Probably not the best wording, and maybe unfounded, but I keep hearing from people who don't think they are great rings, don't like the low torque values, don't think the Raptor rail mount holds zero, don't like the grooves in the rings, etc. For a set of rings that cost 3 times what I pay for NF, I don't want any issues. My dozen or so NF rings have been flawless for over 10 years now.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Tangent Theta 5-25 and Spuhr
- Thread starter Smithcollector
- Start date
A lot of people are mechanically inept. They have a warped pic rail, skinny rings, and they think it’s the shit because their scope doesn’t slip. Little do they know the reason the scope stays put because the rings dig into the tube when they are torqued down. Then, when they get a perfectly aligned ringmount, like Spuhr, and they don’t install the scope properly, and the scope slips, they blame the ringmount.
I like Spuhr because I can direct mount to my Sako and Tikka receivers. I enjoy the perfect alignment and zero ring marks. I stop the turret housing against the front ring and have zero slippage. I don’t use a torque wrench, just the included L shaped torx wrench which can’t overtorque the screws.
I like Spuhr because I can direct mount to my Sako and Tikka receivers. I enjoy the perfect alignment and zero ring marks. I stop the turret housing against the front ring and have zero slippage. I don’t use a torque wrench, just the included L shaped torx wrench which can’t overtorque the screws.
I’ve always used spuhr with my NF. There’s no problem with them. Only bases I use now. I use 20/in lbs for all my rings not just Spuhr so not sure what the problem is. I talked with Dave from vortex a long time ago and he said always follow the scope recommended torque values unless using the ARC rings. That is the 1 exception to the rule according to him.
I also use 20” pounds for all my scopes in SPUHR mounts and I haven’t had a problem. I find it surprising that a $4K rifle scope such as a TT can only handle 15” pounds of torque in a SPUHR.
That's good to hear, though afaik, NF scopes and ring caps are supposed to go to 25"#.
Do you guys use rosen with your Spuhr? That's also something I prefer not to do.
As far as skinny rings and warped rails...I don't know anyone like that. The guys I shoot with and talk to are all at the top of the field. They may have some bias, but inept they are not.
Do you guys use rosen with your Spuhr? That's also something I prefer not to do.
As far as skinny rings and warped rails...I don't know anyone like that. The guys I shoot with and talk to are all at the top of the field. They may have some bias, but inept they are not.
Why do you think that? Did you see them mount the scope? Did you watch them check the rail for straightness after torquing it down to the rifle? Or did they just assume everything is perfectly square because they use quality equipment?
Let this sink in: nothing will ever be perfectly square/straight/aligned if you have to screw several pieces together. Something will always have to suffer and it’s always the scope tube.
- Mar 15, 2018
- 1,299
- 5,112
Good topic but I’m moving on as well. Shot 10 rounds of 250gr .338LM today using Cadex Defence Unimount (Cadex recommended 20-25 in-lbs) torqued to TT recommended 15 in-lbs (out of a Cadex Defence Kraken but not sure that matters). Anyway, scope seemed to stay put, hold zero, no movement, no problems. And done.
Yep
Also, nobody can machine anything to perfect straightness, roundness, cylindricity, concentricity, profile, or any other geometric tolerance you can name.
One of the biggest laughs I get out of gun forums is that CNC machining = perfect.
EVERY dimension has a tolerance band and EVERY process has variation within that tolerance band.
Last edited:
So there could be no tool deflection, or there is absolutely zero misalignment in the machine axes, or any number of possible CNC machining variations?
I bet if we looked at Spuhr's prints there is a true position allowance for one ring half datumed to the other ring, or to some other feature. The variation may be pretty small, but I bet it isn't zero on every single mount Spuhr's ever made.
Spot on. There is a tolerance to everything. We make very precise optomechancial assemblies and there is always a tolerance to worry about, no matter if we are talking about pieces that bolt together or something that is machined out of one piece.
ILya
15 in/lbs.
They can't plan for every set of rings/mounts out there. So they recommend a lowest common denominator that balances out a force strong enough to hold the scope, yet minimizes potential damage to the scope.
If I had to choose the torque recommendation between the scope maker or the mount/rings maker, I'd choose the scope maker. Why? Well, apply too much torque/clamping force to the scope and damage it = $4,250 in this case. Whereas a set of rings are peanuts in comparison. And the worst case scenario if you don't torque the rings enough is you lose your zero. Big whoop. Mount your TT scope, torque rings to 15 in/lbs and do a day of testing at the range. If your zero holds, great. If not, THEN AND ONLY THEN would I try to torque the rings more. But to just say screw it, I'm gonna go nuts with a torque wrench isn't smart when you risk damaging a $4,000 optic.
