Scope ring hanging off rail just a bit

[DanUSMC]

I mounted my scope up in some old nightforce rings because my A.R.C. one-piece mount doesn't play so nice with the Kahles horizontal parallax ring. I got everything the way I wanted it, but somehow I missed that my scope rings are mounted at the extremes so that the clamping portion is just hanging off the end of the rail a bit. I could see how this might cause run-out and stress the scope by putting uneven pressure, buttt it's not that much and I'm lazy. Has this ever caused anyone problems? Seems okay thus far but it doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling. Maybe some of you fine lads have done this and know better than me. I attached some glory shots and close ups. Many thank

 

[308pirate]

. I could see how this might cause run-out and stress the scope by putting uneven pressure

Runout? Uneven pressure?

LOL

Please explain how.

 

[Rob01]

Will cause no issues at all but as mentioned just move it back if it bothers you. You have plenty of room. I wouldn't have the ring that far out on the tube anyways. Just leave the rear one where it is.

 

[pmclaine]

Runout? Uneven pressure?

LOL

Please explain how.

You know, the thing.

 

[DanUSMC]

Runout? Uneven pressure?

LOL

Please explain how.

You can do an experiment in your mom's basement. Take one of her C clamps and clamp down on something square and solid with both clamping surfaces being fully engaged on the object. Note how they are straight and true. Now, slide the clamp so that the clamping surfaces are hanging off the edge of the object and clamp down again. You will most likely note the clamp favoring one side. You could probably also do this on your moms vice by clamping down on something with the edge of the vice. This is the effect I'm referring to. Get it? Spare me your garbage if you have nothing constructive to say.

 

[DanUSMC]

Will cause no issues at all but as mentioned just move it back if it bothers you. You have plenty of room. I wouldn't have the ring that far out on the tube anyways. Just leave the rear one where it is.

Thank you

 

[DanUSMC]

so you admit it doesnt give you the "warm and fuzzies".....and you have plenty of room to move the rings back a slot.....

....what are you expecting here?....

just move the fucking rings and stop looking for reasons to post dumb fuck threads

Calm down. Nobody hurt you. I'm expecting to learn, it's okay to ask a question. Just move along if it offends you.

 

[DanUSMC]

thats all well and good.....but a scope ring doesnt work like a C clamp.....

the bit that clamps the scope is independent from the bit that clamps the rail.



...not questions you already know the answer to...

I promise I was genuinely curious about whether or not this would or could cause any problems, and I searched the forum and Google first. I get its not a big deal, I could just move them. But I was genuinely curious and I didn't see anything wrong with asking others who have more experience than myself.

 

[308pirate]

You can do an experiment in your mom's basement. Take one of her C clamps and clamp down on something square and solid with both clamping surfaces being fully engaged on the object. Note how they are straight and true. Now, slide the clamp so that the clamping surfaces are hanging off the edge of the object and clamp down again. You will most likely note the clamp favoring one sid

LOLOLOLOL

 

[shoobe01]

1000% move them. I think the forward ring is a bit forward on the tube anyway.

The rail side is designed to work with full engagement in a bunch of ways. While it's all square and likely won't cause visible issues, if it does then one think keeping the base from tilting will be the scope. Do you want your scope to be a structural beam, or as gently carried by the rings as possible?

Okay: 97% move them. You can also decide this is the right place and... change out the base to get one that sticks out further. I have some that hang over the front of the receiver a tidge. Sometimes helps.

But lacking that (and I know no rear overhang ones) move them both inboard one notch. Should be fine for scope loading also.

 

[cas6969]

I'd run a little bead of black silicone on there and blend it right in. Plus it'll keep the rain out.

Silicone is the thinking man's duct tape.

 

[supercorndogs]

1000% move them. I think the forward ring is a bit forward on the tube anyway.

The rail side is designed to work with full engagement in a bunch of ways. While it's all square and likely won't cause visible issues, if it does then one think keeping the base from tilting will be the scope. Do you want your scope to be a structural beam, or as gently carried by the rings as possible?

Okay: 97% move them. You can also decide this is the right place and... change out the base to get one that sticks out further. I have some that hang over the front of the receiver a tidge. Sometimes helps.

But lacking that (and I know no rear overhang ones) move them both inboard one notch. Should be fine for scope loading also.

So by your estimation the scope flexes less with the rifle, when the rings are closer together? Wouldn't it also be true the farther you moved the front ring from the objective lens, the more the objective bell will be able to whip under recoil.

 

[shoobe01]

Mmmmm.... no. I don't think that's something I universally said. As long as you aren't running into beam stiffness issues or — as here — attachment problems by hanging off the end of a support, longer is better.

If it was this part, and it may be old-timey me, but I always worry about how the scope bells are machined/bent to shape, where they go from perfect tube to cone, so keep some distance from transitions to be 100% sure I am on the tube part.

 

[supercorndogs]

Not getting less cryptic. I still have no idea what you meant by. "Do you want the scope to be a structural beam or ride as easy in the rings as possible?" I just wondered why two people said the ring was too far forward. I usually worry more about being closer to the erector housing as opposed to the objective bell.

 

[pineoak]

Nice chassis.

 

[shoobe01]

Not getting less cryptic. I still have no idea what you meant by. "Do you want the scope to be a structural beam or ride as easy in the rings as possible?" I just wondered why two people said the ring was too far forward. I usually worry more about being closer to the erector housing as opposed to the objective bell.

Not sure I can help as the quoted part is not a quote of anyone, much less me, from the rest of the thread.

Forward scope ring alone, I'll try saying the same thing again:

• The scope has some "straight" cylindrical bits, connected to each other with "tapered" conical bits.
• These are, for manufacturing reasons, not always exactly as they appear.
• Having measured some scopes, the cylindrical bit can become less perfectly cylindrical and become larger or subtly tapered some distance before the apparent transition to the big tapered part.
• I have fixed some scope alignment issues for others just by moving the rings back to a more-assuredly-straight bit of the scope.
• So, I just default to always keeping a decent distance between a profile transition and the rings. 1/2" or so, at least, if I can.

This is likely less of an issue with highest quality and modern manufacturing, but I still do it.