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
Burris Signature Rings or Other?
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="Senderofan" data-source="post: 1054351" data-attributes="member: 13831"><p>Not worked up...just want to point out there are differences. I currently own Signature rings as well as Vortex / Seekins and other tight tolerance machined rings.....so I'm sharing my experience and thoughts on which one I think the OP should get. I'm glad folks have found success with Signature rings with plastic inserts. My positive experience is with machined rings with tight tolerances. My 300 WM ( past rifle ) and 338 Sin have Badger Max 50 rings. They have never slipped or marked a scope. Vortex / Seekins and Badger etc. are all tightly machined rings and provide an excellent interface between the scope, ring and base. Now you could argue if the base wasn't installed properly...or if the rifle manufacturer messes up with the alignment of the holes in the receiver or improper torquing of the caps....machined rings would probably leave marks. But if the base is that far off...cranking down a scope with plastic inserts is going to torque on the main tube of the scope...which is going to cause damage...just might not be scope ring marks.</p><p></p><p>I just happen to think it's better for the scope to be mounted in such a way that everything is a straight ( true to the bore ) as possible. This reduces or eliminates stresses on the main tube of the scope....allowing it to function as it was designed. Which also, in my mind, protects my investment in the scope such that the scope will function perfectly long after I am planted in the ground. I feel the plastic inserts are designed to "Rectify" variances in alignment and / or loose machine tolerances...ie not perfectly concentric circle in the ring. The plastic insert not only acts to grip the scope....it's rounded surface that sits in the rings acts as a bearing....to try and account for any misalignment issues.....My hypothesis.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps this is a Chevy versus Ford or Dodge situation. Guess the OP has varying opinions to weed through and ultimately has to decide which is better for his application. We're all rational people...trying to convey one's impressions about something from a keyboard.....which can often be misinterpreted....when compared to a live discussion. I will be the first to admit that I am "Kerboard Challenged!" But I'm trying.</p><p></p><p>Wayne</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Senderofan, post: 1054351, member: 13831"] Not worked up...just want to point out there are differences. I currently own Signature rings as well as Vortex / Seekins and other tight tolerance machined rings.....so I'm sharing my experience and thoughts on which one I think the OP should get. I'm glad folks have found success with Signature rings with plastic inserts. My positive experience is with machined rings with tight tolerances. My 300 WM ( past rifle ) and 338 Sin have Badger Max 50 rings. They have never slipped or marked a scope. Vortex / Seekins and Badger etc. are all tightly machined rings and provide an excellent interface between the scope, ring and base. Now you could argue if the base wasn't installed properly...or if the rifle manufacturer messes up with the alignment of the holes in the receiver or improper torquing of the caps....machined rings would probably leave marks. But if the base is that far off...cranking down a scope with plastic inserts is going to torque on the main tube of the scope...which is going to cause damage...just might not be scope ring marks. I just happen to think it's better for the scope to be mounted in such a way that everything is a straight ( true to the bore ) as possible. This reduces or eliminates stresses on the main tube of the scope....allowing it to function as it was designed. Which also, in my mind, protects my investment in the scope such that the scope will function perfectly long after I am planted in the ground. I feel the plastic inserts are designed to "Rectify" variances in alignment and / or loose machine tolerances...ie not perfectly concentric circle in the ring. The plastic insert not only acts to grip the scope....it's rounded surface that sits in the rings acts as a bearing....to try and account for any misalignment issues.....My hypothesis. Perhaps this is a Chevy versus Ford or Dodge situation. Guess the OP has varying opinions to weed through and ultimately has to decide which is better for his application. We're all rational people...trying to convey one's impressions about something from a keyboard.....which can often be misinterpreted....when compared to a live discussion. I will be the first to admit that I am "Kerboard Challenged!" But I'm trying. Wayne [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Burris Signature Rings or Other?
Top