Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking

Status
Not open for further replies.
Marshmallows are just dry-aged whipped cream.
810A02B3-6507-48B7-A9D5-1E52DF91A678.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Mike Casselton
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
But why start all this bs with absolutely no information given besides what rings he used? I wouldn’t care to call out a company especially if the same issue occurred twice. That’s what I was getting at. That’s what this whole forum is about. Helping fellow shooters out. Guess all I’ll take from this 10 page argument is not to buy ARC rings and torque to 55 inch lbs… haha
.....TBH, the original post did more to cast doubt on both ARC & ZCO products. Was it justified....who can say? Was it an isolated incident, apparently not, but like many have postulated, insufficient numbers of occurrence's to say the whole line of products (ARC & ZCO) are defective and not worthy of purchase. I personally wouldn't purchase either product because I can't afford or justify the cost, but what I can learn from these kind of posts are some of nuances in proper installation and use/care of these tools that are common to all price ranges of scopes and mounts/rings.
 
Pop quiz: given an equal applied torque and fasteners, which creates a higher clamping force?
  • dry threads
  • lubricated threads

Go...............
This is a steak thread. Please take the nerd talk to the bear pit. Torque specs may also be discussed in any other board in which it does not apply. Reloading comes to mind
 
Pop quiz: given an equal applied torque and fasteners, which creates a higher clamping force?
  • dry threads
  • lubricated threads

Go...............
Lubed. Lubed generate more clamping load on whatever you’re screwing together. Dry a lot of that torque is eaten up in the threads rather than transferring to clamping load.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Krob95
Bonus points to anyone that spotted the legit whole wasabi root at Roka Akor.
OK, after seeing all of your meal postings, I feel a little dirty.... As the amount of well prepared meat appears off the charts. to that all I can say is "WELL DONE"! You have made me very, very jealous and I'm thinking of blocking you, at a minimum reporting you to PETA.
 
What a total crap storm this thread has become. I would have thought this was ARFCOM here for a while.

Thread title should be changed to: My new M-brace mount destroyed two optics. Think this thread would have gone a completely different direction. As I know of at least 10 ZCOs personally that have been torqued to 55 inch pounds in ARC rings without issues since 2019.
 
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.
Just out of curiosity - do your engineers have a reason to argue against ARC's specs? ARC will show the mathematical & engineering justification for their numbers, will you be doing the same?

Maybe ZCO needs a rebrand - Minimal Compromise Optics (haha. Fanboys, don't get offended, it's a simple jape)
 
Just out of curiosity - do your engineers have a reason to argue against ARC's specs? ARC will show the mathematical & engineering justification for their numbers, will you be doing the same?

Maybe ZCO needs a rebrand - Minimal Compromise Optics (haha. Fanboys, don't get offended, it's a simple jape)
54AE61DB-BBAB-4409-92CC-1290A02A5C3E.jpeg
 
  • Haha
Reactions: reubenski
Just out of curiosity - do your engineers have a reason to argue against ARC's specs? ARC will show the mathematical & engineering justification for their numbers, will you be doing the same?
Probably not. We'll just let this dead dog lie and move on. I think it's been beat to death enough. Like we've already said, we are big fans of their rings and continue to use and recommend them. This honestly isn't a "us versus them" thing at all.
 
Probably not. We'll just let this dead dog lie and move on. I think it's been beat to death enough. Like we've already said, we are big fans of their rings and continue to use and recommend them. This honestly isn't a "us versus them" thing at all.
This is all you need to know,

Use ZCO Scope
Use ARC Rings

ZCO obviously stands behind there products. If you have an issue of any kind they’ll take care of you.

This thread was over long ago
 
Status
Not open for further replies.