Hey OP, what did Brand X (ZCO) say when you called them to report the same issue occurred again? Please don't leave us hanging and not come back with the verdict. I'm really curious to see if my theory is correct.
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.
Judas priest. UPS does NOT pay claims for packages that are "never dropped off".but the guy sending the barrel didn't ask for a scan/receipt...so in theory it could have been never dropped off
"Judas priest. UPS does NOT pay claims for packages that are "never dropped off".
Show me exactly where the barrel company or UPS purported that "it was never dropped off"........
They didn't . You (and others) are making that up. It never happened.
The issue was NEVER the veracity of the claim, but instead how much the payout was. The payout was dictated by the lack of insurance by the person who made out the label i.e. the barrel maker.
The barrel maker deemed it to be a valid claim. They filed said claim. UPS paid the claim. The barrel maker received the claim money and offered it to the barrel sender/buyer.
UPS would never had paid that claim if they believed it was "never dropped off".in the first post of that thread
Trying not to offend and respect the more religious element here.......
Was that the barrel with the fucked up muzzle threads?After watching many of these no name, whining fits over the years I have a theory.
The posters are using the attention to indirectly apply pressure to the MFG. “Look, I have 200 people viewing a thread where I’m going to out you if you don’t…. “
I think it’s an unspoken threat. Guy whined his way into a new barrel he bought used. It was on the site last week. Never gave a name. Then strutted around like he had done something great and was vindicated. It was a second hand barrel and the mfg owed him nothing but a kick in the ass.
These threads serve no purpose to anyone but the poster who uses them for leverage.
View attachment 7792751
Here is the blowup if anyone else is having trouble.
People love to overtighten and break shit, it’s just about their favourite thing. 55 inch pounds is retarted and the rings are hideous.I'm with you 100% on this. I have never owned or used ARC rings, don't care for the design, just my personal preference. But even if I did, no way in hell I would be torquing the single bolt to 50+ inch pounds. In a previous post someone posted one of his emails where he likens tightening his single bolt to 55 inch pounds being equivalent to 25 inch pounds on a two bolt, traditional ring. If that's true, 25 inch pounds is WAY too much torque on a traditional ring setup. 15 inch pounds has worked perfectly for me on dozens of guns. Nearly every scope manufacturer on earth recommends 12-18 inch pounds MAX. Not sure what the equivalent would be on ARC single screw rings, but I bet it's a lot less than 55 inch pounds.
I'm still going with the OP over tightened the rings and damaged the lens.
People love to overtighten and break shit, it’s just about their favourite thing. 55 inch pounds is retarted and the rings are hideous.
Use Rosin and some self control. If the scope doesn’t move then that’s all that matters. More importantly don’t buy stupid mounts. Sphurs and traditional rings work because they have plenty of clamping area. 12 inch pounds is usually enough, 55 inch pounds is more than I would put on an action screw - would never fuck up an optical device with that sort of clamping force.Yes, let's ignore the ring manufacturers instructions. Sounds like a great idea.
I always thought all the chemicals I deal with on a near daily basis would end up eventually giving me cancer. Never would've guessed a Snipershide thread would actually end up doing it first.
That's not cancer, just heartburn......I always thought all the chemicals I deal with on a near daily basis would end up eventually giving me cancer. Never would've guessed a Snipershide thread would actually end up doing it first.
Along with the sound of crinkling as the folds in my brain undo themselves.That's not cancer, just heartburn......
Same guy ? I kinda/sorta remember that......After watching many of these no name, whining fits over the years I have a theory.
The posters are using the attention to indirectly apply pressure to the MFG. “Look, I have 200 people viewing a thread where I’m going to out you if you don’t…. “
I think it’s an unspoken threat. Guy whined his way into a new barrel he bought used. It was on the site last week. Never gave a name. Then strutted around like he had done something great and was vindicated. It was a second hand barrel and the mfg owed him nothing but a kick in the ass.
These threads serve no purpose to anyone but the poster who uses them for leverage.
Ironically enough, Vortex has acknowledged that the 55 in/lbs for the M10s are good to go.Dang, lot of tards here that have no idea how bolt size or number relate to clamp force, but are damned sure that anything over the patented Vortex 18 in-lb limit is "Bad, M'kay".
hahaha...they had to rob a leather fag bar to get those clothes. Wow, bet they wish they didn't take that pic. LOL
Yes, it's almost like they understand the difference between the M10 and their own ring designs.Ironically enough, Vortex has acknowledged that the 55 in/lbs for the M10s are good to go.
@308pirate - hello my friend...you seem to have a good bit of knowledge about clamping forces, torque specs, etc.
Is there any way to relate a single screw at 55 in/lbs to...for example...a four screw cap ring at 18 in/lbs?
Or, I suppose, looking for relationship of number of fasteners to torque spec. Not sure I have defined the problem correctly but I think you may know where I'm coming from on this.
Thanks
Or, he could be torqueing to 50 ft lbs instead of in lbsWTF, how can the rings crack an ocular lens?
Possibilities:
1) The OP is full of shit
2) Lens cracked due to contact with something.
3) Thermal Shock.
4) Tolerance stackup between lens and housing.
5) Bad machining.
6) Foreign object in tube.
7) Chineseium ED glass.
And some others I cant think of.
Anything that requires 55 inch pounds to hold an optic is poorly designed.Yes, it's almost like they understand the difference between the M10 and their own ring designs.
Thanks for the information @gebhardt02 much appreciated!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.
Originally he stated the rear ocular lens was cracked and that really cannot happen by ring torque.Or, he could be torqueing to 50 ft lbs instead of in lbs
This is still the best explanation
Based on conventional split rings OK but the ARC rings apply clampingAnything that requires 55 inch pounds to hold an optic is poorly designed.
Would need to know fastener sizes and lengths for a rough calculation of clamping forces
See above
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.
Based on conventional split rings OK but the ARC rings apply clamping
pressure to the tube differently so unless you are a engineer and do the math you cannot
make that statement.
We can ask @karagiasBest (and only) thing to come out of this thread is an official confirmation from ZCO that ARC rings should only be tightened to 35 in/lbs.
I’m still curious what ARC has to say about the 35 in/lb recommendation, but I’ll be sticking to that guidance.
Anything that requires 55 inch pounds to hold an optic is poorly designed.
That is their recommendation for a ZCO scope only.Best (and only) thing to come out of this thread is an official confirmation from ZCO that ARC rings should only be tightened to 35 in/lbs.
I’m still curious what ARC has to say about the 35 in/lb recommendation, but I’ll be sticking to that guidance.
You just had the ZCO man tell you that it’s way too much. Please everyone go ahead and break shit. My things don’t spend anytime in transit...
I have them on several rifles, all torqued to the 55 in/lbs as recommended. I don't have any ZCO's. Too loose can be as detrimental as too tight.You just had the ZCO man tell you that it’s way too much. Please everyone go ahead and break shit. My things don’t spend anytime in transit...