Which rings.??

[littletoes]

All right guys, here's a question - What rings have you guys seen fail? I have heard of a half dozen or so of Badger rings FAIL. Check it out on the tactical sites. Never heard of the Nightforce, Luppy Mark-IV's, or Barrett's having problems. Although the Bagers have the loudest bragers. I own a couple of heavy kickers that are light. This means more kick, and torque against a scope. I have never had rings fail, or break, or even bend a scope. What are you guys doing wrong? I know that some of the pre 74 Remington actions are slightly "off" and if new rings/basses used with them, you will bend your scope, but other than that, what the heck are 'ya doing? Some of the heavy long range rifles with there breaks, help to tame recoil. I have a letter from Leupold that states that there Dual Dovetail rings are 100% as strong as there Mark IV rings. Wouldn't this be a great set of rings for Jake, and save him 100 SMACKERS? Can't believe nobody has mentioned 'em. Yea, he has the 20 MOA basses, but doesn't the Nightforce scope have enough adjustment to get to 1000 yards without the basses? Then again, how about shimming reg-lar basses? Well, rant off I guess, but isn't the idea to be able to save money? So that we can shoot more?

 

[gonzo exspress]

Jake
remember just buy nice that way you don't have to buy twice. I like leupold rings but never tried any thing else. From what I hear the burris rings are good and the baddger, but don't you buy no ugly set of rings a set of good rings will last you a ling time. Another words a good set of rings is a good investment.

 

[Ian M]

Don't matter if the ring set has one or two dovetails, the frigging dovetail is a weak link - just look at how much metal is left after they cut the dovetail. I was in Redfield's factory (the originator of this design) and they told me that the biggest problem that they had was the dovetails shearing off or bending over.
Plus it is metal on metal contact that results in removal of metal when the dovetail is turned 90 degrees, regardless of how much grease is put on the surfaces. Do that a few times and they will loosen, will eventually spin 360 degrees and they will wobble sideways. I baby my stuff as much as possible but more than once I have seen metal strips inside the dovetail cuts after removing a set of rings - that is crap. And I have the nifty Leupold ring-wrench to install and remove the rings with.
Badgers and MK4 might be heavier and butt-*** ugly but they are the simplest and strongest rings for the money (personally I think they look great, guess they grow on a person).
I have been told by guys who were there that the Marine armorers welded the bottom section of the Redfield style rings to the bases in Vietnam, because they did not hold.
Someone at Leupold is full of **** if they said that the dual dovetails are as strong as the MK4, just not so. Maybe some suit said that, I doubt that anyone who uses both would ever make that statement. I have seen the dovetails bend over, that DOES NOT happen with Badgers or MK4's.
As for problems with Badgers, if there were any Marty Bordson would fix whatever in a heartbeat, that is how he operates.
Let's face it, most shooters could use 19 dollar aluminum Tasco rings for all the shooting and abuse they give their scopes

 

[James D.]

IOR Valdada makes a scope ring with 6 screws for the cap and two bolts for the base, steel or aluminum. You can even get it with a picatinny dovetail on top of the ring for use with accessories and are 1.5" long... $175 to $195, so I don't know if this puts them in the same ballpark as the Max-50's or Volquartsen stuff..
http://www.valdada.com/vn/ior/05?token=t0pOplEk4WHf8KmokFNSQg

 

[littletoes]

Ian, why don't you copy and paste that last thread and send it too Leupold? Then tell us your reply. That might be interesting. When I put a scope/base on, it stays. If I am to replace the scope I replace the basses and rings, but never take them apart. Metal on metal? When you clamp your rings on basses, isn't that a metal/metal contact? I don't think the dovetails are ment to be "QD" style. If you are going to mount a scope permanantly on a rifle, then the DD's are great. If you will remember on a lot of the earlier tactical matches the DD's where used extensivly. These new fangled three pound rings are great, if you ain't carrying that rifle very far. I have friends that are putting Max 50's on there rifles because they are the latest fad, and are way coool, (spelled with 3 O's on purpose), but not the ideal thing for a carry weapon. The boys in the field worry about weight, a lot! Have you humped in the field much, or do you just hunt from a tailgate? If you need a contact at Leupold, PM me and I will send you a couple. Bet they would be real interested in what you have to say. I think that maybe they have done just a little more testing on there stuff than you have. And ask anyone that knows me. I don't baby anything. If something can be broke, I'll break it. I have just been lucky that way. Remember that if you ever lend me anything.

 

[Brent]

I agree with Ian completely, I couldn't have said it better, thankfully he did.

His experience has been mine to the "T". How many times does it take for one to find a bent and/or loose dovetail to figure this one out? The removal of metal when twisting in a dovetail is assured, not so with a Weaver style clamp. It's a ****-poor design... period. The Leopold QRD is not much of an improvement either, why not just get the QRW, MKIV, Badger or NF and not worry and wonder what recoil is doing to them. Again, if you can't handle the extra weight of these little rings, what happens when you down an animal and are looking a looong pack out? Toughen up is what I say.

 

[Cybra]

<nods> Hell yes, son, weight is just a gravitational coefficient.

After lugging a 38lb gun around in the woods for many hours, I can honestly say that one of two things happen: you consider leaving the MF behind, or condemn yourself for not bringing a collaspeable hammock. On the other hand, I have since dropped my annual membership at Gold's Gym...so perhaps unwittingly, you fellas` have aided me in economizing..

Ok, on task--most of the rings out there are designed for the pictinny slot system; do any of you boys have any rings to adivse for a straight davidson-style base? I ask because I have such a base, and want a *heavy-duty* ring/s. I know Speedy at SGY has some mighty nice looking rings.. I want BEEFY <which will probably rule out the Kelbleys, regrettfully> I prefer material such as stainless steel, or some other steel variant--not real cranked on aluminum. Thanks fellas {wonder if I could talk S1 into making up a set?--I've read his machining skills are top-notch........}

D

 

[Guest]

[ 07-12-2003: Message edited by: S1 ]

 

[texas]

S1 Titanium rings,powder Tungsten bullets what else do you have up your sleeves?

Would you be able to build them so that they are adjustable up to 50 moa and handle a scope body of 30mm and larger?

 

[Ian M]

Toes,
I have never discussed the issue of relative strength of the two mounting systems with anyone from Leupold, but I have in the last couple of years with the top guys from Badger and Swarovski, plus with some military and LE armorers that I really respect. Some of these armorers work with both styles daily, and their knowledge is what I particular value since they handle more equipment than most gunshops could imagine.

Metal to metal contact is made when I torque the sideplates on my Badgers by tightening a 1/2 nut. How can that compare to forcing (twisting) a steel dovetail into a steel cone so that metal to metal friction alone will hold it in place. Even if you only twist the ring in once you have probably scratched metal away - ever notice how much easier they get to install if they have been removed and replaced several times?

Besides bending a set of Redfield style rings during a hunt, and seeing them self-destruct when I remove the rings from the dovetails (as in when switching from a 1" to 30mm set of rings) I would never claim to having as extensive knowledge as many of the factory guys. I am fortunate to talk to individuals from several major scope companies fairly regularly, usually when I have some dumb question that they always answer. I have some good contacts at Leupold and will discuss this with them when I can. From a sales viewpoint, what your letter states is the ideal position. Who is going to state that one of their products is inferior to another in the same product line?

There was a point in time when I figured a scope mount is a scope mount, doesn't really matter who designed or made it or whether it is made of steel or aluminum. I have changed that opinion based on personal use, and from the saticefaction that I get when I know that my mounts are as good as the scope and rifle.

My hunts span a pretty wide range of species and types of activities, from the tailgate that you mentioned to horses, canoes and lots of walking. If the weight of my Badgers ever becomes an issue I will take up golf

Bottom line here is that I believe that there is a significant difference between the inherent strength of Weaver style tactical mounts (Badgers/MK4's) and the Redfield design as made and sold by Burris, Leupold, Millett, etc. Guys like Marty Bordson can go into the engineering technical stuff to explain why this is so, I don't really give a ****, common sense tells me that it is a fact. If this was not reality, why are they universally used by the military and most LE.

Other bottom line is that a bunch of guys have convinced themselves that Dual Dovetails are just as good or better than tacticals, plus they are way cheaper. These guys simply will not spend the money, nor have they ever used tacticals (fact is tacticals are **** expensive because you really should buy a 70$ Seekonk 65 in/lb snap wrench for torqueing the suckers on with, plus either buy a torque screwdriver or get someone who has one to install the little screws on the ring caps). These are also the guys who don't like how "heavy" those mounts are.

I have no doubt that most users of Dual Dovetails will get good service from them. I see 19 dollar aluminum Tascos at the range all the time and those guys are saticefied too. But I have never heard of Dual Dovetails on Marine Corps sniper rifles, must be some reason for that...

Toes, as you can see, I have a pretty strong opinion on this. I bit the bullet and switched my hunting rifles to Nears and Badgers so that I never have to worry about my mounts letting me down again.

I would be very interested to hear S1's comments on the relative strength of the Weaver/tactical design vs the Redfield mounting system.

 

[littletoes]

Mr. Ian, now that we are both calmed down, I would have to say that yes, I am in full agreement that the Badger Rings are without a doubt, stronger, and yes, better made. I wanted to state the fact that most people do not need that extra strength and weight at such an extraordinary cost. Regardless of the size of the rifle. I do not remove DD's once they are set on their basses, so the problem with metal removal isn't present beyond the initial instalation. The fact also is there that if used incorectly anything can and will fail, as has several of the higher quality rings. The inherant inacuracy in the use of "Weaver" style basses is one example. To quote Ken Marsh is one example: "Murphy's law of mechanical assembly is: Tolerances accumulate unidirectionally towards maximum difficulty of assembly. Barrels do not screw into actions at the exact same angle everytime. Scope-hole drilling and tapping ages and wanders. Manufacturers change their method for making receivers, and mounting surfaces are shaped a little differently." So as to say that we are not living in a perfect world. Also, I wold like to mention on the fact, it isn't that people who use DD's WILL NOT SPEND THE MONEY, it may be the fact that we DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to spend 300 bucks on rings and basses. There is nothing worse than someone who belittles others because they can not afford the high end items. The idea is to get out there and shoot. To get that rifle ready for the field, and shoot. That is what this site is about. Long Range HUNTING. Not buying the "most-est." Sometimes we have to settle, so as to get that gun out there and shoot it. Not look on others with contempt because they cannot afford what we have.

 

[Guest]

[ 07-12-2003: Message edited by: S1 ]

 

[Ian M]

Thanks Sam, you have joined my list of pros who verified that point.

Toes, I sure as hell do not want you to think that I rubbed this in personally about using Badgers etc. I agree that not everyone needs big-buck mounts and have recommended rings like the Warne Maximas many times - they just plain work and they cost about 50 bucks. There are lots of fine mounting systems out there, matter of fact there are some systems that cost more than the tacticals. I apologize for my choice of words in that post, I was cranky about some other stuff at the time and had no right to say that ANYBODY is full of ****.

My point about 19 dollar rings is that they do the job for the average shooter who buys a box of ammo from Walmart about every two or three years. I am not making any dollar value point so much as to try to say that most shooters I see at the range have some godawful stuff holding their scopes on their rifles - those see-through mounts give me the willies. Most guys seem to want to cut corners when they select mounting systems or they let the gunshop guys do that for them.

Since I have the opportunity to test a lot of shooting equipment I decided to put the best mounts I could find on my rifles. After trying a lot of styles I came to the conclusion that nothing is as simple and strong as the Badgers/MK4's.

Bottom line is that we are here to share info on long range hunting and shooting. I hope to shoot the new Nosler Accubonds out to 700 yards tomorrow, also will try to recover some Interbonds and Accubonds out at 500 from my bullet testing clay - if I can hit the block of clay.

 

[texas]

S1 are you sure of that number

, it didn't work

. I do understand.

Ian thanks I'll use the Warne rings, now just have to see what base will work. I'm not the hardest or easyiest person on equipment but don't want something to break at the wrong time (if it has to break).