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.
So are ARC rings causing any problems?
Corndogs there is a thread on Accurate Shooetr at the moment
about scopes not returning to zero after dialling . Seems like it's
more common than I thought . The only scopes that passed the
initial test were the old Shimizu ( March ) designed NXS and the
March Highmaster ..
I was following that too... lots of hubbub about scopes not performing as perfect as they had hoped. Only caveat is that they're looking at tests that showed tiny 1/4 to 1/8 MOA variations in point of aim from shot to shot, only something a benchrest shooter would notice.
The failures Frank had at his class were on a whole different order of magnitude.
What's the thought on American Defense Recon series mounts? They are vertically split. Anyone having issues with them?
Frank if only you could come down here to Australia and give the explanation you gave a few pages back on the differences between practical shooting and practical guns to the f class/bench crowd here man I would love to watch that!!!!! These guys don't seem to understand that a $1000 front rest that doesn't even attach to the gun is NOT practical and the gun being almost locked into a vice with a guy pulling the trigger is somehow practical!!!
Yes, I think semantics. You're pointing out the difference between poor tolerance vs. failures. "I" am simply talking about a rig to test and demonstrate either one. A scope that isn't "tracking" may not be failing (your point). A scope that is "failing" (as in not RTZ) isn't "tracking", because the reticle is not where the turrets say it is (my point). I was coming from the same thought that Frank stated when his first reaction was that he needed a rig to test the scopes that would speed up the process. Yes, you can shoot the test, but I addressed that already in my first post. As far as "a box test or just a couple of range trips should reveal the issue quickly," not if you have a new scope on a new rifle (i.e. no baseline performance established) begin to do a very slow death roll in the middle of initial load development (ask me how I know). It was very difficult to figure out because it took so long for the magnitude of the problem to develop to the point that it was clear it was a scope issue and not a load issue. I lost a lot of time and components wasted on chasing a load problem. It was finally diagnosed (i.e. proven) with...a tracking test.
So were you or were you not using vertically split rings?You know, I had a Rem AAC-SD .308 in an XLR element with a SWFA 3-15 and ......
I never. Got. A consistent. Zero.
I was throwing so much time and components trying to find a load, I would get a Zero... at the range and think “good, now I can shoot steel” I would commence ringing my way out to 3,4,500, pang! But then 600, I was in the dirt. Same at 700.... I would dial it to zero only to find out it was off.
Out of time and discussed, I would clean up and go home, start from scratch on my loads, only to repeat the same scenario above multiple times. Hell, I even sold the SWFA to a buddy for his NV coyote rig and I tried a new SWFA 3-15........same results.
I have since sold the whole combination off, and started with a new rifle.
Reading through this again, it dawns on me, I had been using Weaver verticle split rings? .......just maybe.... I lost all confidence in that setup. I’ll never know if it was the rings, but it was so frustrating that I almost gave up completely on long range, except my .223 Bolt action shot so good... I left the .308 alone for 6-7 months before selling it.
Does the use of 20 and 30 MOA rails add anything to this? It has come up in the past that with a 20 moa mount the erector springs are compressed more to get to a 100 yd. zero. The springs reside longer in this compressed state, leading to possible weakening. It was suggested that storing rifles with elevations set for distance would enhance the life of the springs. Anything?
Awaiting Frank's wisdom.
So were you or were you not using vertically split rings?
I bought the rings second hand, I was told they were Weaver? They were a vertical split, I just assumed they were weaver because that is what I was told. Who knows.I wasn't aware that Weaver made vertically split ring.
If all the Weaver brand rings I have used over the years only the cheapest Top mount ones worked more or less OK.
Every other Weaver brand ring or mount I have ever seen was out of round or misaligned in some way.
It may be just be my bad luck, of course.
ILya
Ah my bad. I misread it and thought you said "had i been using split rings?" Like you couldn't remember if they were vertical split rings but thought they might have been.....my bad.Yes. It says right in there. I was using Weaver vertical rings.
I'm interested how the split in the rings being moved 90 degrees effects the internal function of the scope? Shouldn't the ring provide equal pressure all around? If not, is the scope tube designed to withstand a crush force only in one axis? Seems kinds odd. I would love to know how the location of the split in the rings causes this effect.
Ah my bad. I misread it and thought you said "had i been using split rings?" Like you couldn't remember if they were vertical split rings but thought they might have been.....my bad.
Why not just be smart and avoid them ?
Warne rings, as explained to me by one of their tech guys, rely on the scope tube flexing in order to hold the scope in place and also remain tight on the base. They are designed to clamp to the rail first, then the top screws are tightened to secure the scope in the rings. IF the scope tube does not "flex", the bottoms of the rings will separate as you tighten the top. This "deforming" of the scope tube affects moving internal parts.
Here's a video of what happens when you replace a scope tube with a steel bar and install ring per the instructions.