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
Help need info on the best detatchable rings/bases
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="Ian M" data-source="post: 15564" data-attributes="member: 25"><p>August,</p><p>MK4 rings are good. Some authorities suggest that they are not quite as precisely manufactured as some of the competition. They do not have serial numbers to keep mated bottoms together like Badgers. Reality is they can be lapped if necessary, a fairly simple task that some guys make a big fuss over. Most guys don't feel the need to lap Badgers. No doubt some individuals would lap them, bed them and spring angel-dust on them for good luck. <img src="http://images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> </p><p></p><p>There are two eras of MK4's that I am aware of, the originals which had the ringsplit about 3/4 of the way up the side profile of the scope (smaller top cap), and the newer ones that have the ring split at the midpoint or halfway point of the scope tube when looking from the side. The older ones have kind of a rough looking inside surface, the newer ones are smoother and have a more rugged profile.</p><p>Badgers have a different finish, softer looking and less like blueing but it stands up very well. There are several other good tactical rings but Badger has the name and much of the market for good reason.</p><p>Since tactical style rings are steel (except for a few aluminum Badgers and others that might be in existence) they are heavier but I think that the ruggedness is worth the few ounces. I have never heard of a problem with Badgers, can't say that about hunting-style mounts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ian M, post: 15564, member: 25"] August, MK4 rings are good. Some authorities suggest that they are not quite as precisely manufactured as some of the competition. They do not have serial numbers to keep mated bottoms together like Badgers. Reality is they can be lapped if necessary, a fairly simple task that some guys make a big fuss over. Most guys don't feel the need to lap Badgers. No doubt some individuals would lap them, bed them and spring angel-dust on them for good luck. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img] There are two eras of MK4's that I am aware of, the originals which had the ringsplit about 3/4 of the way up the side profile of the scope (smaller top cap), and the newer ones that have the ring split at the midpoint or halfway point of the scope tube when looking from the side. The older ones have kind of a rough looking inside surface, the newer ones are smoother and have a more rugged profile. Badgers have a different finish, softer looking and less like blueing but it stands up very well. There are several other good tactical rings but Badger has the name and much of the market for good reason. Since tactical style rings are steel (except for a few aluminum Badgers and others that might be in existence) they are heavier but I think that the ruggedness is worth the few ounces. I have never heard of a problem with Badgers, can't say that about hunting-style mounts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Help need info on the best detatchable rings/bases
Top