Boring Scope Rings???

[CRP003]

What do you think I did before posting my pics!

I dropped those turds out on my floor a couple times.

 

[lancetkenyon]

You can't even keep your pins flush, I can't even with you right meow...

 

[Brathany]

View attachment 643044

Oh that little guy? Nevermind that little guy!

 

[southpa]

I have probably 8-9 sets of the ARC M-10 or M-Brace rings. They are my go-to ring now. I use to run Seekins on everything, but I haven't bought another set of Seekins for my personal scopes since I started using ARC.

I was nervous about the 55in/lbs for the ring screw at first. But after trying them, I have not had one leave a mark or dent in any scope. 30mm, 34mm, 35mm, or 36mm.

What I DO like about the ARC rings is they are beefy, and don't flex. I am not sure how these rings would flex, seeing as how the appear to have a thinner and longer side. The ARC has the pivot point halfway up the ring, making the lower half more beefy.

View attachment 643024
View attachment 643025
View attachment 643026

Thanks Lance! One thing i wish the ARC had was a built in level option. I do see how it would be difficult though with their design. I just kind of petpeive bolting and attaching extra things to my rifles. For the longest time I opposed rails on actions that didn't have integral ones because I preffered direct mounts. Not a huge deal but for a minimalist my brain tends to lean towards items that accomplish more than one task. This is the sole purpose I haven't made the switch to ARC rings.

 

[Luckyshot7]

They are better. From an engineering viewpoint that are far and above. Like I said ARC rings are a gold standard in the rings department. I have proven them. So as I referenced " if they are like ARC" they should be great!

As a minor point of fact--I am a mechanical engineer and I do not agree with this ha. I don't doubt they work, but I see no evidence that they are inherently better by design.

I am all for innovation and such, but sometimes a simple design (tube clamp) doesn't need to be and/or can't be improved upon. For the record I don't think $130 is that expensive either. I personally don't consider most rings that are under $100

 

[CRP003]

As a minor point of fact--I am a mechanical engineer and I do not agree with this ha. I don't doubt they work, but I see no evidence that they are inherently better by design.

I am all for innovation and such, but sometimes a simple design (tube clamp) doesn't need to be and/or can't be improved upon. For the record I don't think $130 is that expensive either. I personally don't consider most rings that are under $100

Put this in solid works and run a material stress test. Which rings will show a more uniform load on the scope tube? I appreciate your input, just having good discussion

I am not one to care what the price is on rings more of a I care about quality.

Simplicity, 2 screws, no ring marks, much easier to setup scope. Quicker on and off pic rail. I've tried plenty and they are like a custom action compared a rem700. Should we discuss who makes the best rifle action for hunting or best bullets?

 

[Luckyshot7]

Put this in solid works and run a material stress test. Which rings will show a more uniform load on the scope tube? I appreciate your input, just having good discussion

I am not one to care what the price is on rings more of a I care about quality.

Simplicity, 2 screws, no ring marks, much easier to setup scope. Quicker on and off pic rail. I've tried plenty and they are like a custom action compared a rem700.

The uniformity of stress on the tube is one thing, and I agree that in theory the ARC style rings have that going for it. Two force members... pulling circumferentially... Makes good sense. Alas I no longer have Solidworks and I was not God's gift to FEA so can't totally confirm.

But another thing is total surface area contact to the scope tube. That is also directly related to good rings and bad rings (which ones slip, which ones don't). A two piece design (AKA horizontally split rings) have that theoretical advantage going for it over a 5 piece design (1 base, 2 tops, 2 connecting pins)--both in application and manufacturability

when I put that all together? I personally conclude that historically proven horizontally split rings are good enough (IE not going to be the failure point) and therefore not necessary to improve upon for any reason until we create scope tubes out of titanium and I start dropping my rifle off of cliffs

 

[southpa]

I personally conclude that historically proven horizontally split rings are good enough (IE not going to be the failure point) and therefore not necessary to improve upon for any reason until we create scope tubes out of titanium and I start dropping my rifle off of cliffs

I think this is often a highly overlooked point when it comes to anything.