Suggestions to Prevent Scope Creep in Rings

[CMaier]

I know i am outside your club, but the base clearly does not fit the curve of the receiver,
the rings do not match the scope.
Seems like an opportunity for a part that works first time every time,
and stop the need for "fitting" custom high dollar parts.

Some times i am glad i am not in your club.

 

[alinwa]

I know i am outside your club, but the base clearly does not fit the curve of the receiver,
the rings do not match the scope.
Seems like an opportunity for a part that works first time every time,
and stop the need for "fitting" custom high dollar parts.

Some times i am glad i am not in your club.

wow

And I'm sorry to be involved in this discussion with you.

I'll try to stay out of your threads in future.

 

[Joe Maisto]

RESIN
bill

+1

 

[CMaier]

wasn't you al.
it was the entire thread about how to fix new parts to make them work the way they are suppose to.

wow

And I'm sorry to be involved in this discussion with you.

I'll try to stay out of your threads in future.

 

[Al Nyhus]

I know i am outside your club, but the base clearly does not fit the curve of the receiver,

The receiver pictured is a Remington 700. The 700 front receiver ring and rear receiver bridge are notorious for being all over the place, from a dimension stand point. If you are at all familiar with the 700's, you'd know that the rear receiver bridge is not round like the front of the receiver. That's why even the best made bases will never fit well. The ring/base mfgs. have no control over what comes off the Remington production line.

the rings do not match the scope.

That's why you fit them together.

 

[CMaier]

al n,
or buy rings that do fit , silly me.
i'll stop
everyone have a great fourth of july!

The receiver pictured is a Remington 700. The 700 front receiver ring and rear receiver bridge are notorious for being all over the place, from a dimension stand point. If you are at all familiar with the 700's, you'd know that the rear receiver bridge is not round like the front of the receiver. That's why even the best made bases will never fit well. The ring/base mfgs. have no control over what comes off the Remington production line.



That's why you fit them together.

 

[Al Nyhus]

al n,
or buy rings that do fit , silly me.

Best of wishes in your precision shooting endeavors. -Al

"Those failing to follow the prescription for accuracy will remain ailing riflemen." -Norman E. Johnson

 

[BenPerfected]

Bed the scope tube to the rings (bottoms and tops). Bedding compound with some Nylon filler works well (Acra Glas gel) as it gives some flexibility when the tops are tightened.

It doesn't never not work (Northern Plains triple negative intentional).

Try using the Scotch Magic Tape. Very thin, easy to apply, trim or remove. It also is good at eliminating ring marks on the scope.

 

[rogn]

Ive only had one scope cause problems and that was a heavy steel tubed 2-8X 30mm scope that I mounted on a 8# 375 Ruger. It moved bare, and it moved with rosin/resin in lapped "Z" rings. I fixed it with a Leupold 1.75-6X 1" that weighed less than half of the steel tubed. And just to stop the fighting; rosin is a resin ,usually pine...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosin
On reflection mounting sopes and setting up rifles is kinda like painting, the preparation is 98% of the job, get all the basics down and the rest will politely follow.

 

[glp]

A few years ago

someone I know had an issue with a March scope. He sent it back and it was determined that he had over tightened the ring tops and compressed the tube. That was interfering with the operation of the erector tube. They replaced the tube. Comment was, if my memory serves me, was no more than 8-10 inch pounds of screw torque.

 

[Al Nyhus]

Another approach

I wanted to add that for those that get all sqeemish about bedding scope rings:

I've used Delrin 30mm to 1" sleeves and they give almost as much contact as a bedded set of rings. If you're buying new rings and are using a 1" scope, get 30mm rings and the sleeves. Then you have some options. -Al

 

[Pete Wass]

One of the nice things

about shooting Rimfire Rifles is not needing to be concerned about scopes moving or breaking, although, a reticle or two do droop now and again but I suspect it's errant glue more then anything else.

Imagine, shooting for years with the same 6X scope - - -- . All the other misfit ting items apply though but I ignore them, for the most part.

Pete

 

[Wilbur]

OK, let's say I tighten my scope up and it doesn't move in the rings. Do y'all know for sure it would be better to lap the rings or are you just making assumptions. "Sure" is the key word here.

 

[Boyd Allen]

Since I have never had much of a problem with scopes moving in rings, my lapping has never had anything to do with that. IMO you can either hope that your ring, base, and receiver combination will not stress, and or bend your scope, or you can take a few strokes with a lapping bar and see what you have. I prefer knowing to hoping. To me the whole question of lapping or not lapping seems to come from a desire to do as little as can be gotten away with, rather than the desire to do things the best that one can, with available resources. If I remember correctly, in his book, Mr. Boyer has quite a lot to say about scope mounting. One comes away with the impression that he thinks that it is very important.

 

[Wilbur]

Those are assumptions. Do you have any hard evidence that a rifle shoots better with lapped scope rings?

----------------------
Came back to add that I don't know whether lapping makes a rifle shoot better or not...just asking. I realized that my comments read as if I'm opposed to lapping....which I'm not.

 

[Al Nyhus]

Those are assumptions. Do you have any hard evidence that a rifle shoots better with lapped scope rings? Came back to add that I don't know whether lapping makes a rifle shoot better or not...just asking. I realized that my comments read as if I'm opposed to lapping....which I'm not.

Fair question, Wilbur.

A pal of mine bought a complete new BR gun, complete with rings mounted by the action maker, who also built the entire rifle. He mounted a new Leupold in the unlapped rings and 15 rounds later the cross hairs were broken. He had another new identical scope so he mounted that up. 12 rounds later...you guessed it...cross hairs were again broken.

Both scopes went back to Beaverton and in the interim I lapped and bedded the rings. End of problems.

Rod Serling would say: "Submitted for your approval...."

 

[Wilbur]

An extreme case but I suppose that's what we're talking about here, If all scopes were lapped, bedded and glued nobody would have a misalignment problem. Cool!

 

[R.G. Robinett]

An extreme case but I suppose that's what we're talking about here, If all scopes were lapped, bedded and glued nobody would have a misalignment problem. Cool!

And there, we have it! The KEY element in precision shooting: eliminating/controlling variables. RG

 

[bluechip]

Torque?

I'm thinking that most top rings have 6-32 allen cap screws, so what torque specs are being used? The torque may be more limited to the scope than the rings in this case due to the fact that Holo-chrome specs a 6-32 at over thirty inch pounds, which I have never approached.

 

[TRA]

Nope
https://www.google.com/search?q=bat...WF7c3NAhUByWMKHVuLA1QQsAQITA&biw=1120&bih=523

Rosin is a powdered form of Resin.

Rosin is a solid form of resin obtained from pines and some other plants, mostly conifers, produced by heating fresh liquid resin to vaporize the volatile liquid terpene components. Rosin is an ingredient in printing inks, varnishes, glues, medicines, chewing gum, soap, paper sizing, and, in the olden days, sealing wax. It is also extensively used for its friction-increasing capacity.

Resin, btw, is the actual secretion from "the plants, particularly coniferous trees. It is valued for its chemical constituents and uses such as varnishes and adhesives." Thus, rosin is actually made from resin.

Talcum powder, chalk, resin (powdered glue), rosin, and other powders are
used to provide better (drier) grip while reducing the chance blistering.

They all work in different ways.

Some powders absorb moisture (like talc and chalk) so that the grip is
based on strength of hold not skin friction against the object being held.

Resin is usually applied to the object to be held -- like a baseball bat
or an axe to reduce the chance of the object slipping. Rosin is usually
sticky combination of chalk or talc and resin. It is sort like the post-it
note of powders. It will stick slightly, but if pulled only slightly will
let go.

Rosin is most often associated with baseball pitchers and bowlers. In bowling,
it provides a good non-slip grip on the bowling ball without transferring
substance to the ball.

What rosin does for a baseball pitcher is not very straight forward. Some
people claim it is a mental crutch that pitchers have. Its existence stems
from a time when only a few baseballs were used in a game. A baseball wi

Sounds like if you want it to stick, you would want "RESIN"