AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/16/2004 1:15:05 AM EDT
|
I was just mounting up my new ARMS #22 Med rings and find that the tolerances on the upper halves appear to be pretty far out of spec.. The scope sits in the bottom halves just fine. But, the upper half on one ring is cocked so that one side of the ring rests on the scope tube but the other side is up about .020"-.030". The entire upper half of the other ring sits up above the tube approx. .040". There is no way I'm going to try to screw these together because they will bite into the scope tube. Is this common? Am I going to have to lap these things? I will try to contact ARMS in the morning, but I was hoping to get some feedback. |
|
Whoa, hold on just a second there jack. I never said that I screwed them together. Hell, I never even put a screw into them. Not with what I'm seeing. I just rested the upper halves on top of the scope that is laying in the lower half. And no, the two halves do not touch at any point! The upper halves appear to be too small down near the split between the rings. This isn't the first scope that I've ever mounted either. I've used Leupold Mark 4 rings and Badger Ordnance rings and have never seen this type of miss alignment. |
|
ok, what 3rdtk i think is trying to say is that the rings shouldnt touch, put the screws in place and then tighten both sides evenly, this will force the top cap down to clamp the scope to the rings, if all you did is set teh top ring over the scope and it already fully touched the base ring on both sides, there wouldnt be any force to keep the scope in place, it would slide. I was puzzled by this too at first when i was mounting my aimpoint with the arms mount, then i was like wait a sec, its supposed to be like that. ALSO arms #22 rings are 30mm rings, make sure you dont have a different size tube on the scope like 1 inch. |
|
These guys don't understand what you're getting at Redhook. It almost sounds like your ring caps twisted or something. I can see how that could be a major problem with the potential to ruin your scope. I can't imagine that lapping is going to solve the problem. I'm interested to see what ARMS says about this as I'm planning to buy a set of #22s myself. |
|
A 1" inch scope in 30 MM rings would just lay there and the rings would touch each other and not be able to tighten the scope in place. If you have a 26MM scope by chance, it would not drop into the bottom ring half as it would be a little bit over size. ALL 30 MM scopes and rings from any maker have to fastened together in the basic same manor of having a space between the halves like what your looking at. Rings like the 22 are made from the more expensive Metal Injection Molding (MIM)proccess tooling that some companies use, as they come out identical and are done for high volume requirerments. There are #22 rings on 30 MM scopes show all thru this ar15 forum, so it realy mistifies me how there is a problem. If you can show a pic, it might help us to see what you see. Jack |
|
I guess I'm the one who isn't being clear here, but I don't think that my initial post warranted Jacks response. So, if I have to spell it out, here it is. I'm mounting a Leupold 3.5x10-40mm M1 Long Range Tactical in ARMS #22 med rings mounted on an ARMS #38 SPR rail. Pretty standard SPR Mod 0 setup with a few modifications. The rings are 30mm and the scope tube is 30mm. I don't have a problem with the fit of the lower halves of the scope rings. The scope settles down to the bottom of the rings so that I have good contact all the way around the lower half. But, when I lay the upper half of the rings on the scope, they do not settle down all the way. I won't bother describing the differences between the rings, but basically I can see daylight between the top of the scope tube and the inside radius of the upper half of the ring. There are only two points of contact between the scope ring and the scope tube. It's at the sides just above the split between the two halves. Yes, I could just say screw it and install the bolts and tighten. I'm sure the rings would settle and tighten. But I can't see why I have to damage the finish and possibly the tube of an $800 scope for $100 rings. Regardless if they were made on some high dollar tool. The fit, or radius of the upper halves, does not appear to be correct. BTW, ARMS only answer is to send them back. And I'll be honest, I did not experience this problem with my #22m68. So, I too was a little surprised. If I get the chance, I will take pics this weekend. Eric |
|
Quoted: I guess I'm the one who isn't being clear here, but I don't think that my initial post warranted Jacks response. So, if I have to spell it out, here it is. I'm mounting a Leupold 3.5x10-40mm M1 Long Range Tactical in ARMS #22 med rings mounted on an ARMS #38 SPR rail. Pretty standard SPR Mod 0 setup with a few modifications. The rings are 30mm and the scope tube is 30mm. I don't have a problem with the fit of the lower halves of the scope rings. The scope settles down to the bottom of the rings so that I have good contact all the way around the lower half. But, when I lay the upper half of the rings on the scope, they do not settle down all the way. I won't bother describing the differences between the rings, but basically I can see daylight between the top of the scope tube and the inside radius of the upper half of the ring. There are only two points of contact between the scope ring and the scope tube. It's at the sides just above the split between the two halves. Yes, I could just say screw it and install the bolts and tighten. I'm sure the rings would settle and tighten. But I can't see why I have to damage the finish and possibly the tube of an $800 scope for $100 rings. Regardless if they were made on some high dollar tool. The fit, or radius of the upper halves, does not appear to be correct. BTW, ARMS only answer is to send them back. And I'll be honest, I did not experience this problem with my #22m68. So, I too was a little surprised. If I get the chance, I will take pics this weekend. Eric I understood what you were saying from the first post. Unfortunatly, I don't have a solution for you. I really does sound like the top cap has been bent in inward some way. It sounds like from you post that only ONE of the ring caps is this way so I would send one back to ARMS and get a replacement. Edited to add: I think this is what you are describing. This drawing is exaggerated to an extreme to show people the problem. [img]http://members.cox.net/daphotoguy/problem.jpg[/img] |
|
Quoted: I guess I'm the one who isn't being clear here, but I don't think that my initial post warranted Jacks response Eric I am a certified ARMS lover, I own so many of their products it looks like a showroom, however, I am a little tired of Jack slaming everyone who has anything bad to day about ARMS. They are not perfect, everybody makes mistakes. It sounds like you might have got a bad ring, it happens. I had a problem with a 19 being stripped, I sent it back and they sent me a new one. They are a good company making good products. Jack, I used to value what you had to say, but I see that you have no objectivity at all. |
|
I didn't SLAM anyone, if I did you would have known it. The way it was described the first time, was not the way it was said the second time. If the top ring is steel it is made from the MIM process, if it is a tactical ring cap, then they make them out of some type of alum. I know the ones I have seen and installed, will spring down if there is a small space between the scope body and under the ring, and no marks were made on the tube. If some kind of dimention of the space was provided it would help. The other alternative is to send it the ARMS and exchange for a new one. Jack |
|
the upper half on one ring is cocked so that one side of the ring rests on the scope tube but the other side is up about .020"-.030". The entire upper half of the other ring sits up above the tube approx. .040". Looks like his first post gave dimensions. Read and understand before yelling. Redhook, I've heard of this problem on another board. Maybe ARMS had a bad day. As was said before they are a good company send it back they'll take care of it. I know it's a bummer if you're like me 'cuz you want it right f'ing now. They will take care of you though. |
|
He says in his first post that the ring is cocked to one side, well if that is so, then it is not laid on the scope evenly, and only has to be rotated! The dimentions don't make sense for that reason. Plus when the two halves are in a secured even locked down position the the space between the two are aprox. the dim's he gives, so something just doesn't make sense. It also isn't clear if it is one or two steel ring cap, or an alum tacticle ring cap. That is confused by saying one cap is up more that the other, but if two are alum. tactical ring caps's that should be noted, or if it is one of each. I bet that there is nothing wrong with either one. Jack |
|
Absolutely cost saving, but only if it is for very high volume, and continuous accuuracy is to be maintained in that high volume. Otherwise we would be paying a whole lot more for products that would not be as reliable and consistant as MIM, compaired like some from batch to batch that are hoged out of bar stock and castings, one at a time. The tooling alone averages twenty grand or more for the smallest and least complicated MIM product. Good shootin, Jack |
|
I guess I don't know how to describe it any other way, so here are the final set of dimensions. The widest point of the lower halves measures at least 1.180". Now for the upper halves. Ring #1 measures 1.160" at it's widest, both sides. Ring #2 measures 1.160" on one side and 1.168" on the other side. What I meant by cocked was regarding Ring #2. The 1.168" side acutally seats down almost to the scope tube. The other side is still up in the air about .020". Also, they are the standard steel caps since I can't see over the M1 turret anyway. And for the third time, I NEVER screwed the two halves together!!! I really don't know how to describe it any better than that. And it's obvious that it will never be good enough for you Jack. Nor will you ever admit it. So, let's end it here. I will just have to send them back to ARMS and wait. I'm not happy about it, but that's what I have to do. Oh, and since I've probably got the ring upside-down, using a 38.756mm scope tube, and am mounting it to the back of my 2003 Porsche 911, I might as well take a pic. This is Ring #1. [img]http://www.ultrashotaccuracy.com/images/arms22.jpg[/img] |
| I was going to say just screw them down, but after seeing the photo, I think you're probably right to send them back. My 22 ring caps exhibited the same characteristic, but not nearly to that degree. I just screwed them down and they fit perfectly with no damage to the scope finish. |
|
I don't know that sending them back for replacement will do any good. I'm starting to think all the #22s are made that way. My upper halves marred up my scope pretty bad, before I realized how out of spec they were. I resolved the issue by getting a scope lapping tool. When I started lapping the rings, I found out the bottom halves were as bad as the upper halves. I was barely getting any surface contact between the ring and the scope, just point contact here and there. After much lapping, I got close to 75% surface contact, as recommended in the lapping instructions. Both upper halves were horrible, and were exactly as you have described. Do a "lapping" search, and there's a pretty good thread on this subject. I wasn't the only one to experience this same problem with the ARMS #22s. I like the mounts, but you're gonna need to fix them before you damage the finish or the tube. |
|
Looks like the rings are out of spec. send it back to ARMS. Come to think of it, I had the same problem with a set a long time ago. I ended up using the insets and a 1" scope and they worked fine. If you do not need QD rings, you might try [b]Badger[/b], they are not MIM, but machined and cost about the same. They are far better rings than ARMS, but once on a rifle, they are on at 65 ft/lbs. And Jack, typing in all caps is on the net is considered yelling. |
|
GEE, WES SHURE DOES A LOT OF YELLING IF THAT IS THE CASE! I thought caps were to emphasize something, silly me. I ALSO USE CAPS WHEN THERE IS A LOT OF FIRERING GOING ON SO I CAN BE HEARD. I have never seen one of those ring caps or any other types not go on, but I would try one thing before sending the cap into them for exchange. Put a piece of paper right under the edge where the ring is hitting and see if it will push down into position, since most all rings have a little spring lifem, and you won't be scratching the scope that way. After you know it will work, remove the paper and tighten it up. If it isn't going to work, then send it back for a replacement. The original WEAVER brand rings all have the top cap made if spring steel and were designed to snap onto the top of the scope for a good tight fit. That has nothing to do with this except the point that ring caps do expand or stretch when tightened down. Jack |
|
Jack, I have know Fuckin' idea what your posts are trying to say you ramble and your spelling and grammar is killing me. On that not I am done with this post. Redhook, Those are not right seems to me you have the right idea in sending them back. I would try to email that pic to ARMS first and see what they say though. They may just send out a new half to you. |
| I had the same problem, so I lapped them with a Sinclair 30mm lapping bar, the lower halves were not too bad, but the upper halves were way out and you can see by the removal of finish on the inside surface of the rings that if I had not lapped them, my Leupold would have been damaged. The lapping worked and the rings then fit nicely around the tube. |
|
Quoted: I had the same problem, so I lapped them with a Sinclair 30mm lapping bar, the lower halves were not too bad, but the upper halves were way out and you can see by the removal of finish on the inside surface of the rings that if I had not lapped them, my Leupold would have been damaged. The lapping worked and the rings then fit nicely around the tube. Sounds like quite a few of use have had quality issues with the ARMS 22(out of spec?) I still like them for their QD ability and their return to zero, but on all of my long range rifles, I am going to stick with Badger. Maybe we you send them back, let them know that quite a few of us had had these problems, that way they can check their quality control, or lack there of. |
|
Quoted: Rings like the 22 are made from the more expensive Metal Injection Molding (MIM)proccess tooling that some companies use I do believe that this is the first time I've ever heard of MIM being more expensive. In fact, the most common reference for MIM in the firearms world seems to be people who say that Kimber are a bunch of cheap bastards for using MIM parts in their pistols, followed by claims that the MIM parts are more likely to break than higher quality and more expensive forged and milled parts. ARMS has some great designs, but hearing that they're using cast parts for some items leaves me wondering if they're really worth the money. |
|
Please read it again, I said TOOLING not parts! Ask any company how expensive it is. I also said it makes the part affordable, not more expensve. The #22 rings are with out any doubt very accurate as they were chosen for the SPR sniper rifle, amoungst many other scoped weapons we all see them on, with no ring fit issues I have heard or seen other than what a couple here report out of no doubt tens of thousands in use thought the world. If ARMS have an issue they would no doubt make a corective action with who ever the MIM house is. I'm aware that ARMS has no problem with guarranteeing their products, so that is another reasurance as far as I am concerned. Good shootin, Jack |
|
Quoted: STOP AND THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF TWO RING HALFS FROM ANY MAKER TOUCHED EACH OTHER, THEY WOULDN'T GRAB & HOLD THE SCOPE BODY!!!!!! IF ONE SIDE IS HIGHER THAN THE OTHER, THEN THAT MEANS THE PROBLEM IS YOU, SINCE YOU DIDN'T TIGHTEN THEM DOWN EVENLY!!!!!!!!! JACK I quess Jack is eating a little shit today |
AR Sponsor