I'm assuming they'll update the manual since it says follow ring manufacturers recommendations.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
- Thread starter Bsutton2010
- Start date
- Status
I'm assuming they'll update the manual since it says follow ring manufacturers recommendations.
No kidding, why would ZCO make a comment about any other optics manufacturer.
I have the prefect test if you have a 30mm ARC ring/mount, put it around your cock and tighten it
to 55 inch pounds. If the tip turns black and dies you know 55 inch pounds is too much.
The reason I suggested a 30mm is because none of you pack enough meat for a 36mm ring to even make contact.
to 55 inch pounds. If the tip turns black and dies you know 55 inch pounds is too much.
The reason I suggested a 30mm is because none of you pack enough meat for a 36mm ring to even make contact.
He was making a clarifying point about Mr. Gofer’s statement, which could be read as a sweeping generalization.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the inference of the facts in this thread seem to be that ZCO’s tubes seem to be susceptible to whatever forces the ARC rings place upon them. Forces that some other manufacturer’s tubes aren’t bothered by…barring other widespread reports of scopes getting ARC-crushed (haven’t seen any).
What does this mean? I’m not sure. Maybe a) ZCO needs to update & broadcast their ARC specs more clearly and broadly? Maybe b) there is a weakness in the ZCO design as it relates to ARC rings, but maybe it doesn’t matter if (a) is followed?
I don’t know.
But I do know it seems two groups of people are laughing at the same jokes, but for different reasons. Amusing!
Last edited:
I must have missed the thread where ARC mounts were crushing all those shit Razors with the great warranty, or any other scope for that matter
Do show us your qualifications to make that statement
We have decades of rings and mounts that work already that require far less force, don’t have to be a rocket scientist
We have decades of rings and mounts that work already that require far less force, don’t have to be a rocket scientist
We have decades of rings and mounts that work already that require far less force, don’t have to be a rocket scientist
In other words, you're an ignorant idiot who can't back up your statements
Great, I can't buy a no compromise optic without compromising on my mounts now...
In all seriousness, I still have some questions: Was the original optic that OP cracked repaired or replaced? If repaired, is this an example of some really unlucky tolerance stacking? If replaced, something else has to be going on considering at least one other ZCO was reported cracked in the past yet I have seen multiple people use them in ARC rings/mounts without anyone questioning the torque spec until now.
In all seriousness, I still have some questions: Was the original optic that OP cracked repaired or replaced? If repaired, is this an example of some really unlucky tolerance stacking? If replaced, something else has to be going on considering at least one other ZCO was reported cracked in the past yet I have seen multiple people use them in ARC rings/mounts without anyone questioning the torque spec until now.
ExceptI think the OP is full ofand wanted some attention
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
About 3 months ago I bought top of the line scope. (I don’t want to use the manufactures name because they’ve been great). I mounted it on my 6.5 creedmoor with ARC m-brave mount, torqued to 49inch pounds. (It’s the fixit sticks limiter I had). I took it out to shoot for the second time and...
www.snipershide.com
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
About 3 months ago I bought top of the line scope. (I don’t want to use the manufactures name because they’ve been great). I mounted it on my 6.5 creedmoor with ARC m-brave mount, torqued to 49inch pounds. (It’s the fixit sticks limiter I had). I took it out to shoot for the second time and...
www.snipershide.com
Top scope brand that costs 4k+ keeps cracking
About 3 months ago I bought top of the line scope. (I don’t want to use the manufactures name because they’ve been great). I mounted it on my 6.5 creedmoor with ARC m-brave mount, torqued to 49inch pounds. (It’s the fixit sticks limiter I had). I took it out to shoot for the second time and...
www.snipershide.com
@reubenski is legit
You are right that 55 lbs is the correct torque for the rail screws. It's also the correct torque for the ring clamp screws.
So I uploaded a good crisp photo showing the 55in-lb on the rings. Sadly the forum smudged and down rezed it to garbage.
Any how, any machinest or engineer knows that smaller screws with finer threads generate more clamping force for the same torque than bigger screws with coarser threads. Ted uses one bigger stronger screw. He provides the correct torque to properly torque the scope.
Attachments
Last edited:
That says “apply UP TO” 55-in/lbs. Not that it has to be or should be 55 in/lbs.
That's because he wanted to eliminate the rings as a possible cause in the discussion. Unfortunately he failed.
You are like, I don't know... three days and a dead horse late on that revelation. Thanks.
Edit: can someone put this thread out of it's misery already.
Wow, can't believe that this is still going on. A few observations in reply to some of the posts above
1. The OP said that, after further examination, it was the Barlow lens (one right in front of the turret...right...I believe that this is the Barlow which adjusts parallax or am I wrong?)
2. The OP was far too coy for us to understand if it was replaced or fixed...so, we don't know if its the same scope with the same failure or two independent scopes with independent but identical failures (is a big difference, to my mind).
3. As far as I can tell, this is NOT an endemic ZCO problem and...as far as I know...this is the only reported instance of this type of failure on a ZCO scope. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So....I do not think its justified to say that ZCO has more delicate tubes or whatever than other scopes. Just my view
3. I agree with most of you that @GoferDog is an idiot (well, on this subject) who doesn't know what he doesn't know and is completely and erroneously equating screw torque to clamping force.
4. I'm the one that sort of pursued this with ZCO in their dedicated thread and that's where Nick first posted his reply that is also above. I did so not because I think there is some sort of design fault with their scope, but rather that there was contradiction/lack of clarity in their published torque spec and a conflict between a reported convo a member had with Mr. Huber of ZCO. AND, I want to use M-10 rings with a 5-27 I plan to buy fairly soon. So, this was an important subject to me, personally
5. I too have a Mk 5 5-25 in M-10 rings and have torqued the rings to 55 in/lbs per ARC directions. I have installed this scope in these rings more than once and have never had an problem. And I do love ARC rings for a number of reasons.
6. I really just wanted some clarity from the manf (and got it) as we are talking about $4k of scope, right? In my world, that's real money. My ZCO will be going on a 6.5 manbun so I'm pretty sure that 35 in/lbs on the rings will secure the scope quite well. I'm not really worried about that (maybe I should be..we will see). But I do intend to contact ARC just to see what they say. I note that in following the link above that Ted talked about his single screw 55 in/lbs being comparable to a ring with two top screws torqued to 18-20 in/lbs. Since many/most of use run rings with 4-6 screws per ring cap AND tend to torque each of them to 18-20 routinely and without issue, I'm guessing that this configuration would put more clamping force on the scope tube than Ted's single screw 55 in/lbs.
7. SHOT seemed to have put a bit of a hitch in ZCO's giddy-up so it took them a while to reply, but I'm happy with @gebhardt02 response, will be buying a ZCO from @CSTactical in a month or so (got some quail in GA to kill in the meantime...along with a big bill from the plantation! haha). With info from ZCO and, hopefully, info from ARC, I will then decide what torque to put on the M-10's but would be very surprised if I decide to exceed ZCO's 35 in/lbs. We will see.
I guess my final thought (and I can hear the cheers..."oh, he's going to finally STFU!" haha) is that the OP did ZCO, ARC, and the board a disservice by only giving us partial information and setting off this fire storm of speculation. Eh...its just electrons but if he identified the manf up front and told us if it was repaired or replaced with new that this would have informed and shortened (I believe) this drawn out debate.
Wow, the scotch is kicking in and its time for me to kick back.
1. The OP said that, after further examination, it was the Barlow lens (one right in front of the turret...right...I believe that this is the Barlow which adjusts parallax or am I wrong?)
2. The OP was far too coy for us to understand if it was replaced or fixed...so, we don't know if its the same scope with the same failure or two independent scopes with independent but identical failures (is a big difference, to my mind).
3. As far as I can tell, this is NOT an endemic ZCO problem and...as far as I know...this is the only reported instance of this type of failure on a ZCO scope. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So....I do not think its justified to say that ZCO has more delicate tubes or whatever than other scopes. Just my view
3. I agree with most of you that @GoferDog is an idiot (well, on this subject) who doesn't know what he doesn't know and is completely and erroneously equating screw torque to clamping force.
4. I'm the one that sort of pursued this with ZCO in their dedicated thread and that's where Nick first posted his reply that is also above. I did so not because I think there is some sort of design fault with their scope, but rather that there was contradiction/lack of clarity in their published torque spec and a conflict between a reported convo a member had with Mr. Huber of ZCO. AND, I want to use M-10 rings with a 5-27 I plan to buy fairly soon. So, this was an important subject to me, personally
5. I too have a Mk 5 5-25 in M-10 rings and have torqued the rings to 55 in/lbs per ARC directions. I have installed this scope in these rings more than once and have never had an problem. And I do love ARC rings for a number of reasons.
6. I really just wanted some clarity from the manf (and got it) as we are talking about $4k of scope, right? In my world, that's real money. My ZCO will be going on a 6.5 manbun so I'm pretty sure that 35 in/lbs on the rings will secure the scope quite well. I'm not really worried about that (maybe I should be..we will see). But I do intend to contact ARC just to see what they say. I note that in following the link above that Ted talked about his single screw 55 in/lbs being comparable to a ring with two top screws torqued to 18-20 in/lbs. Since many/most of use run rings with 4-6 screws per ring cap AND tend to torque each of them to 18-20 routinely and without issue, I'm guessing that this configuration would put more clamping force on the scope tube than Ted's single screw 55 in/lbs.
7. SHOT seemed to have put a bit of a hitch in ZCO's giddy-up so it took them a while to reply, but I'm happy with @gebhardt02 response, will be buying a ZCO from @CSTactical in a month or so (got some quail in GA to kill in the meantime...along with a big bill from the plantation! haha). With info from ZCO and, hopefully, info from ARC, I will then decide what torque to put on the M-10's but would be very surprised if I decide to exceed ZCO's 35 in/lbs. We will see.
I guess my final thought (and I can hear the cheers..."oh, he's going to finally STFU!" haha) is that the OP did ZCO, ARC, and the board a disservice by only giving us partial information and setting off this fire storm of speculation. Eh...its just electrons but if he identified the manf up front and told us if it was repaired or replaced with new that this would have informed and shortened (I believe) this drawn out debate.
Wow, the scotch is kicking in and its time for me to kick back.
I always lapped my rings, but I just recently got my first spuhr and I was not gonna lap it. I thought about just doing it but didn’t.
Spuhr mounts are line bored, so you don't need to, nor should you lap them. Lapping was intended generally for individual ring sets/pairs where there coud be dimensional variations on the rings and/or the rail that they were mounted to.
I used to lap pairs of rings, but I quit using them and went to Spuhrs. Have had zero issues with Spuhrs on multiple ZCO's and Tangent Thetas.
Last edited:
Anyway it doesn’t matter, as long as you are happy with what you’ve got. I don’t want a mount that looks like a door hinge and a door knob had a baby with a river boat. But that’s just me.
Attachments
Plenty of issues with Sphur and zero shifting. I sold my QDP for a ARC M-Brace and guess what ? I torqued a Razor Gen 2 at 55in/lbs as per the rings manufacturer as opposed to Vortex’s 18in/lbs recommendation. Shot 300 rounds since I swapped mounts, did a drop test and bang the rifle around. Still doing fine so far. You’ll be the first to know if the razor needs to go to vortex service.
A whole 300 rounds, wow!! Can you tell us more?! How did you do that?
Since this thread is still going for no reason, here's a photo on my dry aged ribeye I had for supper topped with a nice truffle butter, paired with a smoked añejo old fashioned.
Again, there's an entire thread of people having issues with Spuhrs binding parallax on multiple scope brands at low torque values.
Charlie's Steakhouse in Tampa
Sorry man! I will say tho, it was one of the best steaks I've had. Almost went Grade 9 Wagyu but decided to save that for another time
Approx 26.3in-lbs per marker
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.
- Status
Similar threads
