Rifle Scopes Did Scalaworks steal this design from American Rifle Company

[Primus]

Just saw this mount: https://scalarworks.com/shop/optic-mounts/leap-scope-mount/

Looks very similar to the design Ted created on the ARC rings with the pivot pin: https://www.americanrifle.com/product/m10-scope-rings/

Design is similar but uses same principles.

Thoughts?

 

[morganlamprecht]

they both have one thing in common for sure...they hold scopes...not much past that

 

[308pirate]

Are there any design features of the ARC rings are that have some sort of IP protection?

"Being first" is no protection.

 

[scudzuki]

ARC M10 rings and mounts have essentially a fixed bottom (where the surfaces that locate the scope are monolithic with the Picatinny mount) like any number of horizontally split rings/bases. The top ring in ARC mounts is cleverly split into 2 hinged pieced drawn together with a single fastener at the top. It's fairly ingenious, because tightening the single scope tube fastener moves both halves of the top "ring" evenly and thus prevents the scope from rotating while the mount is being tightened. There's still some conjecture about exactly how much torque on the M10 single scope tube clamp screw is equivalent in clamping force to the 20 in/lb. I use with great success on conventional high quality (pronounced SEEKINS) horizontally split rings, but I've settled on the currently advised 50 in/lb. on the single set of M10 rings I own and so far, so good: the scope tube has not been crushed, the erector moves unimpeded, and the scope has not lost its zero.
The design you have questioned makes one half of what is technically a vertically split ring style scope mount monolithic with the Picatinny mount, which is unique in my experience. It is thus VASTLY superior to ADM, Larue, or other vertically spit ring designs I've seen to date where the ring halves are separate pieces from the Picatinny mount and thus rely (with less than perfect results) on the screw at the bottom of the rings (which hold the 3 pieces in alignment) to prevent minute shifts in relative position between the rings and Picatinny mount from incurring HUGE alignment issues between the scope and barrel bore (meaning significant zero shift).

In other words, I see no evidence of the Scalarwotks mount ripping off the M10 design, and, all else being equal, horizontally split QUALITY rings = ARC M10 = the Scalarworks mount design in terms of ability to maintain alignment between scope and Picatinny mount (or at least the Picatinny rail). The same cannot be said of ADM, Larue, and Warne Tactical (and possibly other) vertically split 3 piece rings and mounts, none of which I would use. MY range time and ammo is too scarce to be squandered with the introduction of uncontrollable variables like 3 piece split rings/mounts.

Prices, weight, and ease of assembly will be your deciding factors.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[CSTactical]

We've had very good luck with ARC rings, we recently started carrying Scalarworks which seems to be a very innovative as well. Both designs are unique and there's room for both designs IMO

 

[flyer]

I don't think this mount really does anything new. I don't think it's an ARC copy any more than an Aero Precision mount is...

 

[kortik]

Both designs are based on a very old concept of the hinged shaft collars, for example:

https://www.mcmaster.com/#shaft-collars/=1e3lkqy

ARC was the first to release scope rings based on this concept, which was a smart move and ARC M10 rings seem to work very well. Not sure how much IP protection Ted has in this case... At the end of the day, it will all come to other factors, as mentioned by scudzuki.

 

[mdmp5]

I have both and they are in no way similar

Correction, I don't have the scope mount, I have the trijicon MRO mount. I was focused on the mounting to the rail, not the rings. I don't think they ripped anything off in the ring design though. They may have referenced the concept and created their own version of it

 

[Sixfivesavage]

holy shit that's a nice website. Nice mount too...

 

[mdmp5]

The way the scalar mount works is that you tighten the wheel until you cannot tighten it anymore with your fingers. It works with a ball detent. It’s a good mount and a unique design

(wrote this before I noticed the question about the actual rings)

 

[308pirate]

There's still some conjecture about exactly how much torque on the M10 single scope tube clamp screw is equivalent in clamping force to the 20 in/lb. I use with great success on conventional high quality (pronounced SEEKINS) horizontally split rings, but I've settled on the currently advised 50 in/lb. on the single set of M10 rings I own.

There really should be no conjecture. ARC's owner is an engineer who knows what he's doing.

Second guessing his recommendations, without a true understanding of threaded fastener theory, is the definition of not staying in one's lane. Obviously, anyone can make a mistake and if one sees scope movement after following ARC's recommendations then discussing the matter with the guy who engineered them is a far better choice than playing armchair engineer (that's a general comment, not directed at you in particular)

And I'm here to tell you that based on the comments about scope ring torque I've seen in other threads of this forum, very few people here seem to have a single clue about how threaded fasteners really work, how threaded fastener tension is calculated, and how the clamping force at the threaded joints translate into clamping force around the scope.

In the interest of full disclosure I am an engineer who's had to design tightening processes for critical-to-safety fasteners and has setup and programmed multiple torque/angle tightening systems (Atlas-Copco, Cleco, Uryu, and Desoutter). This is a topic that I know a little bit about.

 

[JWG]

There really should be no conjecture. ARC's owner is an engineer who knows what he's doing.

Second guessing his recommendations, without a true understanding of threaded fastener theory, is the definition of not staying in one's lane. Obviously, anyone can make a mistake and if one sees scope movement after following ARC's recommendations then discussing the matter with the guy who engineered them is a far better choice than playing armchair engineer (that's a general comment, not directed at you in particular)

And I'm here to tell you that based on the comments about scope ring torque I've seen in other threads of this forum, very few people here seem to have a single clue about how threaded fasteners really work, how threaded fastener tension is calculated, and how the clamping force at the threaded joints translate into clamping force around the scope.

In the interest of full disclosure I am an engineer who's had to design tightening processes for critical-to-safety fasteners and has setup and programmed multiple torque/angle tightening systems (Atlas-Copco, Cleco, Uryu, and Desoutter). This is a topic that I know a little bit about.

I've seen a lot of stuff get sideways that I was assured was "just fine" by engineers. Second guessing him is not "straying from one's lane", so long as one has a purpose, reason, and does so with the intent to learn and not simply t o throw rocks.

 

[308pirate]

I've seen a lot of stuff get sideways that I was assured was "just fine" by engineers. Second guessing him is not "straying from one's lane", so long as one has a purpose, reason, and does so with the intent to learn and not simply t o throw rocks.

If you're going to second guess, you damn well best know WTF you're talking about. And trust me those who know can spot the whiners and bullshitters a mile away.

And we ignore them

 

[leftyk82]

I did spy some thievery:

 

[XLR308]

Pretty interesting mount but at the suggested MSRP it better be washing my Jeep for me and few other around the house chores.

I've tried several different types that are similar and have settled on ADM for any further use on AR's for half the cost.

 

[flyer]

Both designs are based on a very old concept of the hinged shaft collars, for example:

https://www.mcmaster.com/#shaft-collars/=1e3lkqy

ARC was the first to release scope rings based on this concept, which was a smart move and ARC M10 rings seem to work very well. Not sure how much IP protection Ted has in this case... At the end of the day, it will all come to other factors, as mentioned by scudzuki.

If the hinged rings were the only innovation in the M10 rings, they wouldn't be all that great. There are a lot of not so obvious details that make them among the best.

If the Scalaworks is only a hinged ring, it's not in the same class.

I like how slim the rings are, I'm not sure if anything else is worth the price.

 

[mdmp5]

If the hinged rings were the only innovation in the M10 rings, they wouldn't be all that great. There are a lot of not so obvious details that make them among the best.

If the Scalaworks is only a hinged ring, it's not in the same class.

I like how slim the rings are, I'm not sure if anything else is worth the price.

The price is a real challenge for sure. However, based on the design of the mount I have and how well it works, this has the potential to be one of the best AR mounts available

 

[scudzuki]

There really should be no conjecture. ARC's owner is an engineer who knows what he's doing.

Second guessing his recommendations, without a true understanding of threaded fastener theory, is the definition of not staying in one's lane. Obviously, anyone can make a mistake and if one sees scope movement after following ARC's recommendations then discussing the matter with the guy who engineered them is a far better choice than playing armchair engineer (that's a general comment, not directed at you in particular)

And I'm here to tell you that based on the comments about scope ring torque I've seen in other threads of this forum, very few people here seem to have a single clue about how threaded fasteners really work, how threaded fastener tension is calculated, and how the clamping force at the threaded joints translate into clamping force around the scope.

In the interest of full disclosure I am an engineer who's had to design tightening processes for critical-to-safety fasteners and has setup and programmed multiple torque/angle tightening systems (Atlas-Copco, Cleco, Uryu, and Desoutter). This is a topic that I know a little bit about.

It's not me second guessing.
The original recommendation I read on the ARC website was 70 in/lbs. which seemed excessive to me.
When I finally got a set of M10 rings, the recommended torque was 50 in/lbs.

 

[kortik]

If the hinged rings were the only innovation in the M10 rings, they wouldn't be all that great. There are a lot of not so obvious details that make them among the best.

If the Scalaworks is only a hinged ring, it's not in the same class.

I like how slim the rings are, I'm not sure if anything else is worth the price.

Hinged rings are based on the design CONCEPT, which is well known for a long time. This is what USPTO will likely point out if somebody attempts to get a utility patent for something which uses the same design CONCEPT. I do not see why USPTO would accept "hinged" as a claim while hinged shaft collars utilize the same CONCEPT for a long time. However, other details of a specific design is a different story, and can vary to provide the desired function of the design. May be these other details were filled as claims and USPTO did accept certain claims, or may be nothing like that has been filed with USPTO. So, I was just talking about IP protection, which ARC may or may not have...

I personally like Ted's work, I'm just not sure if he has an actual patent for ARC hinged rings. If "hinged" is not one of the claims, granted by USPTO specifically to ARC, Scalaworks can certainly use the same, known for a long time, design concept to create their own specific design, with no guilt of "stealing" anything from ARC.

Personally, I consider hinged rings, no matter where these rings are coming from, to be the the most advanced rings for scope mounting.

 

[Mr.BR]

I guess Primus is one of those bitches that never made anything in his life ,and best he can come up with is retarded things like ''did XYZ steal this design form XYN'' . Pointing fingers at xyz1 is one for real tough guys , especialy when it doesnt genetrate a shit storm you wanted/hoped/expected.

Now fill this out and back to your safe space cubicle.

 

[kRcu]

I guess Primus is one of those bitches that never made anything in his life ,and best he can come up with is retarded things like ''did XYZ steal this design form XYN'' . Pointing fingers at xyz1 is one for real tough guys , especialy when it doesnt genetrate a shit storm you wanted/hoped/expected.

Now fill this out and back to your safe space cubicle.

Primus is a gunsmith....serious.

 

[mdmp5]

I guess Primus is one of those bitches that never made anything in his life ,and best he can come up with is retarded things like ''did XYZ steal this design form XYN'' . Pointing fingers at xyz1 is one for real tough guys , especialy when it doesnt genetrate a shit storm you wanted/hoped/expected.

Now fill this out and back to your safe space cubicle.

I don't think this is the case at all. I think he was genuinely curious about it and wanted to make some conversation. Maybe he could have asked the question a little differently but I am pretty sure he had no malice

 

[Primus]

I guess Primus is one of those bitches that never made anything in his life ,and best he can come up with is retarded things like ''did XYZ steal this design form XYN'' . Pointing fingers at xyz1 is one for real tough guys , especialy when it doesnt genetrate a shit storm you wanted/hoped/expected.

Now fill this out and back to your safe space cubicle.

Learn to read next time dipshit. It was just a question I was curious about. The key word being question.

Every time you pay taxes, you pay my paycheck (assuming you actually have a job). So next time uncle sugar takes a fat chunk out of your check, just remember I'm going to be pissing it away while laughing at you.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Well that is completely impossible...being he is not in the USA lolol.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[flyer]

Hinged rings are based on the design CONCEPT, which is well known for a long time. This is what USPTO will likely point out if somebody attempts to get a utility patent for something which uses the same design CONCEPT. I do not see why USPTO would accept "hinged" as a claim while hinged shaft collars utilize the same CONCEPT for a long time. However, other details of a specific design is a different story, and can vary to provide the desired function of the design. May be these other details were filled as claims and USPTO did accept certain claims, or may be nothing like that has been filed with USPTO. So, I was just talking about IP protection, which ARC may or may not have...

I personally like Ted's work, I'm just not sure if he has an actual patent for ARC hinged rings. If "hinged" is not one of the claims, granted by USPTO specifically to ARC, Scalaworks can certainly use the same, known for a long time, design concept to create their own specific design, with no guilt of "stealing" anything from ARC.

Personally, I consider hinged rings, no matter where these rings are coming from, to be the the most advanced rings for scope mounting.

A scope ring can have hinges, screws, magnets, whatever. What it IS doesn't matter, it's how it works (quality is a factor too but unimportant when comparing designs).

The features I like are the bottom position of the capscrew and the fact that half of the ring is a permanent piece of the mount.

To be honest, I see nothing wrong with the top position of the capscrew on the M10 and while the permanent ring caps make the Scalaworks less of a pain in the ass than regular vertical split rings, it won't be as easy to install as M10s.

Beyond that, I don't see what you're getting for $400. I think I would rather have M10s regardless of price except I don't think ARC makes an offset AR version. At half the price, I really like the KDG Sidelok, it has a great QD feature and is built like a tank.

 

[Mr.BR]

Best reply ever . Look at me Public employee pissing away your taxes LOL Primus you Rock ROFL

Which ever way you turn it when you go falsly accusing someone of stealing , sounds preety malicius to me.

 

[Primus]

I know its great right? Now go get ya shine box.

 

[SharpsNitro]

Did they steal ARC design? No.

 

[kortik]

Here is another product, which uses the same concept:

https://www.modarmory.com/product/ifm-scope-rings/

"Designed by 2012 Olympian and Olympic Shooting athlete Nick Mowrer" ???

Per Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/IFMScoperings/

Nick M. started his scope rings business in 2015 and offered his rings for sale at the end of 2017, long after Ted has been making his M10 hinged rings, so priority date easily goes to Ted (ARC).

Nick's rings do look awfully similar to Ted's M10s.

IMF rings are actually now available from several places, including Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/IFM-Scope-Rings/dp/B07DRNWNQZ

 

[craigos]

the scalar works red dot mount followed this design (with one locking knob) years ago ... this is just an extension of their red dot mount.

 

[CSTactical]

Pretty interesting mount but at the suggested MSRP it better be washing my Jeep for me and few other around the house chores.

I've tried several different types that are similar and have settled on ADM for any further use on AR's for half the cost.

ADM makes good mounts as well, especially at their price point.

 

[Primus]

Bobro for qd and badger for non qd mounts. ARC for rings. No reason to fuck with anything else you are pissing away money on inferior performance.

 

[craigos]

Bobro for qd and badger for non qd mounts. ARC for rings. No reason to fuck with anything else you are pissing away money on inferior performance.

agree with your philosophy. but its spuhr for everything ..

 

[Primus]

agree with your philosophy. but its spuhr for everything ..

Spuhr is a solution looking for a problem. I'll take a Badger or NF ultralight any day over one.

 

[kRcu]

Spuhr is a solution looking for a problem. I'll take a Badger or NF ultralight any day over one.

Enlighten us.