Burris 34mm Signature Rings Fiasco- BEWARE

I love the design too, maybe if they used some kind of aluminum inserts the squish/crush wouldn't be there.

The original version, developed by Mr Jewel, the trigger maker, did have aluminium alloy inserts but he only made a limited quantity (probably as a 'labour of love') before selling the rights, according to a thread on Rimfire Central several years ago.
 
I did read somewhere that the XTR2 scope tube is 1/8" thick.
I will try to confirm this.


Disregard, I can't find the data.
I read it when I was researching mid level scopes and is one of the reasons I bought the 4-20x50 XTR2.
 
Last edited:
I did read somewhere that the XTR2 scope tube is 1/8" thick.
I will try to confirm this.


Disregard, I can't find the data.
I read it when I was researching mid level scopes and is one of the reasons I bought the 4-20x50 XTR2.

I thought I had read once that the XTRII tubes were thicker than average too. I love the scope, zero complaints there. I had some people trying to talk me into the 4-20 but went 5-25. Glad I did.
 
I've been using Burris Signature rings since they were introduced and recently starting buying the XTR versions and LOVE them.

Although I've never owned a scope with a 34mm tube I'll share my experiences anyway.

I've NEVER had even one problem with any Burris rings BUT have had several scopes that didn't like to be compressed very much near the erector controls. I'm not sure I can remember the brands of those scopes because I haven't had that problem in the last few years but I keep buying better and better optics as my eyes age... LOL

I never liked Burris scopes but my experience with them was admittedly very limited. I think the problems the OP reported are scope related but I'll also share a suspicion. I think that some scopes are fragile in the tubes and that problem can be exacerbated by Signature rings. I think the clamping they subject the scope to is slightly uneven due to the floating plastic inserts and that might be affecting some fragile scopes but isn't evident on scopes that have sturdier tubes and/or erectors.

That's just a theory backed up with a lot of trial and error and moving scopes around a lot and using several different brands over the years.

My Leupold Mark 4 scopes and my Nightforce scopes seem to be so bulletproof that I could probably mount them with chain binders and they'd be fine. Most other scopes I have around here are a bit more sensitive and I try to stay away from the rings being very close to the erectors and overtightening.

Just one man's opinion that has tried to learn from his many mistakes over many many years of being too bullheaded to ever give up in the pursuit of accuracy.

By the way... I've never used a torque wrench to mount scopes but I DO own two different inch pound wrenches and use them for torquing action screws religiously. When I do tighten scope ring screws I cross torque until every screw "crinks" just right and the same as the others. That can take a lot of time and I try to be patient. I also retighten after the first couple groups I fire after mounting the scope and then about 100 rounds later although that seems to be completely unnecessary .

Sounds like we're on the same page. I don't know if the XTRII scope tube exacerbates the problem...it could. My opinion is that the squishy/compressible inserts don't provide enough solid support for the scope tube.

It would appear that the tube is receiving too much vertical clamp and not enough support on the sides. The rings front and rear were placed as far away as possible from the erector/turret. The whole symptom was the scope tube deforming and removing the clearance in the parallax mechanism to the point of significant binding.
 
Not real sure if it is just the rings....I bought the same scope and have had nothing but problems with it....mine is MRAD and have never been able to get a group and the scope never fires the same the second day. I have changed bases,rings and tried it on two other guns, bought factory shells to prove it wasn't the re-loads.....the scope is junk.....and 1760.00 is alot to pay for junk

Have you sent the scope back to Burris for repair or replacement? Also, how did you pay $1760 for a scope with a street price of $1000-$1200?
 
Hey guys, just finished up what became a long, nightmare process using Burris' 34mm Signature rings to mount my Burris XTRII 5-25. The reason for this post is so that hopefully, nobody else has to go through what I have.

I'll start by saying that this is in no way intended to knock Burris or their products. Their tech support has gotten to know me on a first name basis and they have been nothing but outstanding and have bent over backwards to help me in this process.

This all started when I bought my new XTRII. I decided to mount her up with the Burris Signature rings. I ALWAYS use a torque wrench when mounting bases and optics. So, my first call was to Burris tech support to get their torque specifications on the ring top screws with which they told me 20-25 in./lbs. I felt like 25 in./lbs. was a little high so I used 20. Right away it was obvious that I could not get the rifle to zero. It appeared to be double printing and groups were 1.5MOA plus...keep in mind this rifle normally shoots .2-.3 MOA.

I put in a call to tech support and we set up an RMA to send the scope in. The scope was tested under Burris' normal tests when they receive a scope. It was determined to have no issues and I got the standard message of..."you have maxed out your adjustment...do this, this and this to correct."

So, I mounted the scope back up to the rifle just like the first time at 20 in./lbs. Took it out to zero...same thing. Big, ugly grouping and not able to zero. I pulled the scope back off and mounted up my trusty Burris Veracity 3-15 with Vortex precision rings to help in the troubleshooting process. I had the rifle zeroed in 4 shots and it was back to grouping in the .3's.

Called tech support again and set up an RMA to send the XTRII in a second time. As before, they proceeded with their testing and found nothing wrong with the scope. Again I got the message that I was nearly maxed out on my internal elevation adjustment. Who cares? That's what these were made for right?

Got the scope back and mounted up to 20 in./lbs. This time I noticed my parallax knob was acting funny. I hadn't noticed before because I was only shooting at my zero distance...200 yards and really didn't need any parallax adjustment changes. With the scope mounted to 20 in./lbs. I now noticed that the parallax knob felt inconsistent and was certainly getting in a bind. Now we're finally getting somewhere! Realizing what was going on I backed off my far ring torque setting to 15 in./lbs. I determined this to be the absolute max torque that I could put on the ring caps and not put a bind on my parallax mechanism.

I took the rifle out and it zeroed quickly. Groups shrunk back down to what they should be. However, I noticed in the process of shooting that at 15 in./lbs. the screws were slowly backing off. One day I shot 15-20 rounds and the screws loosened significantly. This happened 3-4 times and every time I finished shooting I'd check ring torque to find that the screws had loosened up.

I called tech support again and made them aware of my findings and also that the lower torque setting was clearly not a long term solution. They agreed to send me a new set of 34mm Signature rings to troubleshoot with. I found the exact same thing...that any top ring screw torque over 15 in./lbs would begin putting a bind on my parallax mechanism. Once confirming this, Burris tech support agreed that there still had to be something wrong with the XTRII. So, back in again it goes for the 3rd time.

I think by this point the people at Burris were a little nervous that I was about to blow. I wasn't, I just wanted a permanent solution and to get back to shooting. About 4 days later I get a call from the repair shop where I was told that my scope tube was in fact slightly football shaped where the far ring was clamping. WTH!!! I asked how this could have happened when I was using all of Burris' products and their torque specs. I didn't receive any comforting direction other than to try again with the new XTRII they were sending.

Got the new scope back and mounted it up with the newer set of Signature rings that Burris had sent me. This time I filmed myself in the mounting process because I knew that I would still have the same issue. Sure enough, slowly brought the torque up to 15 in./lbs. I could tell on this new scope that this was still the max torque it would put up with and not affect the parallax mechanism. In the video I went to 17.5 in./lbs just to prove that it was over and was certainly putting a bind on the parallax. Trying to rule every potential issue out, I contacted a friend who had a nice, $180 Mac Tools inch pound torque wrench. We ran my Wheeler Fat Wrench directly up against his Mac and we were +/- 2 inch pounds at all ranges. At the 20 in./lb range we were identical.

I contacted the service department as well as sent them my video of the process. After watching my video the tech in the service department felt I was incorrectly torquing the scope. In his words I was "over-torquing" the rings even though my Fatwrench was only set to 15 in./lbs. He also admitted that there was a "compress-ability" to these ring inserts which would explain the squishiness when trying to achieve a correct and final torque.

I worked in the heavy truck industry for 17 years and in that time torqued a lot of critical components. Many of these torque sequences were on cylinder heads where you're compressing a head gasket. Anybody who's ever torqued a component down with a thick gasket knows that you have to torque the bolts several times to achieve proper fastener torque and take the "squish" out of the gasket. When you torque one fastener, the ones next to it lose torque or clamp load. This is a well known fact and is in the service manuals. Some manufacturers even recommend the cylinder head be torqued again after a certain time of usage.

So where was I going with that analogy? To tell you how I mount scope rings. Once I get the scope leveled and rings screws are just past snug, I begin to slowly bring them up to a low torque setting while crisscrossing side to side. I set the torque wrench to it's final setting and continue to crisscross until all fasteners quit moving. This happens quickly with solid rings. With the Signatures I discovered (as confirmed by the service tech) that the inserts are very compressible. This requires crisscrossing many times until each fastener quits moving.

I did specifically ask the Burris service tech what his personal method was when torquing down the signatures. I won't go into his whole answer now but will say that he is NOT achieving a correct or consistent top ring fastener torque. Some of his fasteners will have more torque than others. His overall torque (even though his wrench is set to 20 in./lbs.) will be achieving less clamp load than my procedure at 15 in./lbs. Keep in mind, at 15 in./lbs my screws kept coming loose.

At this point I knew that I needed to get completely away from the Signature rings. Burris tech support was kind enough to send me a set of their solid XTR tactical rings with the 3x3 screw design. I returned the 2nd set of Signatures they sent me. As I knew it would, the scope mounted up beautifully achieving a quick final torque of 20 in./lbs with no issues at all with the parallax binding. Problem solved!

Final thoughts:
In my opinion there is an engineering issue with the Signature rings at least in the 34mm tube size. With the plastic inserts there just isn't enough solid support to the scope tube. Again, they are very compressible, not what I want in a scope mounting system. It could be that if the inserts were of an aluminum alloy they may work great. I do like the concept of cant in the rings and the idea behind it. I'll note that I have a couple friends who swear by these rings in 1" and 30mm sizes who have not had any issues. They also don't believe in torque wrenches so undoubtedly scope tubes are being over-torqued and excessive clamp load applied. It may be that there's enough support to the scope tube in these smaller tube sizes for the system to work.

In summary, my problem is solved. Burris has been awesome and has worked hard to try and keep me happy and provide solutions. If you are considering these rings in 34mm, just beware.

We used to lap or machine the rings if they needed "true-ing" but I learned a long time ago that using shims adds an element to the equation that you don't want in a precision platform. (or anything for that matter) I would just avoid anything with shims and stick with high-quality American made scope mounts and rings. I also recommend that you stick with steel if you run conventional rings alone versus a cantilever or similar mount whereas a high-grade American made aerospace aluminum alloy is suitable. It's like trying to mount rings machined for Picatinny to a Weaver mount, it just throws the entire thing out of spec. and you will have problems. We are all easily baited by promises of convenience but it seldom yields the solid results of doing it the right way and ensuring the entire mounting system is trued.
 
I saw this thread and thought I would respond. First a little background. I mount 10-20 scopes a year for myself and others on rifles I build. I have tried a little of everything. I have had EVERY single Vortex scope I have ever mounted or shot fail in short order. 100% of them up to and including the Viper PSTs ( $1100-$1200 range). I have had a number of other scopes fail over the years as well. My 8# 340 Wby is hard on scope especially.
While at the SHOT this year I talked to someone from the Vortex company at length. He told me that HOW you mount a scope is a LOT more important than we (the industry collectively) thought. He told me that at least on Vortex scope to keep the rings at least 3/8" away from the ocular portion and 3/8" forward of the boss that the turrets sit on. If you mount a scope in the the fashion where you put a load on certain components they don't like it. I suspect Vortex uses soft tubes and this exacerbates the problem.

I suspect that all of you are relating factual anecdotes but my very well be gripping the scope in different locations than the OP. I asked this gentleman why they don't put better instruction in the packaging. His answer was that they do now! In any event, I still won't buy Vortex scopes but they sell and awesome torque wrench (far better and easier to use that the Wheeler fat wrench) and adhere to his suggestion of never torquing a ring beyond 18 inch/pounds.

Also, NEVER put locktite on ring screws. This will skew the torque values up and make disassembly difficult. I recently had to machine some scope screws out with a carbide end mill because locktite was used and the blued Sako rings were too valuable to heat up and ruin the bluing.

A suggestion for locking the rings is to put some type of compound around the head of the screws. I use an inspector's lacquer called "Cross Check torque seal". It comes in myriad colors. I am an aircraft inspector and it is what I use at work to set critical nuts and fasteners. My assigned color at work is orange but I use grey on scope screws.

On another note, my experience with the XTR rings has not been very good. They are not particularly round and the metal hardness seems to vary greatly. You do get what you pay for to a large degree.

I have used the Signature rings a lot but they don't work well above at 300 magnum levels of recoil. I hope this helps.
 
I saw this thread and thought I would respond. First a little background. I mount 10-20 scopes a year for myself and others on rifles I build. I have tried a little of everything. I have had EVERY single Vortex scope I have ever mounted or shot fail in short order. 100% of them up to and including the Viper PSTs ( $1100-$1200 range). I have had a number of other scopes fail over the years as well. My 8# 340 Wby is hard on scope especially.
While at the SHOT this year I talked to someone from the Vortex company at length. He told me that HOW you mount a scope is a LOT more important than we (the industry collectively) thought. He told me that at least on Vortex scope to keep the rings at least 3/8" away from the ocular portion and 3/8" forward of the boss that the turrets sit on. If you mount a scope in the the fashion where you put a load on certain components they don't like it. I suspect Vortex uses soft tubes and this exacerbates the problem.

I suspect that all of you are relating factual anecdotes but my very well be gripping the scope in different locations than the OP. I asked this gentleman why they don't put better instruction in the packaging. His answer was that they do now! In any event, I still won't buy Vortex scopes but they sell and awesome torque wrench (far better and easier to use that the Wheeler fat wrench) and adhere to his suggestion of never torquing a ring beyond 18 inch/pounds.

Also, NEVER put locktite on ring screws. This will skew the torque values up and make disassembly difficult. I recently had to machine some scope screws out with a carbide end mill because locktite was used and the blued Sako rings were too valuable to heat up and ruin the bluing.

A suggestion for locking the rings is to put some type of compound around the head of the screws. I use an inspector's lacquer called "Cross Check torque seal". It comes in myriad colors. I am an aircraft inspector and it is what I use at work to set critical nuts and fasteners. My assigned color at work is orange but I use grey on scope screws.

On another note, my experience with the XTR rings has not been very good. They are not particularly round and the metal hardness seems to vary greatly. You do get what you pay for to a large degree.

I have used the Signature rings a lot but they don't work well above at 300 magnum levels of recoil. I hope this helps.

Very helpful and informative Dennis, thank you. Amazing the bad luck you've had with Vortex although it sounds like it could have been a ring location issue. I got rid of all of my Vortex scopes a couple years ago due to ongoing issues.

I did ask the Burris techs about ring position on the tube and they didn't provide any specific information about a possible "sweet spot" on the XTRII tube. Their consensus was that the farther the rings from the turret the better.
 
I guess it goes with the saying I've read a few times, Vortex has the best warranty in the business because they need it. Lol
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top