I did this for a total of 4 rounds.

The result is in Fig 2 below. There are 3 groups of shots and a notation in the image to each group size and which scope was used in each group.

Individually each scope had RTZ performance that is impressive for a rifle platform in and of itself, let alone when the glass is taken on and off between each shot. The group fired with 2 different scopes that have 2 slightly different zeroes was still inside of ½ MOA.

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 2 – Groups fired at 100yd</span>


The last RTZ test was to perform the same test at 400yd. I pulled out 7 rounds, starting with Scope A and fired 1 round on a steel plate to verify the dope would be close. I then fired 1 from Scope A, 1 from Scope B, 1 from A, 1 from B, etc. se Figs 2a/2b below.

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 3a – Scope B group fired from 400yd</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 2b – Scope A group fired from 400yd</span>

I used different target dots since I can’t see bullet holes from that distance and I didn’t want to run down after each shot. Note that the elevation of the relative groups against the corresponding target dot is effectively the same. Those dots are 1 inch, the lasered distance to the target face is 407yd.

To test the “superior grip” claim I put the new ocular Razor and Gen 3 rings onto my Savage 300 WSM hunting rifle, it weighs (with the scope) 8.2lbs and I fired 25 rounds at varying torque levels measured the ring to turret spacing after each shot.

First 3 rounds, torque the screws to 20 in-lbs
Next 3, 18 in-lbs
Next 3, 15 in-lbs
Next 5, 12 in-lbs
Next 5, 10 in-lbs - on shot # 4 here I noticed that the scope started to slip in the ring.

I popped the ring caps up and was pleased to see that there are absolutely no marks on the tube.

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 3a – Gen 3 forward ring, notice no scratches or ring marks</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 3b – Gen 3 aft ring, notice no scratches or ring marks</span>

I realigned the scope and then tightened the rings to 12 in-lbs and fired the rest of the 25 rd (another10 rounds) and saw no motion in the witness marks.

The Gen 2 rings have shown great results with fantastic traction on the scope tube without causing ring marks as well. Note Figs 3c/3d below.

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 3c – Gen 2 aft ring</span>

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 3d – Gen 2 forward ring</span>

Next check was to over-torque them and see what happened. My torque wrench only goes to 50 inlbs so that’s what I worked up to. By 50 in-lbs I found nothing to show any issues with marking the tube up. The parallax and turrets still moved on the Razor without issue and functioned without issue. I bolted the scope back onto the 6.5 CM and performed an abbreviated ladder test at 0, + 15, +30, +15, 0 for 5 rounds and it had no issues.

<span style="font-style: italic">Figure 4 – Over-torqued ring travel test</span>

The ARC rings were excellent in the Gen 2 configuration and I expected nothing less when I
received the Gen 3 prototypes. Everything that they claim to do just happens. The return to zero is fantastic, the scope grip is exceptional, they don’t mark up the tubes, at all. One particular feature of this design apart from eliminating the scope roll is the fact that they give the best level of grip of all rings with the least amount of torque required. This is effective engineering at work. They just plain work like a scope ring should.

I have now had Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 3 rings. I thought the first ones did great and was pleased with them. As the product maturity grows they get even better and I continue to be impressed with the technical innovation, quality and craftsmanship coming out of ARC.

 

[jeo556]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Thanks for the review and write up. Any way we could see some additional pics of the new gen 3 rings? Thanks in advance

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I can do that, probably I can upload them in the morning.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Fact based, evidence presented and logical, thorough methodology, a fantastic review, thank you and looking forward to more reviews from you.

I don't know what I'm more impressed with - the fact that the scope shifted only on the 4th shot at 10 in-lbs on that light rifle or that you cranked it up to 50 in-lbs with no bad effect at all...

I'd be interested in a side by side comparison of similar testing against Badger, Leupold and Seekins rings...

 

[DPontius]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

great review, I have the gen2 rings on my razor and you just made me want the gen3s...thanks haha

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Here's a couple more pics of the rings as requested. Unfortunately the flash in the second photo threw off the coloring.

The annodizing is consistent, contrary to what that flash-illuminated photo says.

 

[tt350z]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Very nice!

I own the Gen 2 and have been extremely happy with them, These look great!

 

[head2h2o]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I definitely like the way these mount better than the Gen 2 models.

 

[jonaddis84]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Is he replacing the Gen 2 with these, or are they going to both be offered? Just curious

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jonaddis84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is he replacing the Gen 2 with these, or are they going to both be offered? Just curious </div></div>

He's going to be replacing them. I'm going to keep the Gen2 pair that I have for my .22 and get the Gen3 for my TacOps Tango-51.

I love the split ring design of the new gen3, maintains the ultra low profile and yet improves on the previous gen. Love it!

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Yes, the Gen 2's are being phased out to fix the concerns that the old hinge design can cause scope roll/misalignment during tightening.

 

[karagias]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Thank you Bohem for an excellent review and for posting some really nice photographs. I'd also like to thank the users here on the Hide for expressing the opinions. My designs are definitely customer driven. Although the scope roll issue could be dealt with using the feeler gage method to intall the scope, I don't believe that the customer should be asked to deal with anything. The pursuit of comprehensive solutions to problems will always be a maxim at American Rifle Company.

Since the concerns about scope roll expressed on the Hide prompted me to find a solution to the problem, I find it fitting that I share some of what I have learned during the development of the gen 3 rings with Hide members. So at the risk of boring you, here goes.

Forces acting in directions that are tangent to the scope tube and that are asymmetrically applied about a vertical plane will cause a scope to role within the ring. Since the best solution to the problem is one that eliminates the cause of the problem, I realized that changing the scope clamp so as to impart loads to the scope tube symmetrically about the vertical plane should solve the problem. This would eliminate the tendency for the scope tor roll. The forces themselves could not be eliminated, at least not in a practical sense, as they are ultimately the result of the ring stretching around the scope as the clamping forces are applied. The clamping forces are obviously necessary to hold the scope in place.

Once the ring was designed, some prototyping and testing was in order. A receiver was placed in a vise and an SB 5-25 was placed in the rings. Gen 2 rings were used as a baseline. The position of the scope was monitored using two test indicators. Upon tightening the screws, average baseline rotation was approximately 0.47 degrees with a standard deviation of about .06. I'm not sure how Bohem measured 5 degrees but I suspect he forgot a decimal point.

Average Gen 3 rotation was 0.02 degrees with a standard deviation of .03. Since the standard deviation is about the same size as the average measured value, rotation is essentially zero. The scope and rings undergo a change in shape as the clamping loads are applied because the aluminum alloys from which they are constructed are elastic materials. The indicators measure this change so completely isolating rotation can be tricky. I think it's safe to say that the scope will not undergo perceptible rotation when clamped within the American Rifle's Gen 3 rings.

Also worth noting is that the Gen 3 obliquely split ring actually distributes the clamping forces about the tube and maintains the circularity of the tube better than Gen 2. This was an unexpected but welcome discovery.

Complete gen 3 details will soon be available at www.AmericanRifle.com.

Thanks again to Bohem for his review and to the Hide members for their input.

 

[jeo556]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

ETA for the Gen 3 rings at your distributors? I have a set of Gen 2 rings on order from SWFA but if the Gen 3 will be available soon I'd rather have them. Thanks for the great work and the complete paradigm shift in ring design.

 

[SniperCJ]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...from the traditional and flawed ring design.</div></div>

What is flawed about 'traditional' rings. Keep in mind I'm *not* a professional aerospace structures engineer...

It IS an interesting ring design tho.

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I think they're flawed in the way that Return to Zero is handled and the split clamp design is largely ignorant of the stiffness of the structure for clamping forces.

Deflection and load path are a pair of considerations that I see largely unaccounted for in many firearms products.

Short of calling out specific manufacturers I'll try to explain what I'm seeing in other designs:

The split cap design has a tendency to induce a cap bending moment that then drives the corners of the cap into scope tube even when "properly tightened with a torque wrench". It is a physical trait of that design, the question is how much torque the cap requires before damaging the scope tube.

This is highly apparent in the rings that PawPrint liked to bandy around about 3 months back. A lightweight, low stiffness split ring cap will have a issues with ring marks and also grip. The cap corner issue reduces the contact with the scope tube and the rest of the ring cap, so the overall grip level is reduced for a given torque capability.

ARC's design is dependent upon the cap wrapping around the tube and acting like a strap wrench. When the cap screws are tightened down the cap wraps around the tube and acts much like a strap wrench but the cap screws are arranged tangentially without a radial offset. This means that there is no moment induced to drive the corner of the cap into the tube.

I think that there is a solution to the split cap design and the AADMOUNT that JonA has is what I've seen in the traditional cap design that mitigates the induced moment issue. The moment is not neutralized or removed, but the cap stiffness issue is addressed to reduce the amount that the scope cap corner is driven into scope tube.

It is very common to hear about scopes sliding in the rings on big caliber rifles but without intentionally under-tightening the rings with a heavy precision rifle scope I haven't seen the ARC design show sliding tendencies.

I don't know how JonA's design will handle the grip level test that I performed on the ARC rings with my 300 WSM.

The one thing that I've seen with ARC that nobody else is willing to compare to though, is the return to zero properties.

Ted has a patent on his "crowned rail" interface that is the key to the RTZ performance with these rings. From the pictures I showed in testing above, these not only RTZ "within X MOA" but rather within the repeatability of the rifle itself.

ETA: I checked back through the spreadsheet I used for calculating the roll angle of the scope, I had "18/pi" instead of "180/pi", which was the decimal place discrepancy that Ted called out. I will update the comments above to correct the issue.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Just an FYI,

Lately i have been moving a ton of scopes around and I have found it is more the scope that causes the marks than the rings, at least lately.

Having 3 different scopes in the same rings, I noticed "marks" on the Steiner here and no marks on the Leupold or S&B in the same rings. So the question would be the consistency and level of coating on the scope body.

I have also noted that with scopes with a heavy finish, like the Premiers or the Steiner that these scopes have more of a tendency to move than other scopes, like my S&B scopes in the same rings.

I am sure there is something to the rings, but having used what I would consider better than most in the ring department, the scope has just as much if not more of an impact than the rings themselves.

Not trying to take away from the rings, I think the design above is unique, but until you start looking at other scopes and situations, I don't think you can draw the conclusions you have. I would say, measuring scope tubes would be something to consider.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just an FYI,

Lately i have been moving a ton of scopes around and I have found it is more the scope that causes the marks than the rings, at least lately.

Having 3 different scopes in the same rings, I noticed "marks" on the Steiner here and no makes on the Leupold or S&B in the same rings. So the question would be the consistency and level of coating on the scope body.

I have also noted that with scopes with a heavy finish, like the Premiers or the Steiner that these scopes have more of a tendency to move than other scopes, like my S&B scopes in the same rings.

I am sure there is something to the rings, but having used what I would consider better than most in the ring department, the scope has just as much if not more of an impact than the rings themselves.

Not trying to take away from the rings, I think the design above is unique, but until you start looking at other scopes and situations, I don't think you can draw the conclusions you have. I would say, measuring scope tubes would be something to consider. </div></div>

I can see what you're talking about Frank.... SWFA SS, the old designs anyway, seem to mark pretty bad, but USOs don't....hmmm

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Frank-

I noticed that the scopes that I have which showed "roll" during tightening were all several thousandths over the nominal size. The two razors that this test was done with are 35.05mm and 35.06mm. The NF that I found to roll is 30.04mm and it has some nasty ring marks on it from the previous owner.

I have 2 other NF's that don't roll; one is 29.98mm and the other is 30.00mm on the money.

I don't doubt that the scope tube size has an influence on the marks and the deformation seen with turrets and parallax not working right.

I don't have enough scopes at my disposal to really flesh out the theory but I agree that the rings aren't the only part of the equation.

So, yes, I agree with you that the scope tube is important too. I'm sure you have more available optics and rings at your disposal than I do, short of someone sending me 30g's of scopes and rings I don't think I'll be able to further the tests out to give a concise answer to your points.

I can provide the tube sizes on my scopes for you if you can do the rest of the testing to look for further information.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I just looked and I have two older S&B here on hand, they are both 33.98 with no marks, and the Steiner is looking like it is 34.03 and it has displayed a tendency towards marks. I also have a NF right here, that is 30.26 -- so clearly there is something to this.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

So to Ted's point of creating a comprehensive solution, the ideal rings would be ones where the scope is held firmly and undamaged regardless of the dimensions (within reason of course) of the tube - yes?

This variability of tube diameter reminds me of the RTZ point Bohem made about the rail crowns - they are there to take into account variability of rail specs and ensure RTZ.

 

[karagias]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Lowlight,

You're definitely on to something here but it is important to look at things from my perspective. I chose to solve problems associated with scope mounting. I do not have control of products manufactured by other companies so I am forced to design a ring that will perform well with as many different scopes as possible and preferably all of them.

Tube diameters, wall thickness, the type of aluminum used to construct the tube, surface preparation, and the anodizing process all vary between manufacturers. Additionally, similar variations associated with rings, variations associated with rails, straightness in particular, and variations from person to person in techniques used to install scopes within rings further complicate the problem.

My rings look the way they do in order to deal with the variables listed above and for other reasons. The focus during design has always been controlling loads by cleverly shaping the ring components. I did not design a ring that that will not damage your scope. I designed a ring that will not damage anyone's scope which stems from a completely different problem statement.

Are all rings manufactured by others inadequate? That depends on your perspective. As a user, you may find a combination of rings, scope, etc. that seems to work and I suppose you could then call those rings adequate. But the manufacturer of those rings has undoubtedly supplied them to someone for whom they did not work and for that reason, and from my perspective as a manufacturer, I would consider the rings to be inadequate.

The demands placed on the manufacturer by himself should be far more stringent than any one customer can place on him. Sadly, this is not the case with the majority of manufacturers in the firearms industry. In my humble opinion, most peddle what I can only describe as amateur and thoughtless contrivances which have oozed from the heads of people unaware of the discipline called engineering.

As stated in my previous post, the pursuit of comprehensive solutions to problems will always be a maxim at American Rifle Company. The solutions are engineered. And with that I would like to send you a pair of rings to test for yourself. Worst case scenario is that you will love them. Best case scenario is that you will find something wrong with them in which case I will improve the design in response.

Height and diameter?

 

[Jon A]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The one thing that I've seen with ARC that nobody else is willing to compare to though, is the return to zero properties. </div></div>
I certainly would be. Would you like a pair to test? For more of a challenge, in addition to your standard test you could try one without a torque wrench (or better yet purposely varied torque values) to simulate less than ideal field conditions. That was an important design condition for my rings.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know how JonA's design will handle the grip level test that I performed on the ARC rings with my 300 WSM. </div></div>
I'm sure they'd do just fine, go ahead and test that too.

In addition, I wouldn't mind seeing more of an ultimate grip/strength test while you're at it, such as torquing down a steel bar and hitting it forward with a sledge until something breaks. I can even provide the steel bar....

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Hi Jon-

Yes, I'd be happy to test your rings, I'll get you a PM with the address to send them to.

I can do a test that purposely varies the torque levels, however I'd propose to use a torque wrench at specifically set (and varying) levels for repeatability from set to set.

I'd be willing to hammer on something until it slips/slides/breaks/etc. but I won't do it on top of one of my rifles or with rings that I have to keep/pay for due to obvious reasons. Let's figure out a standardized test to check less than optimal field conditions and loose caps and I'll run the test through.

Can you supply a steel or AL solid bar that clamps into my bench vise and has a P-rail cut into the top of it?

The steel bar would work for a destructive test, however I don't think that it's going to show much in terms of marking up a tube. I have a neighboring company that does a lot of AL parts, I'll reach out to them and see if I can get them to throw in some test tubes to work with as a simulated scope tube.

 

[karagias]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Bohem,

please let me know if you need anything from me for testing purposes.

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Will do, thanks.


ETA: If there are any other ring manufacturers that would like to take part, I can roll more products in and video the test. More people at the party makes more fun.

 

[flounderv2]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Great review. Cant wait to get a set!

 

[Lowlight]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

if you guy were slick, I would get a hold of USO or something to see if they would offer up a blank 30mm tube or something, that you can beat on, (no internals) and then get a rejected pic rail you can use to mount to solid block that can be put in a vise.

I would also include their rings.

Just a thought

 

[jonaddis84]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

This shit just got real interesting!

Bohem, I assume you guys have a tensile/compressive testing machine, I somehow dont see you using a sledgehammer to test these things!

There are so many variables here to test, you are going to need to narrow it down to the most important ones. I dont think its necessary to break anything, as 99.9999% of customers will never come close to being able to break a set of rings. But the ultimate holding strength at the specified torque value would be an interesting number to see.

Cant wait to see some results, as an Engineer, I like my ARC rings mostly because they actually do look like they were Engineered and they are, not just a modified copy of the original.

If someone has an old steel picatinny rail they want to send me I can TIG it onto a large chunk of steel for a test rail. I was thinking Id do that with my old Millet rail, but that POS doesnt even have MIL-STD slot gaps so that wouldnt do much good.

 

[karagias]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

At Shot 2011, I used 30mm anodized aluminum tubes to demo the rings. Rings were torqued to 50 in-lbs over and over and over again without ever leaving a mark on the tube. I wanted to do the same with a competitors product but he smartly designed his screws to strip at about 30 in-lbs of torque. I should have brought replacement screws with me.

I would also use a Leupold 40X benchrest scope to test for ring marks. I need to cut that thing in half and measure the wall thickness as it seemed unusually easy to damage which made it a pretty good test specimen.

Jonnaddis84 hit the nail on the head with his comments. Bohem can't possibly conduct a comprehensive test of all the top brand rings on the market. It's just too much work and it will get expensive. Ultimate holding at specified torque normalized for the different types of screws used by various manufacturers sounds fun. What about testing for ring marks on actual scopes? I'll gladly subject my S&Bs to 50 in-lbs using my new Gen 3s.

 

[SniperCJ]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jonaddis84</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...as an Engineer, I like my ARC rings mostly because they actually do look like they were Engineered...</div></div>

That says so much in so little space...

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Ted, do you have more of those 30mm blank tubes? Can you send me a couple to beat up? The specs on the tube would be good too, this way I can publish them along with the rest of the test.

 

[Jon A]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can do a test that purposely varies the torque levels, however I'd propose to use a torque wrench at specifically set (and varying) levels for repeatability from set to set.</div></div>
Yeah, what I was getting at is testing for the return to zero’s sensitivity to the torque values. The worst case scenario is a user in the field who is in a hurry using a little wrench and puts a different torque value on the front ring than the rear. How much (if any) POI change that would cause compared with the reverse torque values or both rings being torqued correctly would be very useful information. Rings that do well in that test should ace any test.

Don’t get me wrong, testing for repeatability when perfectly torqued the same every time is also useful information for range use under controlled conditions, it just doesn’t tell the whole story.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be willing to hammer on something until it slips/slides/breaks/etc. but I won't do it on top of one of my rifles or with rings that I have to keep/pay for due to obvious reasons. </div></div>
Heh, I don’t blame you. Once you start swinging the mini-sledge like you mean it the rail will go flying off the rifle pretty quickly. Ask me how I know…. Don’t worry about my rings though, you won’t be able to hurt them.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can you supply a steel or AL solid bar that clamps into my bench vise and has a P-rail cut into the top of it?</div></div>
Lately I’ve just been using a chunk of Mould’s AL picatinny stock available from Brownell’s. It’s not ideal (hard to keep it from sliding in the vice under sever blows) and the machining isn’t that great but it works. In the past I used some cheaper stuff (both in testing and on-rifle) without full width slots I think I got from ebay or somewhere. The reason I like to use aluminum—and rails without full width slots--is again to test for the worst case scenario as some customers will have cheap, soft rails on their rifles. If the rings damage the rail, that is a type of failure as well. Neither of these rings should damage the rail so it’s not a big worry, but if you are able to include some other brands of rings there are certainly some out there that will.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have a neighboring company that does a lot of AL parts, I'll reach out to them and see if I can get them to throw in some test tubes to work with as a simulated scope tube….The specs on the tube would be good too, this way I can publish them along with the rest of the test. </div></div>
Most “real” (as opposed to hunting scopes with turrets) tactical scopes I’d expect to be in the .100” wall thickness range. I seem to remember reading somewhere (but can’t find it now) that NF tubes were something like .150”. Maybe Paul from Premier or one of the USO guys who hang out here could give us some guidance as to what would be a realistic representative example 30mm tactical scope tube.

A couple things about using the aluminum tubes—if unfinished the cf may be significantly different than an anodized tube giving a different result in grip tests, though the same can be said for polished steel bars—they seem pretty slick. You can still get good comparative results though.

Also for ultimate strength tests an aluminum tube just won’t hack it unless you figure out a way to be more elegant than I in applying the shock loads—I’ve mushroomed the end of a solid steel bar from pounding on it and still have yet to do any sort of damage to one of my rings. You’d need to apply the load to an aluminum tube in a much more controlled manor to keep from destroying it quickly.

And of course a bare tube will get marked up ring mark-wise much more easily than a hard anodized tube.

In testing for ring marks, I’d suggest scaling it based upon actual performance of the rings in the grip test. Whatever minimum torque value a ring requires to reach a certain level of grip, multiply that by a factor of safety (3, 4, 5, or whatever) and check for ring marks at that level. You can certainly crush the life out of a scope with my rings (I’ve tested the cap screws up to 80 lb-in with no damage to the rings) but when they grip so well at low torque values there’s no reason you’d ever do that.

I hope you can test some other brands of rings for more of a real-world baseline. I expect both our rings to do so well on all the tests the results may have little perspective unless compared with other rings that don’t fair so well. I could send you some other brands that I own personally, but that probably wouldn’t be kosher, or at least the other ring manufacturers may not think so as they may not want to be compared in the test.

I do think that would be better than just a two brand runoff though, that wasn’t really my intent. I usually completely stay out of threads about competing products, but since you mentioned my rings by name and wondered out loud how they would do, I figured there wouldn’t be anything wrong with stepping up to a challenge.

 

[koshkin]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Interesting thread.

I have used Jon's Aadmounts quite extensively during the last several months and I am very impressed with them. More recently I spent some time with a set of his new rings and they work very well also. As far as return to zero goes, it has been exemplary for both single piece bases and rings.

I have never used the ARC rings, but the design looks interesting. Perhaps, for the next article I'll try to get my hands on a set.

ILya

 

[2brothers641]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Hell ILya, if i had the extra cash I would buy a set of ARC just to send to you. Your reviews are top of the line with no bias. I truly hope you get a set to test as I am anxious to hear your review.

 

[EventHorizon]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I think what we're seeing is a new level of testing of equipment. It's no longer the rather vague 'good to go' and 'just shoot' commentary but actual point-for-point comparisons of functionally relevant criteria.

In regards to bias, or lack thereof, that's determined by the transparency of the methodology and completeness of the evidence presented. It seems between Bohem and Ilya we're going to have rings and optics covered!

 

[koshkin]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 2brothers641</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hell ILya, if i had the extra cash I would buy a set of ARC just to send to you. Your reviews are top of the line with no bias. I truly hope you get a set to test as I am anxious to hear your review. </div></div>

No worries.

I'll get my hands on them when I have an opportunity for the next test. I generally do not test mounts per se, but as I test scopes, they get moved around so much that it turns out to be a pretty decent test for repeatability of the rings.

ILya

 

[ssgtkyle]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most “real” (as opposed to hunting scopes with turrets) tactical scopes I’d expect to be in the .100” wall thickness range. I seem to remember reading somewhere (but can’t find it now) that NF tubes were something like .150”. Maybe Paul from Premier or one of the USO guys who hang out here could give us some guidance as to what would be a realistic representative example 30mm tactical scope tube.</div></div>

Hi guys,

Interesting post going on here. Our wall thickness is .090 at its thinnest point and as far as I know it's the thickest in the industry. Our coating is a true mil-spec coating type 3 hard annodizing MIL STD A-8625-F. Others may use something different and that could be causing the "ring marks".

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Kyle, can you tell us the alloy you're using too?

I spoke to Meopta about 6 months back and they said that they're using 6061 but I don't remember the T series on it.

 

[D.A.T]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Cant wait to see the final results of this beata'thon

 

[DWood]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

While this really has turned into an interesting discussion, I don't think any of it is a game changer for me. What I mean is all of the quality rings and mounts I have run on quality scopes have met my needs and I don't need to get so technical.

But that's just me. I'm not an engineer or professional shooter (LE, instructor, or whatever). I just like to shoot good rifles sporting good glass.

Badger, Seekins, USO, American Defense,and Larue have all worked for my needs in different applications. If they had technical shortcomings, I was never aware of them or noticed any problem. I never really worried about ring marks, as I only considered the "damage" to be cosmetic (maybe I'm wrong). I learned here why they may occur.

I had heard about AAD and I like what I see on the website; I will try them in the future. I had never heard of ARC, but they look interesting and I'll try them too.

I will certainly follow the testing as it is interesting, but it seems a little too much info for a regular guy who just likes to shoot.

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Ring marks can range from cosmetic annoyances to causing internal damage that affects parallax, turret travel and turret repeatability.

Parallax is an especially common issue, so much that guys with parallax adjustment issues crop up here regularly and one of the common responses is to suggest moving their rings away from the turrets.

 

[jimdvt]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Great review. Can't wait to see the torture test. How long to gen3 roll out?

 

[karagias]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Gen 3 is available now but only through American Rifle. Retailers will receive stock soon. Contact me directly via email or PM if you're interested.

 

[3fingervic]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I see they're not pictured yet. Is the price still 199.99?

 

[shane45]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I truly commend the OP for allowing creative problem solving to flow outside the lines of conventional thinking. I like that a lot. But before we call conventional rings dead, there is a consideration worthy of discussion. There are manufacturers of conventional rings that precision bore them as a numbered matched set. In ring designs that appear like they are manufactured as seperate pieces, I would think that tool deflection, wear, etc etc can have an impact on variations from part to part compared to one hole precision bored through a matched pair at the same time.

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

Shane, I appreciate the kind words however these rings are not my brain child, I simply reviewed them as I have seen the product take shape over the last couple generations. The product solution credit belongs to Ted Karagias above.

In response to your comment about matched set rings, that is a good way to improve things. As I understand it Chimera does this and so does Badger. I'm sure others do as well but those are the two which I can recall from the top of my head.

One of the things that boring can't account for is out of round scope tubes. I didn't think about the circularity control until recently when Frank brought up the tube size and finish conditions and I started measuring more in depth.

The 2 Vortex Razors I have are close, but they're still out of round by appx 0.03mm, which is a little more than 0.001"

When you consider how hard it is to manufacture a long, thin walled tube this is pretty impressive. It is much easier to keep a set of rings to +/- 0.0003 than it is to make a thin walled tube (especially aluminum) stay round to within 0.001"

The general problem statement that rings manufacturers have to deal with is pretty tough. The environment they operate in is nasty on the bigger calibers, rails are often out of spec or lacking in spec, and the scope tube is relatively fragile when you consider everything else involved with a precision rifle platform.

 

[shane45]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I agree that tubes are a concern but their is little we can do about that right? I even seen a scope that must have been two piece construction because the tube in front was significantly different in od than the tube in back LOL. But in the end, holding as close to a perfect circle is the goal, when you have to make those parts individually, you are going to have tool deflection the deeper into the cut you go. I would think that when you precision bore the circle you are overcoming this as well as insuring alignment from one ring to the other.

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I have seen some 2 piece bodies that are way off, though I never checked my NF NXS's to see what the difference is (if any) there. I wouldn't be surprised to see a difference though. The more I look, the more I find that the scope bodies seem to be "out"...

Boring is going to promote consistency from ring to ring through many sets but it doesn't help the situation dealt from varying finishes, tube thicknesses, tube actual dimensions, circularity, etc.

So yes, I think you're right that the boring process promotes consistent circularity and if the ring bodies are indicated off of the rail interface then it would promote alignment with the rail (as best can be relied on with any specific rail).

I do think that the approach from ARC is novel because clearly the guy who designed them realizes the issues inherent to scope manufacturing and keeping things consistent and he sought to overcome those issues by ring design, as he mentioned above.

I'll shoot you a PM about location since you're potentially not that far from my AO.

 

[pawprint]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

What are the differences between gen 1, gen 2 and gen 3, are all three being offered for sale, or are then gen 1 and gen 2's being replaced by gen 3s? Is there a Gen 4 coming up, and if so will it be replacing gen 3, or offered " in addition to"?

 

[bohem]

Re: American Rifle Company does it again!!!

I don't know about Gen 4's, from what I understand the 3's are in response to customer feedback that the Gen 2's could cause scope roll issues.

Gen 1's and 2's are here for visual comparison to the Gen 3's you see in my pics above:

Gen 1 - My first set of ARC rings, c. July 2010

Gen 2 - From the ARC website

Gen 2 - My 35mm rings on my first Vortex Razor and my UGSW 911 Action, circa Feb 2011