Burris 34mm Signature Rings Fiasco- BEWARE

[Philward]

I suspect the scope before the rings or mounting procedure. If you can deform the scope tube during mounting with plastic insert rings, that tube must be thin and therefore weaker. If it is plastic that is compressing it seems the scope tube is not deforming. Curious how 15inlbs torqued screws will back it so readily, that seems of in itself. The bolts holding the forks on my motorcycle are torqued to 15inlbs and they never back out.

I have signature rings on a 3006 for many years, 1" though, pull it out to check zero and it's 3 shots touching at 100yds without fail. Plain Jane Mossberg 1550 with wood stock and leupold 2x7.

Could be the plastic composition has changed or it's a bad run during manufacturing, and they indeed are soft. I stopped dealing with any Burris equipment or the company when they didn't honor the"forever" warranty on signature binoculars that fogged up on me, sometime after the Berreta buyout.

 

[dennisinaz]

Maybe not, None of the March scopes or Bushnells or Zeiss or Meoptas failed. One Leupold failure in the past 2 years. I had one Vortex Viper hold on for two years. I mounted it on my buddy's 7 WSM. I hated that scope as it had no eye relief and a tight eye box but it was much clearer than the VX III that it replaced.

The only scopes that I have had worse luck with is Minox; great glass, horrible mechanical integrity.

According to Vortex, I WAS mounting them wrong- I was clamping the scope in those areas that I am supposed to avoid.

Without coming right out and saying it, Vortex told me that you have to use a picatinney rail to mount a scope right.

 

[dennisinaz]

I recently mounted a couple of new scopes and neither gave any suggestion where to put the rings nor a torque value. I never used a torque wrench on them until after my conversations at the SHOT- mostly because I want to be able to defend my installation meeting their requirements.

Those that do it by feel- good for you, I did it that way for years but when asked if you torqued it- the answer is no and some of these guys will not be very helpful if you say that.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Finally got around to posting the documentation video that was send to Burris. It can be found here:

 

[teesquare]

Just watched your video. And - I have a few rifles using the Burris Signature Zee rings. Even one with 34mm rings.They have not been a problem for me, so I am curious ....and have a some questions ...but let me start with this:
If you can envision a teeter-totter...the good old kid's playground pivoting board that we have all likely been bucked off of as kids....imagine standing a few yards from the side of one, in the center. At the pivot point. Note that with ANY movement up or down on one end...there is an equal and opposite movement on the other end. Makes sense, right?
But, when I watched your video - you are using the 0/0 inserts on the eyepiece end of your scope - and the +20/-20 on the bell end of your scope.
SO...if I understand this right....you have the eyepiece end clamped at "0"....but you are pulling the front of the scope down 20mils...?
If that be the case - I believe that that your binding/slop in your parallax is because you you are forcing a flex in the scope tube. You have the back in locked at "level", but you are trying to force the other end of the "teeter-totter" down some via the + and - offset inserts.
I believe that you can remedy this by an opposite placement of inserts in the ring nearest the eyepiece. Specifically: a +20 on the bottom half and a -20 on the top half of the rear ring.
Hope this helps....
T

 

[Tumbleweed]

Just watched your video. And - I have a few rifles using the Burris Signature Zee rings. Even one with 34mm rings.They have not been a problem for me, so I am curious ....and have a some questions ...but let me start with this:
If you can envision a teeter-totter...the good old kid's playground pivoting board that we have all likely been bucked off of as kids....imagine standing a few yards from the side of one, in the center. At the pivot point. Note that with ANY movement up or down on one end...there is an equal and opposite movement on the other end. Makes sense, right?
But, when I watched your video - you are using the 0/0 inserts on the eyepiece end of your scope - and the +20/-20 on the bell end of your scope.
SO...if I understand this right....you have the eyepiece end clamped at "0"....but you are pulling the front of the scope down 20mils...?
If that be the case - I believe that that your binding/slop in your parallax is because you you are forcing a flex in the scope tube. You have the back in locked at "level", but you are trying to force the other end of the "teeter-totter" down some via the + and - offset inserts.
I believe that you can remedy this by an opposite placement of inserts in the ring nearest the eyepiece. Specifically: a +20 on the bottom half and a -20 on the top half of the rear ring.
Hope this helps....
T

I understand what you're trying to get at here but that's not how these rings are advertised or designed to work.

Burris literature (that comes with the scope) specifically instructs that this can be done with no problems as the inserts are supposed to adjust to any cant or imperfections in mounting bases. According to Burris having "0"s in the rear and other inserts ( -20 and 20 in my case) toward the muzzle is fine and normal.

On another note, I had previously used different combos of inserts with these rings (combo's approved by Burris' literature) trying to set up the optics just a few minutes off of the bottom of the overall elevation adjustment. I had the same issues no matter what insert combo's were used.

 

[teesquare]

I am not sure about the literature...can't remember seeing any.
I started using the Signature Zee rings, because they grip the scope very well, and it is very difficult to pinch/crimp a scope tube.
And...even if someone told me it is o.k. to have 0 in the rear and -20 up front....I would be concerned that I would be adding stress to the tube - or the mechanicals.
Why not try the changing out the rear ones like I recommended....and let us know if that helps. It will not cost you anything - and maybe we all learn from this.
The idea is to apply the force hold the scope tube in a straight line. Up 20 in the back = down 20 in the front. That will allow even grip force to be applied, without any added stress out of the line that the tube would be in - if un-clamped. Make sense?

 

[Tumbleweed]

I am not sure about the literature...can't remember seeing any.
I started using the Signature Zee rings, because they grip the scope very well, and it is very difficult to pinch/crimp a scope tube.
And...even if someone told me it is o.k. to have 0 in the rear and -20 up front....I would be concerned that I would be adding stress to the tube - or the mechanicals.
Why not try the changing out the rear ones like I recommended....and let us know if that helps. It will not cost you anything - and maybe we all learn from this.
The idea is to apply the force hold the scope tube in a straight line. Up 20 in the back = down 20 in the front. That will allow even grip force to be applied, without any added stress out of the line that the tube would be in - if un-clamped. Make sense?

I don't believe you're following what I've just said. I DID try other combos of inserts front and rear and I still had the same issue. It's not a pivoting type stress on the tube that caused the problem. Again, Burris claims this ring design itself eliminates the problem you just suggested.

It's a stress in the immediate area of the rings closest to the muzzle when they are torqued. Not sure if you read my original post on this from many months ago but I went into great detail on the whole process and where I ran into issues.

In my opinion it's a design issue with these rings...at least in the 34mm rings. The inserts were found to be very compressible and I feel that in this big of a ring the scope doesn't have enough solid support keeping it round when it's torqued down. Anyway, no way those rings are going back on anything for any reason. I'm using Burris' solid rings which immediately cured the problem I fought for so long.

 

[teesquare]

Actually - I did read your original post and on to this, the 5th page. I watched your video. We have very similar setups. ( My scope is an Athlon Cronus 4.5 - 29 FFP in mil ) EXCEPT...I used the inserts as I recommended in my post to you. I have 6 rifles using the Burris Sig. Zee rings and inserts - NONE of which have the issue you described. I torque all of mine to 20 inch lbs - but don't see that as connected to you issue.
What I saw and heard in your video was what I feel is the issue.
Have you actually tried the exact opposite set of insert in the rear ring - just to see if it helped?

 

[Tumbleweed]

Actually - I did read your original post and on to this, the 5th page. I watched your video. We have very similar setups. ( My scope is an Athlon Cronus 4.5 - 29 FFP in mil ) EXCEPT...I used the inserts as I recommended in my post to you. I have 6 rifles using the Burris Sig. Zee rings and inserts - NONE of which have the issue you described. I torque all of mine to 20 inch lbs - but don't see that as connected to you issue.
What I saw and heard in your video was what I feel is the issue.
Have you actually tried the exact opposite set of insert in the rear ring - just to see if it helped?

So again, I have swapped inserts around in an appropriate fashion according to the installation instructions...it made no difference. Still had the same issue of binding in the parallax. Your suspicion of my problem is false, here's why:

As I mentioned in the original post, the scope tube actually was damaged due to these rings at the area where the far ring clamps. It was egg or football shaped due to what I feel was a lack of support in the squishy inserts. Your scenario could not have caused this kind of damage, only an excessive direct crush load on the tube in that spot could cause what happened. Maybe your scope tubes will put up with more clamp load than my Burris?

Either way I am waisting exactly zero more time with these rings...because I've already been there done that trying to make them work. I feel if they were using an aluminum inserts of the same design there may not be an issue.

I'm glad they're working for you.

 

[Core781]

I have an XTRII and use LaRue SPR mounts. I have installed enough scopes to know how much to tighten the screws. LaRue recommends 30 inch pounds. I tighten just around 20 and check for deformation as a rule of thumb. I have to admit I've never torqued the mount screws and never had an issue. The tube strength on the XTRII is more than enough for magnum cartridges. But that's not to say a cheaply made ring will not cause the tube to bind with the internal mechanics. All of the Burris rings are Chinese made, hence the lower than US made prices. They're not the greatest quality, and I really wouldn't consider using them on a high end scope. It's like using Chinese goflats on a Lamborghini.. You'll probably wrap yourself around a tree before the end of the day. If that's all you can find, you can Tru them by lapping but why take the risk when you can get rings for $100 or $200 to protect your your $1000+ scope? Spacers and shims are a bandaid solution and I would avoid them also.

 

[Core781]

Have you ever looked at the XTR Signature rings? They are well made, obviously CNC'd. They work better than any rings I have ever used and I own Nightforce, LaRue, Badger and more. They don't damage your scope finish like virtually all other rings do, lapped or not, plus they can solve serious action to scope base alignment problems that standard rings could never hope to fix. You can fine tune the windage and elevation so your reticle is centered the way you want it. The concept of inserts like this was used by Sako in their Optilok series, so I don't think they are a poorly conceived solution, in fact they are probably the most innovative rings ever made. Perhaps you were thinking of some of the other Burris ring offerings. For example, I can't say the same for the Xtreme Burris rings which are extruded junk that are often so far out of alignment in pairs that they are hopeless with some scopes. The original Burris Signatures work fine, until the cheap bendable tab breaks off. I don't buy any other rings anymore if the application will work with the XTR Signatures. I know dozens of shooters who have them on high dollar gun / scope combos and love how they work.

I was contemplating the Signature rings and when I discovered they were made in China for $100 I figured I'd go with something American. They are very nice. The non signature rings are trash IMO. That said any manufacturer is going to slip bad product through QC. You need to check your rings before you clamp them on a $1000+ scope. It's really worth getting a cheap scope kit from Wheeler to check centricity of the rings if you can't measure them.

 

[Tumbleweed]

I was contemplating the Signature rings and when I discovered they were made in China for $100 I figured I'd go with something American. They are very nice. The non signature rings are trash IMO. That said any manufacturer is going to slip bad product through QC. You need to check your rings before you clamp them on a $1000+ scope. It's really worth getting a cheap scope kit from Wheeler to check centricity of the rings if you can't measure them.

The solid 6 screw tactical rings Burris sent me were rusted in the package. The second set they sent were just as bad, virtually no coating on them. I just went ahead and had them cerakoted along with a rifle I was building at the time. They look good now

 

[Deezel]

You seem to have had some pretty crappy luck with Burris. I have 5 sets of the XTR Signature rings, 3 of which are 34mm, and have never had any issues at all. I torque them all down with 20 inch/lbs, with a Wheeler fat wrench. 2 of the 34mm are on XTR II's and the other on a Delta Stryker. The rest are 30mm rings. I have never seen any binding like you show in your video.
I've had nothing but good luck with them. I like how I'm able to give my scopes the almost perfect cant when I mount them. They have also never left even the slightest of marks on any of my scopes and they have been holding them rock solid, even on the big boomers.