Re: Base and Rings
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since YN took a bit of a beating on here about the comments above, I don't mean to jump in on the whipping, but here's an attempt to explain my reasoning from an engineer's perspective with the AL vs. Steel discussion.
The experience based on TPS rings is not uncommon to hear about here, I've seen it come back up a number of times in the past 2 years on the 'Hide. They had some serious problems with their Aluminum alloy rings.
Other ring manufacturers that have demonstrated a good product are mentioned above and also in my post further along...
I don't mean this to be a "you're an idiot" post, I'm trying to explain my reasoning and mean it as an explanation to many people, please don't take it as me picking on you directly. If you disagree or have more questions, please ask and I'll try to answer them, either here or via PM.
1) Al vs. Steel is hardly descriptive. Which AL alloy with which coating (or is it in the raw) and which steel alloy are you talking about?
2) I know of a very good set of rings that weighs 4 ounces in aluminum form. In steel, that exact same shape weighs about 10.5 ounces. So 2-3 ounces is really more like 8 ounces... yet the AL happens to be stronger and have higher surface contact stress capability than the average steel ring on the market.
Additionally, even if you had a 10 ounce set of steel rings and you added material to them so the Aluminum set weighed 7-8 ounces that's still a 20%-30% reduction in weight.
Take everything on the rifle and reduce it by 20-30% and the 17lb monster that is the M40A5 became a 13lb gun instead. THAT is a big difference. That's another 1/2 gal of water or a bunch more ammo that the Marine can ruck for an otherwise identical load out.
So let's go back to addressing point #1:
Aluminum and steel are both alloys in their generally consumed forms. You CAN get pure AL, but it's very soft and not particularly strong. When it's alloyed and solution hardened it becomes the "wonder material" without which the aerospace industry could not exist.
So let's compare the example of rings that I mentioned above: They're made by American Rifle Co. and it's 7075-T65 with a Mil-T spec thick, hard anodized finish. ARC is not the only company to make parts from this material, it just happens to be pertinent because I know what the 30mm low rings weigh off the top of my head as I just got a set. (<4 oz)
I know of no steel rings that are actually hardened, even if the ring is made from something like 4340.
Here's the yield allowables in 4340 soft state in steel vs. the Aluminum spec'd above (
www.matweb.com)
4340 = 68.2 ksi Yield
4340 = 0.284 lb/cu-in
7075-T65 = 68.9 ksi Yield
7075-T65 = 0.102 lb/cu-in
The hard anno coating on the AL gives it a surface contact stress in excess of 160ksi, and a localized yield of 90+ ksi.
The Aluminum is stronger, lighter, and with the coating more corrosion resistant.
Slam dunk IMO against running a regular steel ring.
If you took the steel and hardened it the cost of manufacturing just went WAY up. If you cust the steel in a "hard" state then the tooling and time became expensive, if it's cut soft then hardened everything is suspect because of the heat treat process and now needs to either be trued up (think Remington, there receivers are cut soft and then hardened, we all know how straight they are) or the end user will be paying for the rings to be trued. </div></div>
With what you have said and others also, compare Badger to EGW.
Badger has a 20 moa STEEL 1 piece mount
EGW has a 20moa AL 1 piece mount.
Badger is around $140
EGW is around $120
If aluminum is stronger and more reliable, and in this case cheaper, why not go with EGW instead?
Not to mention Badger rings $150
Burris XTR Extreme rings $40.
Is this just another case of "buying a name brand, pay more, but same quality of lesser priced brands"
