Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking

Status
Not open for further replies.
What’s the identifiable chararticstic of the parallax binding? Does the lenses not move when the parallax is adjusted? Curious since I’ve used probably around 10+ Spuhr mounts and never had an issue with using 25inlbs on the caps. Vortex and NF scopes though.
DBD369B0-A532-4C4D-9509-319516756F8F.jpeg
 
I think we just need @karagias to pop in and see what he has to say about this whole thing. Clearly we have the answer from @gebhardt02 on M10s with ZCOs (time to go check all mine), but without modeling everything and doing analysis I can’t compute all of the applied force. I am positive this has already been performed, so it’d be interesting to get some feedback from the other side!

Just because the thread started off a little sideways (quite frankly, I’d not want to post manufacturer names here with how everyone jumps all over you if you mention any flaws with their pet brands) doesn’t mean it can’t be useful. This is the first time I’ve seen M10 torque specifications for ZCO scopes from ZCO themselves. We don’t have to keep spiraling it into more of a mess than it already is.
 
WTF, 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.

It's entirely possible since aluminum and glass have different % elongation at yield and because forces applied to a hollow beam at one point do not act only on that point but propagate all throughout.

The physics of how this can happen are pretty well known in mechanical engineering.........
 
I'm pretty sure I could stick the scope tube on pretty much any scope in a hydraulic press and completely crush it and the ocular lense would remain unbroken. Why? Because the ocular lense sits in the eye piece which is separate from the main tube! Any of you geniuses want to point out how squishing on the main tube with a pair of rings puts any stress at all on the ocular lense?

And I'm pretty sure your results mean fuck all in the context of this discussion because the press is applying a force perpendicular to a tangent on the circumference of the scope and the rings are applying a force pretty much equally all around the circumference.
 
So after all the bullshit, the dude over-torqued the rings and fucked up the scope. Manufacturer says no more than 35 inch-pounds. OP says he used 50 inch-pounds, using Fixit Sticks that have a tolerance of +/-10% according to their published specs. Not exactly precision torque tools. Just as I figured.
 
So after all the bullshit, the dude over-torqued the rings and fucked up the scope. Manufacturer says no more than 35 inch-pounds. OP says he used 50 inch-pounds, using Fixit Sticks that have a tolerance of +/-10% according to their published specs. Not exactly precision torque tools. Just as I figured.
Explains why OPs other ZCO/ARC setups are perfectly fine. And everyone else's.

Everyone acts like a single scope failure is suddenly because of the rings.
 
@Arc Light

Except that's contradictory to the scope manufacturers published manual and posts they have made here that have been quoted in this thread. If they have decided 35 in pounds is the max for their scopes in ARC rings then they should reprint their manuals and make the changes known.
 
@Arc Light

Except that's contradictory to the scope manufacturers published manual and posts they have made here that have been quoted in this thread. If they have decided 35 in pounds is the max for their scopes in ARC rings then they should reprint their manuals and make the changes known.
I agree that they should.

I asked the OP how he verified that his torque driver is accurate. He never replied. Torque tools need to be calibrated and checked for accuracy periodically and are easily thrown off due to rough handling, abuse, etc. We're assuming his accurately applied the 50 inch pounds he claimed to. For all we know, he applied a hell of a lot more than that. That would not be the rings fault, obviously.
 
I agree that they should.

I asked the OP how he verified that his torque driver is accurate. He never replied. Torque tools need to be calibrated and checked for accuracy periodically and are easily thrown off due to rough handling, abuse, etc. We're assuming his accurately applied the 50 inch pounds he claimed to. For all we know, he applied a hell of a lot more than that. That would not be the rings fault, obviously.
b6ffe49b-4435-4b50-9233-6d0d74b459d9_text.gif
 
I agree that they should.

I asked the OP how he verified that his torque driver is accurate. He never replied. Torque tools need to be calibrated and checked for accuracy periodically and are easily thrown off due to rough handling, abuse, etc. We're assuming his accurately applied the 50 inch pounds he claimed to. For all we know, he applied a hell of a lot more than that. That would not be the rings fault, obviously.

Who actually does this?
 
Except




@reubenski is legit
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
 
Read page one, then the real shit show started, so skipped to the end. If this was previously stated, sorry for the redundancy.

I've seen a scope or 2 mounted where the person doing the mounting used blue loctite on the threads, then torqued to spec. The loctite, when fresh, acts as a lube, which means the final torque is significantly more than dry threads would experience.

I was wrong once, so maybe am wrong here.

Then again, with the limited details on this, it's kinda like playing chess with someone that is playing checkers...
 
Guess all I’ll take from this 10 page argument is not to buy ARC rings and torque to 55 inch lbs…IF I HAVE A ZCO SCOPE haha
Almost right. Fixed that for you. ARC rings work fine at 55 in/lbs for Vortex/Leupold in my personal use, and haven’t heard of problems in non-ZCO scopes.

I’m not trashing ZCO, btw. Everything review I’ve read says they’re awesome.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chit126
It's entirely possible since aluminum and glass have different % elongation at yield and because forces applied to a hollow beam at one point do not act only on that point but propagate all throughout.

The physics of how this can happen are pretty well known in mechanical engineering.........

The ones questioning this have never squeezed a balloon filled with water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
So after all the bullshit, the dude over-torqued the rings and fucked up the scope. Manufacturer says no more than 35 inch-pounds. OP says he used 50 inch-pounds, using Fixit Sticks that have a tolerance of +/-10% according to their published specs. Not exactly precision torque tools. Just as I figured.

A fix it stick is an inexpensive torque limiter.
When it cams over, you stop.
Lots of people buy them thinking it'll set the torque perfectly while they are misusing it and having it cam over, over and over. It can over torque a screw.

Ham-fisted people cause most of their own problems.
 
@Krob95 has a mullet...runs a barska scope on an AI.... And prolly doesn't own a sports jacket even to be let into an establishment like that... Just sayin




Home souse vide Costco filet mignon...too easy

View attachment 7796737
Uh. What's a sports jacket? Is that like a coat with your favorite sports team on it? Seems a bit weird to wear to a fancy restaurant with thousand dollar steaks but what do my barska and I know??

PS your steak looks good man!

PSS most the time the mullet is put up in a shit ass bun because it's windy 😂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.