One thing that might be worth clarifying is that there is a disconnect between the sticker that came on my scope and the owners manual that was included. My scope had a sticker saying not to exceed 20 in Lbs while the manual said don’t go over 25.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And just who are you addressing this to?asking the forum to ignore people who don’t understand basic mechanical engineering principles talking about mechanical engineering.
there is a disconnect between the sticker that came on my scope and the owners manual that was included. My scope had a sticker saying not to exceed 20 in Lbs while the manual said don’t go over 25.
I'm not sure where you see that we don't recommend more than 25 inch pounds. The literature and Operator's Manual clearly say to use the ring manufacturer torque specs. I know, I wrote the manual.
ZCO scopes will handle the ARC torque just fine as they specify. No worries at all.
Ah sorry for the unclarity, I was ranting at the other OG and the plethora of people who don’t understand that screw preload is what needs to be compared across scopes and rings, and screw torque in the manual essentially doesn’t matter if you aren’t using standard rings, as long as there’s appropriate ability to handle misalignment/etc. Your post happened to be the one talking about the communication on the other thread.And just who are you addressing this to?
You quoted me, but nowhere (as in absolutely nowhere) did I make any statements whatsoever about any principle of mechanical engineering.
Hmm?
Anyone want to sell me their 4-20 mpct 3 cheap? I’m willing to take the risk
Now this is getting silly.
The ZCO employee says that nowhere do they recommend NOT going over 25 in/lbs and that he wrote the manual. Now, it does appear to say exactly what @gebhardt02 said he wrote....i.e. follow ring manf recommendations for torque.
But, the owner of one of ZCO's scopes showed up pictures of a sticker on his box and a shot of his manual with one saying don't go over 20 in/lbs and the other say don't go over 25 in/lbs, which is a contradiction, on the same page, of the "follow the manf recommendation" statement????
@gebhardt02 - I know you are working on this when all come back from SHOT, but IMO ZCO really need one...and one only...consistent published position on this. I get it....ARC are not four screw, cap and base type, ring. But this spec still needs to be made clear and reflected in all occurrences where ring torque are mentioned.
My two cents.....and again, I have plans to buy a ZCO 5-27 in 2-3 months AND I love ARC rings and want to continue to use them. So, this is of great interest to me.
If the ARC rings don't work there will be a lot of us bumming.
In any post I've read referring to 'XXX scope paired with ARC rings', no manual has ever published a value specific to ARC rings. It would be a bit cumbersome to publish torque values for one screw, four screw, six screw rings; so manufacturers give one numeric value and folks get confused and/or concerned.
Ted at ARC wrote that spec of 55 in/lbs, not a marketing graduate. Drive on!
Also, that is the maximum value while we have never had a problem torquing and using them at a much lower value.
That is not really the issue.It would be a bit cumbersome to publish torque values for one screw, four screw, six screw rings; so manufacturers give one numeric value
That is not really the issue.
The situation is:
1. A member here, @spelunk , posted that Jeff Huber directly told he "recommended the normal 18in pounds or risk causing damage" and I have no reason to disbelieve him (that is, spelunk).
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
Definitely IOR/Valdada. OP doesn’t want to offend Rex or incur Frank’s wrath.www.snipershide.com
2. @gebhardt02 stated that owners should use the manf recommended torque spec and that he wrote the manual so he should know
a. He backed off of this a bit and deferred to Mr. Huber: "I defer to Jeff's opinion on the ARC rings and required torque value. Those rings are quite obviously a much different design than the owner's manual was originally written for. If Mr. Huber has specifically told an owner to use a lower torque value, please follow that advise, there is most definitely very good reason for it."b. Another member, @elmuzzlebreak, posted pics of the manual that had a clear contradiction and and included the following:i. "tighten ring cap screws according to the manf recommendations and torque values"ii. "Do NOT tighten ring cap screws more than 2,8 Nm or 25 in/lbs"iii. And there is a sticker in the box stating "max torque 20 in/lbs"Now, yes...I believe that these ZCO citations all refer to more traditional rings but there is still a bit of a contradiction in their published documentation AND I do think its reasonable to expect ZCO to clarify these issues with respect to both traditional rings and, given what Mr. Huber said to spelunk, ARC rings and any other use case.
I know...silly me....expecting absolute clarity from a manf on a critical spec before I hammer a $4k scope.
I worked in very high tech as a Prog Mng for the better part of my working career and my customers expected total clarity on specs and requirements and if the matrix of possible use cases that effected these specs and requirements was large, then we gave them a large matrix. End of story and its not any more complicated than that.
So yeah, I do expect ZCO to come back and clarity these issues...demanding bastard that I am! haha
My intention is to put a 5-27 into M-10 rings and I will NOT buy the scope and do that until this is clarified...which I think is very reasonable of me.
Don't take my word for it, read and adhere to this. Three sentences of truth.Everything is fine guys, use ARC with your ZCO, we sold hundreds of rings and enough mounts... Remember that they are still getting caught up from Shot Show, hell I'm not even caught up with everything from last week. No reason to sweat it guys
If anyone is truly concerned, they can always call them directly.
That is not really the issue.
The situation is:
1. A member here, @spelunk , posted that Jeff Huber directly told he "recommended the normal 18in pounds or risk causing damage" and I have no reason to disbelieve him (that is, spelunk).
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
Definitely IOR/Valdada. OP doesn’t want to offend Rex or incur Frank’s wrath.www.snipershide.com
2. @gebhardt02 stated that owners should use the manf recommended torque spec and that he wrote the manual so he should know
a. He backed off of this a bit and deferred to Mr. Huber: "I defer to Jeff's opinion on the ARC rings and required torque value. Those rings are quite obviously a much different design than the owner's manual was originally written for. If Mr. Huber has specifically told an owner to use a lower torque value, please follow that advise, there is most definitely very good reason for it."b. Another member, @elmuzzlebreak, posted pics of the manual that had a clear contradiction and and included the following:i. "tighten ring cap screws according to the manf recommendations and torque values"ii. "Do NOT tighten ring cap screws more than 2,8 Nm or 25 in/lbs"iii. And there is a sticker in the box stating "max torque 20 in/lbs"Now, yes...I believe that these ZCO citations all refer to more traditional rings but there is still a bit of a contradiction in their published documentation AND I do think its reasonable to expect ZCO to clarify these issues with respect to both traditional rings and, given what Mr. Huber said to spelunk, ARC rings and any other use case.
I know...silly me....expecting absolute clarity from a manf on a critical spec before I hammer a $4k scope.
I worked in very high tech as a Prog Mng for the better part of my working career and my customers expected total clarity on specs and requirements and if the matrix of possible use cases that effected these specs and requirements was large, then we gave them a large matrix. End of story and its not any more complicated than that.
So yeah, I do expect ZCO to come back and clarity these issues...demanding bastard that I am! haha
My intention is to put a 5-27 into M-10 rings and I will NOT buy the scope and do that until this is clarified...which I think is very reasonable of me.
Don't want a one piece mount....I'm not looking at ARC M-Brace but rather their M-10 rings which I do use and like very much over more traditional ring designs for a few reasons.Or just buy a Spuhr and have zero questions about (vastly) exceeding recommended torque values.
You're talking about the difference of $120 (ARC vs. Spuhr) on a $4k+ scope, and in a hobby that costs $0.50 - $5 per round. I have and use both, but will defer to using Spuhr mounts from here on out.
Then why the heck did you bring up THIS?no I'm not saying anyone is trolling ZCO that I have seen
there has been plenty of representatives from various manufacturers over the years that ceased participating here when it became unfriendly or were trolled.
Then why the heck did you bring up THIS?
You said that "Ted wrote the 55 in/lbs, not a marketing grad. Drive on."...so, how about this.....I get a ZCO from you, put it in M-10 rings. Then if I have ANY mount related issue then I'll send it back to you for a direct swap...no RMA to the manf, no wait for it to be fixed, jsut a new scope delivered to me.....hmm? Probably not, eh?
Peace brother. I'm getting wound up and want to unwind this a bit.Because it has happened to other manufacturers, I'm not sure how long you have been on the forum but there use to be representatives from a ton of manufacturers and now they do not participate.
Ah, you are right....it was someone you quoted. Apologies.I never said this, you have me confused with someone else.
Boy, is that an understatement! hahathe internet is not the best place
Don't want a one piece mount....I'm not looking at ARC M-Brace but rather their M-10 rings which I do use and like very much over more traditional ring designs for a few reasons.
Its not money that's at issue.
Thanks for the reply.
Ah, you are right....it was someone you quoted. Apologies.
Please read my last post and let's unwind this a bit, yeah?
Boy, is that an understatement! haha
HI Nick - Thank you so very much for taking the time to research this and reply.Gentleman,
My apologies for the absence on this topic this week. We've been going through a few items and have obviously been very busy catching up from SHOT. I've spent some time consulting with our engineers and looking at some design stuff and just haven't been on here as much to check in on things. Again, sorry for the absence.
It is quite frankly impossible to provide one single specification on ring cap screw torque values to cover every single type of rings design and application. If we had to give a single number to cover as wide a variety as possible, our official recommendation would be 25 inch pounds. I understand the sticker in the box says 20, that's already in the process of being changed. There are just too many variables to take into account such as lubrication on the screws, screw size, number of screws, etc. to provide recommendations on every situation possible.
We will also go ahead and say that at no point do we recommend going to 55 inch pounds even on the ARC rings. We have been a huge fan of their rings since day number one however we prefer to use 35 inch pounds on these rings. That is our official recommendation for these rings specifically for our products.
Common sense ultimately must prevail here. The ARC, Spuhr, Etc. rings are widely popular and in use throughout the country without any issues on our scopes. They are a great match to our products and we recommend them all very highly.
Hi Nick, appreciate you taking the time to respond to the query considering current workload.Gentleman,
My apologies for the absence on this topic this week. We've been going through a few items and have obviously been very busy catching up from SHOT. I've spent some time consulting with our engineers and looking at some design stuff and just haven't been on here as much to check in on things. Again, sorry for the absence.
It is quite frankly impossible to provide one single specification on ring cap screw torque values to cover every single type of rings design and application. If we had to give a single number to cover as wide a variety as possible, our official recommendation would be 25 inch pounds. I understand the sticker in the box says 20, that's already in the process of being changed. There are just too many variables to take into account such as lubrication on the screws, screw size, number of screws, etc. to provide recommendations on every situation possible.
We will also go ahead and say that at no point do we recommend going to 55 inch pounds even on the ARC rings. We have been a huge fan of their rings since day number one however we prefer to use 35 inch pounds on these rings. That is our official recommendation for these rings specifically for our products.
Common sense ultimately must prevail here. The ARC, Spuhr, Etc. rings are widely popular and in use throughout the country without any issues on our scopes. They are a great match to our products and we recommend them all very highly.
Thank you for voicing my concern as wellHi Nick, appreciate you taking the time to respond to the query considering current workload.
Also understand the conservative approach recommended, but I do distinctly remember this issue has been questioned multiple times since ZCO first released and a statement around 55 inch pounds for arc rings only being ok, issued from ZCO. Trying to go back through historical threads on SH but can’t find it just yet.
Obviously you can appreciate our concern considering a lot of us will have torqued up arc rings with ZCO scopes and are concerned we may have inadvertently caused internal damage that will be exposed at some point later down the track.
Sorry to bug you I’ve got a 527 recently and put it in Hawkins heavy tactical rings because I’m adult and don’t prefer hinges. I’m having no trouble with my scope just wondering what a drag in the parallax would be like? Turning the dial and no correction of parallax? Or more of an issue turning the dial?Highly unlikely at all that you'll have caused any sort of internal damage. Mostly you'd only notice a drag on the parallax if something was binding up. If you're scope has been in those rings and torqued to that value without any issues, you're just fine. Lots of end users using that value without any problems. No sweat, rock on with what ya got.
Yes it is abundantly clear what an adult you are by the tone and passive aggressive nature of your statement regarding hinges.....Sorry to bug you I’ve got a 527 recently and put it in Hawkins heavy tactical rings because I’m adult and don’t prefer hinges. I’m having no trouble with my scope just wondering what a drag in the parallax would be like? Turning the dial and no correction of parallax? Or more of an issue turning the dial?
+1 for this. Ordered this from them yesterday for a fantastic price.@Baron23 when the time comes to get that ZCO, call @CSTactical. Richard is the mf man
You’re not one with humor are youYes it is abundantly clear what an adult you are by the tone and passive aggressive nature of your statement regarding hinges.....
Are these in dealer hands yet?The block mount is only in the 1.50" high and the Slimline only at the 1.18" high. Individual rings are available for other heights.