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.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Official Zero Compromise Optic News & Updates
- Thread starter gebhardt02
- Start date
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?
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't a new topic and isn't exclusive to ZCO; guys had similar concerns on other high end makes.
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.
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.
Give them a call at (208)-435-4000
Nick is the only one who typically posts for ZCO on the hide and I know for a fact they are ridiculously busy but there is no reason why they would not answer the phone.
Not speaking for ZCO but there has been plenty of representatives from various manufacturers over the years that ceased participating here when it became unfriendly or were trolled. (And no I'm not saying anyone is trolling ZCO that I have seen)
Our small staff at CS Tactical is extremely busy between dozens of calls, dozens of emails, PM's, text messages, facebook, instagram, walk ins and orders. And that is not after falling a week behind from Shot Show. I can't even imagine how much more busy they are then us producing one of the best overall scopes in the world.
Last edited:
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.
Scope tubes get crushed by pressure, not torque. Like a submarine, they are engineered to withstand X psi (pound per square inch). Too much pressure, they fail (think sub dives to deep, gets crushed).
Now, do you measure torque in PSI? No... its measured in foot pounds or newton metres...!
Two fixtures with equal clamping force. Two fixtures with equal torque used to generate that clamping force.
Is it true that both fixtures have equal PSI crush? No, because there is not yet a control variable for square inche/surface area over which this forces is applied.
We could easily engineer higher crush PSI by reducing surface area per clamp screw. Either by intention or by mal-alignment. Likewise, we can design reduced PSI by increasing surface area per clamp screw, and/or maximising correct fixture alignment.
So torque settings alone dont define crush force.
Now, do you measure torque in PSI? No... its measured in foot pounds or newton metres...!
Two fixtures with equal clamping force. Two fixtures with equal torque used to generate that clamping force.
Is it true that both fixtures have equal PSI crush? No, because there is not yet a control variable for square inche/surface area over which this forces is applied.
We could easily engineer higher crush PSI by reducing surface area per clamp screw. Either by intention or by mal-alignment. Likewise, we can design reduced PSI by increasing surface area per clamp screw, and/or maximising correct fixture alignment.
So torque settings alone dont define crush force.
Then why the heck did you bring up THIS?
And yes, everybody is busy, busy, busy. I have worked trade show floors (core telecom network equip) and NOBODY wanted to hear any excuses from me the following Monday about how I was too busy to fulfill reasonable and justifiable inquiries.
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?
I don't see wanting clarification on ring torque specs (wrt to M-10 rings in particular but also wrt the contradictions in their manual) as an unreasonable ask in any manner whatsoever and I reject any implications that I'm trolling or bashing a manufacturer.
Frankly, IMO its ZCO's responsibility (and really any manf) to have engineered these specs (remember, two screw, four screw, six screw, ARC one screw....all applying different clamping if torqued to the same spec) and should have been able to anticipate this and have a reply. Absent that, they should have been able to reply in over a week since this issue arose...SHOT or no SHOT. Particularly since Mr. Huber didn't seem to have any problem in responding immediately to spelunk on the phone that he should use 18 in/lbs or risk damage.
With that said, I'm dropping the subject here as I'm getting a bit testy and I don't want to go there at all. Not how I want to be on the Hide.
I will wait and see if ZCO ever replies with some clarification.
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.
I never said this, you have me confused with someone else. Yes we stand behind our customers but I'm not looking to argue with you.
I indicated to you how to get an official answer, the internet is not the best place.
Peace brother.
I'm getting wound up and want to unwind this a bit. I actually really do like your presence here on the Hide, the great reviews you get on CS and product delivery, and you were (are) my selected vendor for the ZCO (and I see you sell M-10 rings also). I don't want to beef with you or really anybody else.
As I said, I'm getting a bit testy from what I perceived as some people dismissing what I think is a valid concern, but life is too short and I really, really want to avoid that kind of behavior.
All good....I'm sure that ZCO and M-10s will be fine together...and I'll be confident in that when ZCO replies. Hope to place an order with you soon.
Cool?
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
You can also buy ZCO 36mm branded rings that have the traditional 18 in/lb torque limits. Not sure why you are so particular about ARC if you have real questions about their torque settings (I also have these, and they are solid).
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
No hard feelings at all, have a great weekend
All torqued to 55 inch lbs with no issues, I will continue to use M10 rings. I’ve had several ZCO in ARC rings with absolutely no issues as well, mine sit in Spuhr now though.
Attachments
Y'all remember the good old days when CST was selling ZCOs for $3600 and with FREE rings from ARC?
Mine are still going strong at 50 in-lbs, several times over being swapped around. Warms my cold heart to think how many ZCOs are getting snug hugs from ARCs in the wild...
@Baron23 just take the plunge, you won't regret it, and if you do need ZCO CS, it's solid
Mine are still going strong at 50 in-lbs, several times over being swapped around. Warms my cold heart to think how many ZCOs are getting snug hugs from ARCs in the wild...
@Baron23 just take the plunge, you won't regret it, and if you do need ZCO CS, it's solid
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.
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 - Thank you so very much for taking the time to research this and reply.
I'm sure there will be no issue with the scope moving in the rings at all at 35 in/lbs.
Cheers and I'm looking forward to getting your 5-27....oh, and mounting it in M-10 rings!
Hi 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.
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.
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?
FWIW, I have used ARC rings on many different scope brands, including zco, always torqued to 55"lb, haven't had a single issue. I love them. Never had a scope budge in them, and the design makes it extremely easy to mount a scope and keep it level.
Yes it is abundantly clear what an adult you are by the tone and passive aggressive nature of your statement regarding hinges.....
+1 for this. Ordered this from them yesterday for a fantastic price.
It was their Shot display 420 w/ MPCT1
@gebhardt02 Are the scope mounts going to be offered in any height other than 38mm? Sorry if this has been answered already.
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.
@gebhardt02 does it hurt to have a ZCO when zero’d about 1.5mil from the bottom of the elevation travel? I have about 50moa total of cant as I’m trying to maximize the scopes travel for elr. I usually store the gun with it dialed up a few mil so it doesn’t spend all its time dialed down that much.
I don't think you'll hurt anything at all, but I'd probably do the same if it were mine.
Similar threads
