Rifle Scopes Why do we obsess about scope rings....?

[Rootshot]

I was in the market for a new set of rings recently and ended up getting a set of Kelbly's rings. Beautiful machining at a premium price. I then started thinking critically about why super high quality rings matter.

Do we have the wrong assumptions around the need for high quality rings? By using and paying a premium for perfectly machined rings, we are assuming that the rest of the system is perfectly aligned. In other words we assume:
1. Zero vertical flex in the scope rail when mounted to the action.
2. Perfect straightness of the scope rail - at least for the distance between the rings.
3. Perfect straightness and roundness of the scope tube (this is probably the biggest assumption)

If any of these assumptions are not true, we introduce stress when mounting a scope. Let's factor elements that do not contribute to stress such as strength of the rings, additional mounting points, etc. Unimounts clearly eliminate #1 and #2. Lapping rings may compensate for errors introduced by #1 and #2.

Rather than trying to seek perfection in the rings themselves wouldn't it be a better idea to mount the rings to the firearm and then bed the scope into the rings using epoxy? This bedding process would compensate for machining errors in the ring, base, and scope.

I tried bedding rings about 10+ years ago as an experiment. I used a cheap set of Burris Xtreme Tactical rings (Chinese made) and used J-B Weld as a bedding compound. I applied lithium grease to the scope tube as a release agent. I aligned the scope properly and just barely tightened the ring tops. After letting things cure for a few hours, I removed the ring / scope assembly and tapped the rings with a plastic-tipped hammer to pop them off the scope body. I then trimmed off the excess J-B Weld and cleaned the scope body. After letting it cure for about 24 hours, I reassembled everything for a perfect stress-free fit.

For some reason, I stopped doing this on other rifles. Possibly because I have no evidence that stress free mounting makes any difference in any way. It did make me "feel" a bit more confident about my gear.

I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

 

[Arc Light]

I have never, ever bedded rings or bases in 25+ years. I follow one simple formula: I buy quality, American made rings (Seekins, Leupold, Nightforce, etc.), and a quality American made base (EGW typically). Most important of all, I torque the rings and bases using a high-quality American made inch-pound torque wrench (Proto, Utica, Seekonk, etc.) to manufacturer specs. I have not once in dozens of rifles, had a single issue with accuracy or rings/bases moving or coming loose using this protocol. I'll be sticking to it for the next 25 years as well.

 

[Badfinger]

I just buy Spuhr and never use loctite or any other adhesive. One and done.

 

[flyer]

Cheap rings fail mostly from having the threads pull out.

Most decent scopes use one piece tubes which are lathe turned. If they are not straight, they are doing something very wrong.

If you can ream your rings, you're fine so long as the threads don't pull out.

I agree that spending $$$ on rings is stupid if your bases are not aligned, but if they are, it's no problem which is why I bought ARC M10 rings to go on my ARC Nucleus action with its ARC made one piece scope base.

 

[supercorndogs]

Why compound the misalignment? I have had to bed some bases on some warped remington actions. Loosen one ring and the other would lift off the base.

 

[Gohring65]

I tried cheap rings, and most scope problems I encountered seems to always be the cheap rings.
I thought for years, why bother with expensive rings. They just anchor the scope to the rifle, well I seen firsthand what problems they present.
If you really want to compound the problem, go with cheap scope, base, and rings.

 

[RTH1800]

We live in an imperfect world. Ignoring improvement due to the fact that imperfection will remain would deny all human achievement.
ie. Our bullets are not perfectly round, should we shoot oval ones or strive for the best we can get?

 

[steve123]

I lost a state match one time because on the last few stations a fairly large POI shift happened. This was actually a FT air rifle match and as far as I know the scope was not bumped, those were a cheaper pair BTW. I threw those rings away and replaced them with a set of NF rings which are still on that rifle.

But that same exact pair of NF rings were on my 375CT before and they didn't have enough "hold??" to keep the NF scope from slipping on that rifle which scarred the finish, I tried tightening more which deformed the tube. Man that was a frustrating and expensive experience!

Then I bought my first pair of ARC rings. By design, and all doubts relieved by long term trial without incident, they are the best rings available IMO.

So I don't obsess anymore.

 

[bigdaddydmd]

For me, it is simply one less thing to try to worry about, especially when out in the boonies on a hunt. I don't want to worry about "bumping" my scope or disturbing my zero. Hunted with my neighbor one year and he was very, very careful with his rifle to the point it was annoying. I tossed mine up onto the bed in his trailer and he lost his mind and kept trying to tell me my zero was going to be off and I wouldn't hit anything. I have faith in high quality bases, rings, and scopes. I told him that if tossing a rifle onto a mattress a few feet knocks the system out of zero then I don't want it. I like being able to go out, bust brush, run up and down mesas and only have to worry about my marksmanship, range, and atmospherics and have faith that failure of the system to mechanical reasons is statistically so small it is not worth worrying about. To me that is worth the extra $80-100.

 

[winniedonkey]

With all the variables that go into play sending tiny pieces of metal flying down range it makes sense to take out as much potential error as possible. The rings shooters keep bringing up in every post are there for a reason. They work. Opens up time to focus on all the other stuff.

 

[Birddog6424]

I don't know if "obsess" is the right word. It's simply part of making good choices. It is certainly more difficult to make a bad choice these days. With modern manufacturing technology, there are a LOT of great products on the market.

I have rings from Seekins, Badger, XLR Industries, Burris, American Defense, Warne, and even some older Weavers. And I have never had any trouble with any of them.

 

[Badfinger]

I've used many cheap or less expensive rings and some were OK. But most had to be lapped or they damaged the scope or let it slip. Here's an example of set of Vortex $20 rings , ($40 for the set) that looked pretty solid but had to be lapped so much I gave up on them.

 

[VegasHKShooter]

I look at it like this: we spend upwards of $4K on rifles, $3K on glass, why in the world would I skimp out on the ONE thing that is going to tie my $3K scope to my rifle, and ensure I can make my hits? The answer is simple....I won’t. My match rifles have Spuhr. One a mount, one ( A.I.) just used Spuhr rings. My work guns are using Geiselle Super Precision mounts. Both hold NF LPV’s. All are torqued per manufacturing specs. There is enough to worry about without questioning whether my equipment is GTG.

 

[Gohring65]

I've used many cheap or less expensive rings and some were OK. But most had to be lapped or they damaged the scope or let it slip. Here's an example of set of Vortex $20 rings , ($40 for the set) that looked pretty solid but had to be lapped so much I gave up on them.

That particular ring is the ones that made me realize, cheap rings are a waste of time and money.

 

[DisplacedTexan]

I use nothing but Seekins because I know they have pride in their machining and none of their products has ever caused me heartache.

 

[scudzuki]

I don't obsess about scope rings or mounts, but I do buy quality precision rings and mounts in order to
a. prevent damage to my $1500 to $3000 investment (scope) and
b. increase the likelihood that the scope/rifle will hold zero despite being banged around at/to/from the range.

What I consider quality and precision are Seekins, NF, ARC, AI, Spuhr, Bobro, and Aadland (to name a few, there are plenty of others)

 

[Clearlight]

I've used many cheap or less expensive rings and some were OK. But most had to be lapped or they damaged the scope or let it slip. Here's an example of set of Vortex $20 rings , ($40 for the set) that looked pretty solid but had to be lapped so much I gave up on them.

Had the same problem on a pair of Vortex ‘ Tactical ‘ rings . I always verify alignment using a set
of precision machined alignment bars , and lap if necessary . Seekins , Badgers , Farrell’s , and
Trentech rings have always been true when checked on my rails with alignment bars .

The Vortex rings were a last minute buy when I couldn’t get to my usual supplier at 4PM on a
Friday . No matter which way and what assembly combination I used , they were just off .
Several times a week at my local range , we see cheap rifles fitted with junk rings and scopes
sold as a package by one of the LGS’s . They are very often way over torqued , with the cap
bottomed out on one side and a large gap on the other side . One store has the balls to charge
$ 30 for ‘ scope fitting ‘ : I keep sending people back there with pics on their phone of the
incorrect fitting , and a pic of the correct fitting . Regular as the sunrise , it keeps happening ...

 

[Rootshot]

Funny, but these Vortex rings are identical to the Burris rings I used for my bedding experiment. Once bedded they were rock solid. I think there is a Chinese OEM that manufactures these 6 screw rings in various configurations and sells them to a number of US brands including Burris, Vortex, and I believe SWFA.

 

[Rob01]

I don't obsess about scope rings or mounts, but I do buy quality precision rings and mounts in order to
a. prevent damage to my $1500 to $3000 investment (scope) and
b. increase the likelihood that the scope/rifle will hold zero despite being banged around at/to/from the range.

What I consider quality and precision are Seekins, NF, ARC, AI, Spuhr, Bobro, and Aadland (to name a few, there are plenty of others)

Same here. No obsession. I buy quality.

As to the Vortex rings, I just want to specify to anyone reading that there are different sets offered by Vortex to offer different levels to their customers who might not have the funds for more expensive rings. The ones being mentioned are not the Precision Matched rings Vortex sells and that are made by Seekins. They are the less expensive sets.

 

[flyer]

I've used many cheap or less expensive rings and some were OK. But most had to be lapped or they damaged the scope or let it slip. Here's an example of set of Vortex $20 rings , ($40 for the set) that looked pretty solid but had to be lapped so much I gave up on them.

Have you still got those rings? I would take a chance on them.

 

[Badfinger]

^^^ No I chucked them because I'm pretty sure they will be oversized by the time they get in alignment.

 

[flyer]

Too bad.

 

[supercorndogs]

That particular ring is the ones that made me realize, cheap rings are a waste of time and money.

Me too. I hace a set, lapped way more than that, they are still crooked and wont hold a scope. Seekins has been the minimum since.

 

[trob_205]

After buying my first pair of good rings (Leupold MK 4) I will never buy sub-par rings- or bases again. Moderate recoiling calibers and good precison machined rings don’t need lapped or bedded. I’ve had good luck with Seekins/Vortex Precision Rings, Leupold MK4 (alum and steel), and of course Spuhr. Eventually I would like to try some ARC rings just because of their reputation.