-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
3 or 4 rings?
- Thread starter Erik Kiser
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
jimbires
Well-Known Member
doesn't look like much room . maybe if you moved the rear ring back , you might have room for another in between the ring and turrets .
both brands of the 6 screw rings look beefy
both brands of the 6 screw rings look beefy
gohring3006
Well-Known Member
I started putting blue lock tite in my rings on my 300 Weatherby years ago, I kept having the scope slip in the rings. It totally worked and when I took the scope out of the rings, some rubbing alcohol and about 15 minutes and the scope was clean. Since then I do it on every scope I plan on keeping for a while. I clean everything first of course..
I learned this from LRH Bruce Ventura (not sure where he is today); he sells an anti-slip tape kit good for three scopes for $10. I found a similar mylar tape for 36 yards long for the same price.
Have Kirby build you one; I am 20 minutes from him, and I promised to babysit it for you.
Heard of people using something like that before...have not tried it yet....maybe when I get new scopes....still half of my rifles have no scopes...
squawberryman
Well-Known Member
Granted this is a 50 cal but it shows what happens when you bolt a skinny tube to another tube and the lower tube goes bang
Polaris_Doc
Well-Known Member
On my TRG-42 338LM, the Burris rings I was using slipped in 100 rounds. Near Manufacturing one-piece Alpha mount/rings solved that problem!
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Video above is a good reason, all by itself, to go with larger scope tube scopes on the heavy recoiling rifles. And to not have any cantilevered rails. At least part of the scope's flex was due to the rail bending because there was no screw at the rear of the rail and the rail itself was not sufficiently rigid.
It occurs to me that if the recoil lug of the rings were a tight fit to the slot in the rail that perhaps more than two rings wouldn't be needed? This assumes lapped or bedded rings that won't allow the scope to move within them.
IF that is true, then we're going to be seeing various bedding techniques for the rings to the rail? E.G. bias the front ring to the front of it's slot and fill in the gap with bedding compound, and bias the rear ring to the rear of it's slot and fill that gap with bedding compound too? Or maybe we'll be using red locktite to adhere some shim stock to the side of each slot to reduce the gap to zero? Maybe we can get one or more of the premier ring mfg's to start offering rings with an over-sized lug so that they can be fit to the exact slot. Then the question would be, do we thin the lug (can see a camp arguing that makes it 'weaker' - never mind that it's already wider than the spec) or do we widen the slot to fit the oversized lug (another camp arguing against because it removes the finish and/or makes it harder to fit the next set of rings). Along about then someone will make rings with double, opposing tapered lugs that fit in one slot. Tightening the mounting screws or nuts will cause the lug to "widen" to the point of completely filling the slots in the rails and sending all of the previous band-aids into the rubbish bin.
At least, that is what my crystal ball is showing me this morning......
It occurs to me that if the recoil lug of the rings were a tight fit to the slot in the rail that perhaps more than two rings wouldn't be needed? This assumes lapped or bedded rings that won't allow the scope to move within them.
IF that is true, then we're going to be seeing various bedding techniques for the rings to the rail? E.G. bias the front ring to the front of it's slot and fill in the gap with bedding compound, and bias the rear ring to the rear of it's slot and fill that gap with bedding compound too? Or maybe we'll be using red locktite to adhere some shim stock to the side of each slot to reduce the gap to zero? Maybe we can get one or more of the premier ring mfg's to start offering rings with an over-sized lug so that they can be fit to the exact slot. Then the question would be, do we thin the lug (can see a camp arguing that makes it 'weaker' - never mind that it's already wider than the spec) or do we widen the slot to fit the oversized lug (another camp arguing against because it removes the finish and/or makes it harder to fit the next set of rings). Along about then someone will make rings with double, opposing tapered lugs that fit in one slot. Tightening the mounting screws or nuts will cause the lug to "widen" to the point of completely filling the slots in the rails and sending all of the previous band-aids into the rubbish bin.
At least, that is what my crystal ball is showing me this morning......
Polaris_Doc
Well-Known Member
I hear ya there, especially watching that video really makes you wonder some of those things. Just goes to show how well built some of the Scopes are that can take the abuse continually, and is a great argument for buying a decent scope and not a cheap one that will get broken apart! Perhaps someone with more experience or knowledge on the subject can weigh in on how that kind of abuse affects the internals??
QuietTexan
Well-Known Member
My big take away from that video is "leverage".
This video is one of the reasons I no longer use release agent when I bed a rail to my action.
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
Nothing. So long as the alignment of the rings has been trued by either bedding the scope in the rings or by lapping the bores of the rings. (I'm going to assume that in this level of recoil that the Burris insert rings option isn't viable, but that may be a faulty assumption.) Failure to do one of those processes would likely be eventually fatal to the scope.
