-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Scope ring torque specifications
- Thread starter Paul1262
- Start date
Generally you'd go with what the optic manufacturer says. It's their tube you'll be clamping down onto. Too much over their spec and yes, there could be damage. A lot of factors in this though (number of screws, type of mount, etc). Common sense also plays a small part.
You double sure you're not confusing the base screw torque with the ring torque? What model mount is this?
You double sure you're not confusing the base screw torque with the ring torque? What model mount is this?
Well, your ring screws could work loose. That would certainly be negative.
I've always followed what the scope ring/mount maker recommends. I've yet to see a scope manufacturer offer a breakdown of their recommended value for rings/mounts with differing number of screws.
I've always followed what the scope ring/mount maker recommends. I've yet to see a scope manufacturer offer a breakdown of their recommended value for rings/mounts with differing number of screws.
A quick google showed me that your mount has two screws per ring, that correct?
For context, when a scope maker recommended their scopes be mounted in no more than 18 inch pounds, I emailed them and asked what rings they tested with. Their response was Badger Ordnance, four screws per ring.
For context, when a scope maker recommended their scopes be mounted in no more than 18 inch pounds, I emailed them and asked what rings they tested with. Their response was Badger Ordnance, four screws per ring.
"that'll give you approximately exactly enough"
don;t you mean
that'll give you exactly approximately enough?
don;t you mean
that'll give you exactly approximately enough?
I agree.
Scope makers have no good idea what would be the actual scope mounting setup, so their very generic torque recommendations may not reflect real world situations. Scope mount makers give torque values for their specific designs by doing some kind of testing, say, how much of a clamping force is actually required to hold a scope (having some projected weight) in their rings. I'm not sure what they use as actual numbers, but the principle consideration is likely very simple - find out the torque for the cap screws that prevents scope from moving under recoil and add some more as a safety margin. A great example is ARC rings - Ted specifies 50-55 inch-lbs., which is considerably higher than typical 15-25 inch-lbs., however, no harm is done to scope.
Last edited:
I’m sorry, that is a ridiculous statement. If I’m running a $2800-$3000 scope...which MANY of us are, I’m not going with “almost good enough.”
Between my time, ammo, match fees, traveling expenses, etc, I’m NOT showing up to a 2 day match to look at my scope that slipped in my rings. It’s now canted, my zero is gone, and I have horrible scrape marks/ring marks on my scope.
I’m this day and age with in lbs wrenches so affordable, there’s zero reason to go “good enough.”
I agree, a simple Wheeler Fat Wrench is something every gun owner can afford.
First hand experience. Bought a vortex and let the gun shop mount it. Took rifle to range and it shot all over the place. And this was a proven 1/2 inch rifle. Called gun shop back and they said I needed to contact Vortex knowing all along it was the scope and I wanted my money back. Note the gun shop torqued it to 25 inch pounds with nightforce rings. Called vortex and had to send scope in. They called me and accused me of bending the tube when I mounted it and said there scopes couldn't be torqued over 17 in/lbs. After the guy got through busting my ass I busted his and told him I didn't mount the scope and to call the gun shop that did and deal with them and to send me a check for the scope because if there scopes were that shitty I didn't want one. Vortex refunded my money. So you might want to look at scope manufacturer specs first.
Exactly.
Tangent Theta says 15 in/lbs. Much over that and the parallax adjustment freezes in place. Not just Tangent Theta - all sorts of issues across all different manufacturers. Like I said before, the optic manufacturer knows what their tube can take.
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/tangent-theta-5-25-and-spuhr.6897576/
A little common sense and not going crazy is all you need. Assuming you have a quality mount then all would be well.
It's not that some scopes are shitty it's that some are designed to be light and have thinner tubes than others.
Nightforce scopes can take 25 in lbs, Vortex has an 20 in lbs max per their website (some of the cheaper ones might be 17 in lbs), Athlon passes the buck to the ring manufacturer meaning they will likely take the 25 in lbs, and they are a little heavy.
Weaver seems to limit torque to 15 in lbs for #6 screws and 18 for #8 screws.
Leupold has a similar #6 and #8 screw spec but it's HIGHER. Leupold has a Sturdy tube.
I realize you had a shop do this but torque values are MAXIMUM values. Like NEVER EXCEED values.
Some rings might need to be lapped, one piece mounts usually don't but should be checked for contact before final torque.
Rings and mounts that have a long contact surface spread the force over a larger area and are less likely to crush a tube.
Nightforce scopes can take 25 in lbs, Vortex has an 20 in lbs max per their website (some of the cheaper ones might be 17 in lbs), Athlon passes the buck to the ring manufacturer meaning they will likely take the 25 in lbs, and they are a little heavy.
Weaver seems to limit torque to 15 in lbs for #6 screws and 18 for #8 screws.
Leupold has a similar #6 and #8 screw spec but it's HIGHER. Leupold has a Sturdy tube.
I realize you had a shop do this but torque values are MAXIMUM values. Like NEVER EXCEED values.
Some rings might need to be lapped, one piece mounts usually don't but should be checked for contact before final torque.
Rings and mounts that have a long contact surface spread the force over a larger area and are less likely to crush a tube.
You're going to shit your pants when you find out that people who maintain aircraft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars don't use a torque wrench on every bolt, nut and screw they install.
If you are that concerned about getting it perfect, I hope you send your $50 torque wrench for calibration every 6 months to ensure its correct.
Considering the different options shown in this thread alone goes too show that it is not as important as you might think, the difference between the ring and scope manufactures recommendation can vary greatly, as seen above Tagent Theta say 15 in-lbs and ARC say 50-55 in-lb so what you going set your wrench too?
Chances are the scope manufacturer recommends a lighter setting so folk don't phone up and complain they dented the tube on their $3000 scope, and the ring manufacturer recommends a higher torque so that the rings wont come loose and folk phone up and complain their scope lost zero and cost them a 2 day match and some ammo and $600 of food and accommodation fees.
Unless you are a total ham fist or can't feel the difference between 15 in-lb and 15 ft-lb (it has been done) then chances are you will get it right by feel.
If you want to use a torque wrench that's fine go ahead, but the difference between not enough torque that your rings slip and too much that you dent your tube is quite considerable, especially if you have a short lever you are tightening with (hence the L shaped allen key).
Most of the time torque settings are recommend as to ensure screws aren't over tightened due to ham fistery, but it can cause issues when the same hand fist can't use or set a torque wrench right and instead of doing what feels about right they rely on their torque wrench they are not using correctly and still screw it up.
So in summary, just use a L shaped allen key, has worked fine for me for the last decade.
Is it any wonder the differences of approach on this? Consider the variables in rings:
- surface area of material contacting scope aka, rings made for same 34mm tube have different widths
- number of ring screws
- length of ring screws
- width of ring screws
- thread pitch of ring screws
- number and location of places where rings meet to be secured by screws aka, 3 and 9 o'clock for Nightforce rings. 12 o'clock for ARC rings.
The TT example mentioned above is interesting because that is the scope manufacturer I reached out to. They have upped their value to 18 in/lbs for their scopes (Gen3XR reticle), which prompted me to reach out to them. They confirmed this spec when using Badger rings (4 screws per ring). So if I were to use ARC rings for a new TT and torque each ring screw (one per ring by the way) to 18 in/lbs, that would comply with the scope maker manual but is far less than what ARC directs.
Now, I'm not about to actually perform that test (I don't have a TT), but I think it is an interesting example of the variables and variances in numbers for this topic. My Gen 2 Razor happily sits in ARC rings torqued to 55 in/lbs with no issue. Someone with an engineering background could better educate me and others, I'm sure. These are just my observations.
- surface area of material contacting scope aka, rings made for same 34mm tube have different widths
- number of ring screws
- length of ring screws
- width of ring screws
- thread pitch of ring screws
- number and location of places where rings meet to be secured by screws aka, 3 and 9 o'clock for Nightforce rings. 12 o'clock for ARC rings.
The TT example mentioned above is interesting because that is the scope manufacturer I reached out to. They have upped their value to 18 in/lbs for their scopes (Gen3XR reticle), which prompted me to reach out to them. They confirmed this spec when using Badger rings (4 screws per ring). So if I were to use ARC rings for a new TT and torque each ring screw (one per ring by the way) to 18 in/lbs, that would comply with the scope maker manual but is far less than what ARC directs.
Now, I'm not about to actually perform that test (I don't have a TT), but I think it is an interesting example of the variables and variances in numbers for this topic. My Gen 2 Razor happily sits in ARC rings torqued to 55 in/lbs with no issue. Someone with an engineering background could better educate me and others, I'm sure. These are just my observations.
@beetroot It’s impossible for you to get even torque across all fasteners without something to measure it with. I was a GM Certified ASE Master for over 20 years. Torque on big fasteners like suspension and heads is critical, how much more so on tiny scope ring fasteners?
I’m not saying you cannot get away with it, but saying you can get perfect results with no other measurement besides your Mark3 hand unit is not an honest statement.
While not the same as a $400 Snapon inch/lb torque wrench (which I own) a Wheeler Fat Wrench for like $20 at least will torque all fasteners to the same amount and not allow any to loosen due to being uneven (especially in caps with multiple fasteners per side).
I’m not saying you cannot get away with it, but saying you can get perfect results with no other measurement besides your Mark3 hand unit is not an honest statement.
While not the same as a $400 Snapon inch/lb torque wrench (which I own) a Wheeler Fat Wrench for like $20 at least will torque all fasteners to the same amount and not allow any to loosen due to being uneven (especially in caps with multiple fasteners per side).
There is a huge difference between head bolts and scope ring bolts, of course there are the obvious physical differences but more important is what they are acting upon. The cylinder head on your engine requires a perfectly flat surface to ensure a good seal with the gasket as is needs to hold up against the extreme changes in pressure and temperature going on inside your engine. Scope rings are hardly having to put up with the same abuse.
There is also a big difference in the forces applied is each scenario.
The head bolts are resisting the forces that are inline or parallel to the tension they are providing.
Where as the rings are working in a similar way to a morse taper, the friction between two precision machined surfaces are resisting the forces and only a small amount of tension is required to hold the two halves together.
If you have a torque wrench then go ahead and use it, but don't stress out thinking you can't possibly mount your scope without one or that not using one is some sort of liability.
I think most people would be suprised how even they can get by feel.
If after 20 years of being a mechanic you don't trust yourself too tighten a few screws on your scope rings then I agree, you do need to use a torque wrench.
Still haven't answered the original question though, whose torque value are you going to set your magic torque wrench too?
20 years as a tech, Service Manager, more as a Snapon franchisee and a small business owner has taught me that when someone refuses to use proper and proven methods and tools to do perfect (not “it’ll do”) work, I fire him or ignore him.
Can you imagine a gunsmith telling a customer “yeah I just snug these up by feel cause torque limiting tools are not as accurate as this here hand”...Hell no and that guy would not be in business for long.
Bubbas saying that their hand is more capable of getting proper and EQUAL torque, which is in inch pounds on tiny fasteners, than a torque limiting wrench or measuring wrench is a fawking joke.
Give me a break.
I’m not saying you can’t get away with it, he’ll I could get away without torquing a headbolt or a barrel nut or a bearing cap but it isn’t the right way or best way or the way that is the most likely to create the best outcome.
Do it any way you want, I don’t give one care if you goof up you own shit, but stating what you did in a technical forum where people read to understand things and learn is simply ignorant.
And...
I have already stated I typically use the mount’s specs.
Can you imagine a gunsmith telling a customer “yeah I just snug these up by feel cause torque limiting tools are not as accurate as this here hand”...Hell no and that guy would not be in business for long.
Bubbas saying that their hand is more capable of getting proper and EQUAL torque, which is in inch pounds on tiny fasteners, than a torque limiting wrench or measuring wrench is a fawking joke.
Give me a break.
I’m not saying you can’t get away with it, he’ll I could get away without torquing a headbolt or a barrel nut or a bearing cap but it isn’t the right way or best way or the way that is the most likely to create the best outcome.
Do it any way you want, I don’t give one care if you goof up you own shit, but stating what you did in a technical forum where people read to understand things and learn is simply ignorant.
And...
I have already stated I typically use the mount’s specs.
You too would shit your pants if you knew how many fastners weren't torqued to the "perfect" spec on commercial aircraft.
Clearly my first post was tongue and cheek, and I did say if you have one by all means use it.
But to say you can't do a good job of install some 6-48 screws without use of a torque wrench is as laughable as saying I can do a more accurate job with my hands (which I didn't say).
But, I will change my tune for the less mechanically minded among us.
Use a torque wrench as the preferred method, but if you don't have one the scope isn't going to fall off if you don't do a 110% perfect job.
I’ll let y’all in on a secret. It’s a good rule of thumb for fasteners, in case your torque wrench is unavailable. Take a fastener down finger tight (not stretching the bolt) then turn an additional 1/8-1/4 turn. I’m a mechanics and have been turning wrenches for 20 years. This was the old spec for spark plugs years ago but the same holds true today. Being that most scope rings are aluminum, I don’t think I’d go the full 1/4 turn though as the threads in the base may pull.
With differences in the ability of various scope tubes to take clamping force, different mounts with different clamping areas, clamp spacing and proximity to internal scope parts, #6 screws #8 screws, short screws/long screws, 4 or 6 per vertical horizontal or ARC clamps, variations in recoil, steel inserts or aluminum internal threads, and most important the cost of the scope, a one size fits all approach might not be best.
I hand tightened my free shipping half price Bushy Banner, but used a torque wrench on my expensive ($300) scope.
Haven't noticed any damaged erectors.
Back in the day, sparkplugs had crush washers, now most have tapered seats with a small length to diameter ratio
What bothers me the most? Scope manufacturers and mount manufacturers be being able to come to a consensus when a specific mount/scope combination is given to them. Ask either and you get a different answer.
I hand tightened my free shipping half price Bushy Banner, but used a torque wrench on my expensive ($300) scope.
Haven't noticed any damaged erectors.
Back in the day, sparkplugs had crush washers, now most have tapered seats with a small length to diameter ratio
What bothers me the most? Scope manufacturers and mount manufacturers be being able to come to a consensus when a specific mount/scope combination is given to them. Ask either and you get a different answer.
Last edited:
From Leftyk82 post:
"For context, when a scope maker recommended their scopes be mounted in no more than 18 inch pounds, I emailed them and asked what rings they tested with. Their response was Badger Ordnance, four screws per ring."
So, this scope maker only tested and "figured out" torque specs for a single and very specific scope rings setup.
Feels like it would be logical for scope makers to reference scope rings makers specs and be done with that for good. And again, ARC rings is a great example - different scope ring design requires very different torque specs.
Last edited:
I haven't used a torque wrench to mount a scope in a long time. That is to say I have mounted a lot of scopes with and with out a torque wrench. If you don't know what you are doing, an inch pounds torque wrench can save you from some problems.
No it should not have any negative effect at 15 to 18 inch pounds with typical large centerfire rifles under typical recoil. The scope manufacturer should know how crappy they built their scope tubes. I have crushed only two.... a Meopta and a Vortex using a 25 inch pound tool made by Warne. I now have a "Fix It Sticks FISTL18 18 Inch Lbs Small Portable Torque Limiter" and Vortex replaced the scope. The Badger Ordnance Max 50 rings however have been awesome - totally destroyed a couple of bases (EGW & steel MGM) on this .375 H&H TC Encore..... now working with a Warne steel base and six screws ; ) and a Super Sniper. I did put a Terminator T3 break on to tame the recoil. Last range session was promising.
