Scope Rings - What makes a good ring?

[tdwinklr]

Yeah all the super cheap rings come with that in there. LOL
Stay away from that junk

then re-read the original post instead of being condescending ... I said they were CHEAP, but get the job done. I guess its better to pay $100 for a pair and have those break as well? That's what's funny.

[Raider4044]

then re-read the original post instead of being condescending ... I said they were CHEAP, but get the job done. I guess its better to pay $100 for a pair and have those break as well? That's what's funny.

What brand of $100 rings have you broken?

[Texas Grown]

Let's not argue about what's cheap, what works, ect. Let's just stay on track and answer the OP's question. Everybody is entitled to use or suggest what they wish.


Sorry for the derailment OP.


Now, back to the OP's question. Carry on.

[howabouttheiris]

I am convinced that you can turn a $50 set of rings into a $150 set of rings with a lapping rod and a bit of elbow grease. Straight is straight, and that is way more important than how matched they claim the rings to be.

Under ~$50ish you approach questionable metal for threads, but that said, I have never actually seen a ring fail during shooting.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Mike D]

I am convinced that you can turn a $50 set of rings into a $150 set of rings with a lapping rod and a bit of elbow grease. Straight is straight, and that is way more important than how matched they claim the rings to be.

Under ~$50ish you approach questionable metal for threads, but that said, I have never actually seen a ring fail during shooting.


Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I’m not convinced that is correct but in your scenario you are just swapping your labor for theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Button]

Quality/integrity of metal can suffer on cheap rings.

[TX03RUBI]

What brand of $100 rings have you broken?

I’m curious about this too

[RifleBowPistol]

In my opinion, simpler is usually better. Definitely for scope mounts. I have used a lot of different types of mounts, had all types of problems. Years ago, the problems I ran into were sometimes different than problems I have ran into in more recent times.

When I bought my first and last Vortex, it seemed great for 300 rounds, very close to 300 rounds on the money. Then it abruptly died. When I called Vortex, they repeatedly told me to never tighten the rings over 18 in. lbs., or it will crush the outer tube, causing it to make contact with the inner field tube. Then the tubes are locked together and you won't be able to make adjustments. So basically they have thin wall scope tubes, that are prone to bending easily. At the time I was using a DNZ Reaper AR mount. But replaced that with a Burris PERP AR mount, when I got the replacement scope from Vortex. The Burris PERP uses 6 screws per ring. Which by the time you get 18 in. lbs. of torque on all 6 screws, you will wind up tightening the rings in quite a few stages, which results in the rings squeezing the scope tube a good bit more than Vortex wants. I had to back the ring screw torque down to 10 in. lbs. to get the gun to group under 1" again. It was shooting 3/8" groups with the DNZ mount and the first scope before it died. So I switched to a a Leupold AR mount, because they only have two ring screws per ring, so it's easy to get the proper 18 in. lbs. of torque on the ring screws. So when you are dealing with a delicate scope like a Vortex, you don't manage to squeeze it too much.

I still got rid of the replacement scope Vortex sent me to replace the first one that died. I figured if the scope tube could be crushed that easily, it will likely bend very easily. I don't need delicate junk on my rifles, that I hunt with. That first Vortex that died, died after only shooting targets off of a bench, never went hunting with it, thank god. The day I was leaving for my first mule deer hunt, I checked the gun one last time and that's when it took a crap on me. So I swapped my cheap Simmons 44 Mag scope off of my 5.56 AR, sighted it in and went hunting. That scope has been beat to hell and back, it's always dead on.

I have owned four different design, different brand AR mounts, over the years. The most impressive was the DNZ AR Reaper, but it turns out to have been too short for me to shoot comfortably, other than that, it was a great mount. I do like the two Burris PERP mounts I have and the Leupold AR mount I have. Then I have a Colt AR mount, it looks like it would easily get bent or damaged. But after owning it and the Simmons 44 MAG, that has been in that mount all of those 20 years, have both been extremely reliable.
I really like the designs on many of the AR mounts, and started to wonder why, mounts for bolt guns always come in so many pieces. Typically two piece base, the better ones are one piece base. Then two rings, which are always two piece, can't get away from that, it's not possible. Unless the scope mount is built into the body of the scope, like some German scopes or a Burris Eliminator.

In recent years, I discovered DNZ does make their one piece scope mounts for most modern bolt guns. So I have decided that from now on, every gun I buy, I am going to check with DNZ first to see if they make a mount for that gun. Because having two piece bases, then two rings, that attach to those bases. There is a higher chance of something coming loose and or the rings not being true to each other. The reason some guys claim you should always lap in your rings.

So far, I have DNZ Reaper mounts on my Savage 9317 and my Howa short action. I have one other rifle, that I know for sure, I am going to get a DNZ Reaper for. Then I have some other rifles, I doubt DNZ makes mounts for, since those guns have not been in production for many years. But at some point, I will check to see if they make mounts for those guns, just for the heck of it.

The old Leupold mounts used to be considered one of the best designs, if not the best design. But I can tell you have had all types of problems with them and seen other guys have all types of problems with them over the years. Once they are properly installed and the screws are very tight, then they usually work pretty good, but the rings still may not be perfectly true to each other.

There are many things to consider when buying a mount for a given gun, the more experience you have, the more you will know what to look for in a scope mount design for that gun. I have a 458 SOCOM AR, it has a one piece Leupold mount on it. With 405 gr. hard cast bullets, the recoil is very heavy, enough so that the scope slides forward in the rings. After four shots, the scope has slid forward till the ring for the magnification adjustment hit the rear of the rear ring. I need to pull that scope and mount off of that gun. I have the Burris PERP mount, with the 6 screws per ring, which will definitely clamp the scope tube tighter. But I don't have a scope for that mount, that I would want to use on the 458. All of my 30 mm tube scopes have high magnification. So I have been looking for a scope for the 458, that will fit that Burris PERP mount, it has 30mm rings, most of my scopes are 1" tube scopes. Once I find the right scope for the 458, I will pull the Sig scope and Leupold mount, swap the Burris PERP and whatever scope I come up with for that gun. I did not expect the 458 to have that amount of recoil, or I would have been looking for a 30 mm tube scope from the beginning.

T/C Contenders for years, have used three rings on a Weaver style base, to get enough clamping force to keep the scope from sliding in the rings. Oddly my 445 Super Mag. has not shifted the scope in the rings much. I do plan on finding a Weaver base for it and three matching rings. That combo should have the rings lapped. That gun currently has a Leupold style base and rings, I am surprised the scope has not moved in those rings a lot. That gun has just about as much recoil as the 458, since it is so much lighter.

One other, that I just quickly mentioned in all of that mess. Is that first DNZ Reaper mount I got, it was about 3/8" shorter than the Colt mount, the Burris PERP and the Leupold AR mount. I had a lot of trouble getting down low enough to see through the scope. After being at the range for a few hours, my neck would hurt, because of the odd angle I had to turn my head to clearly see through the scope. Getting a mount that puts the center of the scope the proper height over the gun, so you can see through it properly is important, along with making sure the mount is high enough, that the front objective has plenty of clearance between it and the barrel.

Just a few examples of the many different problems, you can run into with scope mounts and rings.

[snipermedic]

Burris signature tactical

[trophy8]

Yeah. Who needs to spend $100+ on quality rings?

Here’s yalls beloved Talley rings/mount. VERY lightly used on a TC pro hunter 30/06. Snapped smooth in half. Was still holding zero though! I rigged it back out with an upgraded optic and new mount for a buddy.

Not all gun parts are created equal. And you get what you pay for.

[gatorgrizz27]

There is a difference. I’ve typically used Leupold dual dovetails or Warne’s, which I’d consider to be the lowest I’d use. Not saying cheaper ones won’t do the job, but at $50 it’s basically an insurance policy. I generally lap them and use alignment rods and have never had a failure.

The last scope I mounted was also the most expensive I’ve ever bought, a Zeiss V4. Since it was an $1,100 scope going on a $1,500 gun that will be used for my “serious hunts”, I decided to buy the $200 Zeiss rings.

I was skeptical if they were “worth it”, but with no lapping they were so precise that you could tighten the scope caps down until they were starting to clamp, then back the screw out half a turn and adjust the scope in the rings. Torque value was reached with about 1 turn back in. With the other rings you’d have to loosen them 2-3 turns to adjust anything, meaning they were clamping in some areas but not others. Then it would always shift retightening things.

Again, not saying the other ones would have failed or the Zeiss’s are all I’ll buy in the future, but there IS a noticeable difference in the precision of the machining.

[JakeGraves]

The cheap rings will be offset with the cost of ammunition in having to zero your rifle all the time. I would prefer a $400 rifle with $100 rings and a $1000 scope over a $1500 rifle with cheap scope and rings.
There are a lot of good rings ranging from Seekins to Spuhr in both quality and price.

[HTOWN]

[ATTACH]1067512[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1067513[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]1067514[/ATTACH]

Yeah. Who needs to spend $100+ on quality rings?

Here’s yalls beloved Talley rings/mount. VERY lightly used on a TC pro hunter 30/06. Snapped smooth in half. Was still holding zero though! I rigged it back out with an upgraded optic and new mount for a buddy.

Not all gun parts are created equal. And you get what you pay for.

Those are still good, you just have to tighten the 2 screws down alittle more