Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Do you put anything between your rings and scope tube?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bingoc" data-source="post: 1877082" data-attributes="member: 38930"><p>It is interesting to see everyone's experience with rings and mounts. I started hunting in the 60's and the prevalent scope was the Weaver with the corresponding Weaver mounts and rings. The rings were the J type, and as you all know are flexible enough to conform to some degree to the scope. We were taught to use a 1 inch machined bar to ensure the alignment of the scope in the rings. Then use finger nail polish on the screws attaching the mounts to the receiver only, clean the scope and rings at the mating surfaces with alcohol and tighten all of the screws firmly. We didn't have anything like the Wheeler Torque screw drivers. Then we used a piece of electrical tape on either side of the rings to determine if the scope slipped during sighting in the rifle. This worked for me on all calibers up through the 338WM for a number of years. I didn't notice any slippage with that arrangement. </p><p>Then came the Redfield scopes and attachment hardware. As you know the rings were not flexible, but the mounts allowed one to align the rings laterally, and the rings had two screws on either side. It looked more stout than the Weaver system, and it was much easier to get the scope reticle in alignment with the barrel. I switched to Redfield for most of the rifles. But I did not notice any slippage with the Redfield system either. </p><p>Then Leupold and even Redfield switched to rings having only two screws per ring and about one-half the bearing surface as the old Redfield rings. I was leery of using that system.</p><p>So there are sooo many systems for attaching a scope, and the folks on this forum have used them all so that I have two questions. </p><p>- Has anyone experienced the slippage of a scope that was properly attached using the manufacturer's recommendations and how have you determined the slippage?</p><p>- I got the Wheeler Torque screw driver a few years ago and am reluctant to apply 25 to 28 in. lbs. to a No 8 screw on a ring to base. I get to about 23 and it feels like any more torque will break it or damage the screw so I won't be able to remove it.</p><p>Thanks for you counsel.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bingoc, post: 1877082, member: 38930"] It is interesting to see everyone's experience with rings and mounts. I started hunting in the 60's and the prevalent scope was the Weaver with the corresponding Weaver mounts and rings. The rings were the J type, and as you all know are flexible enough to conform to some degree to the scope. We were taught to use a 1 inch machined bar to ensure the alignment of the scope in the rings. Then use finger nail polish on the screws attaching the mounts to the receiver only, clean the scope and rings at the mating surfaces with alcohol and tighten all of the screws firmly. We didn't have anything like the Wheeler Torque screw drivers. Then we used a piece of electrical tape on either side of the rings to determine if the scope slipped during sighting in the rifle. This worked for me on all calibers up through the 338WM for a number of years. I didn't notice any slippage with that arrangement. Then came the Redfield scopes and attachment hardware. As you know the rings were not flexible, but the mounts allowed one to align the rings laterally, and the rings had two screws on either side. It looked more stout than the Weaver system, and it was much easier to get the scope reticle in alignment with the barrel. I switched to Redfield for most of the rifles. But I did not notice any slippage with the Redfield system either. Then Leupold and even Redfield switched to rings having only two screws per ring and about one-half the bearing surface as the old Redfield rings. I was leery of using that system. So there are sooo many systems for attaching a scope, and the folks on this forum have used them all so that I have two questions. - Has anyone experienced the slippage of a scope that was properly attached using the manufacturer's recommendations and how have you determined the slippage? - I got the Wheeler Torque screw driver a few years ago and am reluctant to apply 25 to 28 in. lbs. to a No 8 screw on a ring to base. I get to about 23 and it feels like any more torque will break it or damage the screw so I won't be able to remove it. Thanks for you counsel. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Do you put anything between your rings and scope tube?
Top