Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Scope Mounting Made perfect...

back in the mid 1970's, i built two rifles with surplus actions--it was common to use springfields, mausers, and enfields--i used the 1917 enfield, and the 1909 mauser.

in 1974, i sent an enfield action to ken clark (he was known for his cartridge, the .224 clark--a wildcat using 80, 82, and 85 grain .224 bullets--something well ahead of its time). i only had him do the action work. a real problem with those enfields was the "enfield ears" which had to be ground off. each fellow that did that invariably ended up with a somewhat different receiver contour, and fitting bases, along with deck height issues--made for tough sledding.

these rigs are seldom used as much these days--(slow lock times--calling for speed lock kits, and some, like enfields, needed to be converted to cock-on-opening, etc).

with modern cnc machining, there has been much more uniform results on parts--but unfortunately, in the past year to year and a half or so, i've seen a falloff in quality control with some of the parts i've used--they are not what i remember from just a few years back--and things could get worse. in one particular situation recently, i found the front ring to be lower than the rear--in a case like this i always try another pair. this qc is with respect to the everyday run of the mill components used by the average hunter, and not higher end components used in better, more expensive systems.

in my personal experience, along with the particular firearms i use (no cheap guns, and no surplus military action based rifles), i've found this "height disparity" to be of fairly small consequence. however, when getting ready to mount standard rings, the installer can check for height disparity by using the bar when it is lightly clamped into the front ring after its installation--if the bottom half of the rear ring slides under the bar and on top of the rear base nicely, the height is good. in some cases, the same technique can be used with dual dovetails; temporarily install the front ring, and then with the bar clamped lightly in that ring, move the bottom half of the rear dovetail against the forward side of the rear base--you can just get the edge to it, but it is enough to see if its good. (but remember, for the final mount sequence with dual dovetails, you must first mount the rear ring, and then the front ring). in those situations where you can't check height disparity by this method i've mentioned, if you already have a set of pointed bars, you can also use one of them in conjunction with the scope-tru bar to check for any height disparity. i designed a point on the rear of the bar for 3 reasons--1. so it is easy to install a partially assembled ring on the bar, ie., it acts as a chamfer; 2. to act as a "centering pointer" on the rear bolt plug, action tang, tang screw, or tang groove, to be observed at the final stages of the installation process; and 3. in the event a person already has a set of pointed bars, to use one of them in conjunction with the scope-tru bar to check for height disparity.

if a person is ultra concerned about these qc problems, one solution is that they can be cured with burris posiligns and their eccentric live centers--they're good medicine for same, but i've never cared for the appearance of them. according to paul mcmenamin (accurateshooter.com), he uses them when testing scopes--for when the testing is done, they can be sold "as new", as they have no ring marks.

this type of system--2 pointed rods facing--can facilitate the scope mounting process, but problems can arise, especially with inexperienced installers. to illustrate;

go to midwayusa, type in 227261, and you will see in that photo that the alignment bar on the left is "angled", and though the points are fairly close, they are not quite aligned. (this photo set up was probably hurried, and this was overlooked), but it illustrates the problem--the points can be close, or even right on, but the bars may not form a straight line. this is where installers can make mistakes--this system can work, but that front ring has got to be in line with the bore axis--it has to be "squared at 90 degrees". this is not easy to do, unless you have some distant "reference point" to align it with. then, the next goal is to get the rear ring positioned or set so that it is in a perfectly straight line with that front ring--that is to say, that a straight line would pass through the exact center of both rings, while at the same time being in nearly perfect parallel alignment with the bore axis.

with respect to height, these bars work pretty well, and most of the time i find that the rings will be good enough as is--unless the parts are poorer in quality/quality control (getting more common).

to visualize the description you quoted, set two pencils on your table, and make sure the points touch. view them from directly above. now, without disturbing the points as they touch, move the eraser end an inch or so. the points are aligned, but the pencils are not in a straight line anymore. (it is in this plane that it is easy to make a mistake during the mount process). now, get your eyes at the table top level, so that you are viewing the pencils from the side, in this dimension the points are in line--they are even in height, there is no disparity. i have found that in most cases, this is pretty close to how it will be when mounting rings on the rifle--if the receiver, the bases, and the rings are a good quality and well made. i've found that most of the time, their heights will be quite similar, (and the pointed bars will show that).

pat,

thanks for the post, and grats on that bear...

sorry i missed your visit here, but i was up in helena for the day.

your new scope-tru bar is in the post, and it will be there by wednesday. i think you will like this one better. the new bar will look exactly like the one in these videos as seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/mrhivelocity1?feature=mhsn#p/u/0/cTaRDi3bp3o (one minute version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEeL_QNJRf0 (five minute version)

this is the final cnc version of the scope-tru. i made these changes as part of the concessions necessary to obtain product liability insurance. the changes are for the better, as the tool is much safer if dropped, and it is also much easier to ship.

this "newer" tip profile is very similar to the "removable threaded tip profile" that was part of my patent application--in addition to the ordinary "conical tip profile" on the early versions that i machined. however, to keep production costs down, this tip is integral. this critical decision also does away with the potential thread pitch problems with the removable tip, as in mass production--concentricity issues can arise.

you will be pleased to know that our good friend bill beyl at the powderhorn is having a great time using it--he said that after mounting a few scopes with it, a check with his sweany site-a-line collimator confirms that things are usually lined up within about 4 or 5 clicks of adjustment.

while it is still too early to say with any assurance, if the outcome of these initial installations continue to form the same trend with subsequent installations, it could add up to some mighty fine medicine...

jerry

If time permits, in the next few weeks, Pat (scenarshooter), will be posting a few photos of a scope mounting sequence using the Scope-Tru Alignment Bar.

meanwhile, so that some of you can see some current photos of the Scope-Tru, here is our photobucket album:

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h344/joyce_57/

this album will show a few photos of the Scope-Tru, some of which show the tool sitting on a wood base of quarter sawn white oak. the wood base will have a groove in it for the tool to rest in. (pics here show the board without the groove, in order to more easily show the whole bar). the tool will come with the wood base, and there is also a 30mm version.

included along with a few product photos of the Scope-Tru, are 3 photos of my watercolor paintings. In the next month or two, i will have my website up and running, and it will be divided into 2 parts: the "Scope-Tru", information on the tool; and "Aquamedia", images of my watercolor paintings. the website address will be: www.parabola-llc.com

there are also 3 additional you tube videos, all rather short segments based upon actual product photos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN4qXNRO_XQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5uJ36JcsBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na3yEywYO1E

my son was the photographer for these product photos...

Using Burris Signature rings, I pretty much never have to fret any of this.

in a previous post i mentioned that those rings can be positive medicine for some ills--but i've never cared for the appearance of them.

one of the challenges i enjoy in working on equipment is, "problem solving", and doing it without something that i might call "band-aids".

...like checkering vs. stippeling--they both work, but one is a fine art--and functional as well. the other will jest "git 'er done".

or looking at it another way, though i'm not into cars; its like a '68 camaro with a spoiler. they were called spoilers, and i always figured the title was fitting, because they "spoiled the looks of the car..."

nevertheless, its a good thing the burris rings with their eccentric live centers are available--they are an easy and acceptable solution for those who want them...

I hear ya.

Couple of advantages with Signature rings, just can't get any other way...

Ring marks - I hate ring marks left on a scope, and the more expensive the scope, the more it irks me. Properly installed, just not an issue with these rings.

Time and money - just can't justify spending all that extra of both to solve a list of problems that a set of rings will avoid.

I've damaged one scope due to poor machining of the action where bases mount, on an Enfield P17 reworked by BSA. Bent the tube so bad that point of impact shifted 4" between 3X and 9X. Fortunately, Bushnell repaired the problem no charge for me anyway. Had Signature rings been around at the time, wouldn't have happened. And would also have negated the cost of correcting the problem with the rifle.

Appearance-wise, one has to look very close to see the difference between these and Weavers, Leupolds, etc. Certainly "ring mounts" such as Talleys have their advantages (fewer parts to go wrong) where rails of a sort are built into the rifle. But even screw on rails, such as Picatinny, I suspect can be torqued out of shape by misalignment of drillings/base surfaces on an action.

These rings are one of those inventions that I look at and wonder why all of 'em aren't made this way, eh? Just makes so much good sense!

Should also add this...

Dovetail mounts, IMHO, make Signature rings an absolute must!

First off, we use a dowel to twist the front ring into place, usually with a tad bit of grunt 'cause it's a tight fit.

We assume, having done this, the ring is a perfect 90 degrees perpendicular to the base/action. But is it??? Who knows for sure, and how do you measure it to be certain...short of expensive tools?

Then off to the range. Oh, I'm 7" to the left...I'll just take that up with the windage adjustment on the rear ring so as not to use up valuable internal adjustments in the scope.

Great! Now we've just torqued (if not permanently damaged) the hell outta the scope tube (that we lapped the rings to accommodate???) because there's no way on earth that front dovetail that we twisted into place is ever going to move to compensate.

With the Burris rings, first thing I do is loosen the screws on the front ring cap, then adjust for windage, then re-tighten, repeat as necessary. The bearings allow the scope to re-align accordingly, and we carry on without undue stress to an expensive scope that inevitably will affect how accurately it sights in for the duration of its ride atop the rifle.

Constantly read here about issues with scopes that don't adjust properly, or don't want to stay sighted in, and the first question that comes to mind is, were they installed on dovetail rings and then torqued (meaning, basically bent outta shape) with the rear windage adjust?

some good comments you make--and they show experience.

i've been setting rings and mounting scopes since the early 1970's. in that time one does discover a few things about the craft. i learned a few hard lessons early on--ring marks, scope slippage, etc.

since the mid 1990's, when i began using a carpenter's square (which lead to the developement of the Scope-Tru), i've set quite a few rings, many, many of them dual dovetail (leupold brand only), and have shot some of those guns for several years. in one case, a carbine .308, but in each and every case, whenever i've removed the scope for examination, there has never been a ring mark, nor a trace of the scope ever having been mounted. i mention this in my feature article on accurateshooter.com (this is with leupold brand dual dovetail and standard style rings. weaver and rugers rings often leave marks, no matter how careful the installer--weavers apply uneven pressure, and rugers are rather sharp, and the steel is harder, so lapping them in can be difficult). while some may think this impossible, this is in fact the case in the mounting jobs i've done over the past 15 years.

but, a poorly machined ring will cause marks for sure, and qc has been slipping in recent years. i still find the leupold's to be good, but i find i need to examine each set before purchase...

a specific rifle i mounted dual dovetails on last month came out 3/4 inch off of mechanical center at 100 yards--not perfect, but very good for a hunting rig. scenarshooter just set a pair of dual dovetails on his sako using the scope-tru, and he came out at 12 o'clock on windage, 4 inches high--but like me, he's been doing this 40 years--and is ultra particular to do a perfectionists job...

while somewhat premature, some early data on the average of several mount jobs, as done by several different installers--is that the Scope-Tru is acheiving line-up of ring axis to bore axis resulting in a range of "zero to 1 1/2 inches off" of mechanical center at 100 yards. most of mine are 3/4 inches or less...

My experience pales significantly compared to yours!

You illustrate a reality not understood by many gun owners: Scopes, indeed all sights, are adjustable in order to correct imperfections inherent in even the finest quality rifles...and for that matter, the sights themselves, particularly scopes and mounts.

In a perfect world, we'd install the sights, adjust elevation according to ballistic performance of the ammo, and carry on.

The average guy, truth be told, buys pretty much whatever the clerk at the counter offers up for mounts, and goes home to "set up" his rifle, which seems like pretty simple stuff. Attach bases (gorilla tighten screws), attach rings, lay scope in rings, and attach caps (be sure again to gorilla tighten screws). Good to go!

NOT!

I've read here and on other forums how "slippage" is solved by applying stuff like glue, electrical tape, or even roughing surfaces with emery/sandpaper on either/or/both the rings and scope tube...???? Really??? Yikes!!!

The next scope that slips in Signature rings I've installed will be the first...granted, so far the .300 WM tops my list in the recoil dept.

Following a few basic instructions, one advantage of these rings could be argued to be that it otherwise potentially protects the scope from somewhat crude installation procedures, eh? Heh!

Thanks, nice tool.

Where can you purchase one?

thank you for your many informative comments...

ultimately, what we all must realize is something akin to my signature line--the more we learn and progress, the more we learn that we know "nothing", because in the learning process, we are "made aware that there is so much more out there to discover". therefore, learning is "discovering our own ignorance". this is a continual, lifelong process. it is what makes life interesting and challenging--to always be in the process of learning, and finding new discoveries and challenges.

and it keeps us all humble...

as i mentioned before, paul mcmennamin (accurateshooter.com), uses the signature rings in his scope testing, as when testing is complete, he can sell the scopes "as new", for there are no ring marks. but it doesn't end there, they are a great solution for many shooters, and offer numerous advantages for many different situations. yeah, their appearance bugs the "traditional in me", but so does the cross slot system. yet they are both great systems, and for some applications there may be none better.

some guys do overtighten screws--and sometimes, even worse. recently, i saw a young fellow in a sporting goods store, and he was proudly mounting a customer's scope. but, the young chap had it mounted with the windage turret on the top...

last week bill beyl at the powderhorn told me about a guy who mounted his own glass--a 4x leupold. he brought it in because he couldn't see out of his scope very clearly. (he had it mounted so that he was looking into the objective). in the backroom, beyl reversed his scope, and when the customer picked it up, he was astonished at the clarity. he asked bill what he had done, and in typical fashion, beyl told him, "I used that lens cleaner there on the shelf". the guy bought the lens cleaner and left very happy...

but back to rings and bases. for many years, burris made some of the very best bases--in my judgement, for a period of a few years, they were the best. but unfortunately, in my opinion qc on metal work is not what it was a few years ago, so i now use leupold bases and rings exclusively, unless i'm utilizing a 20 moa rail system. badger and near are excellent products...and i really like tps tsr rings (though i prefer to tighten them differently than they recommend).

the scope-tru is a very good system, and can assist one in mounting rings very accurately, and it definitely cuts down labor time. it can also be used to check the alignment of other systems that it isn't designed to install. a very great advantage is that you can see right up front what is wrong, rather than later on down the line when things are already mounted, and the sweany site-a-line is up the spout. this makes it very "shop time friendly" for gunsmiths, and retail/wholesale sporting goods stores where a high volume of scopes are mounted monthly.

i wish i could tell you that it solves all mounting problems--but the reality is that it can't. unlike "snake oil", it won't help poorly made rings, it won't cure arthritis, it won't brew coffee...

The same thing can be done with a 1" diameter x 48" long wooden dowel that you buy at the local hardware store. I been aligning rings with this for years. Not a big deal, really!!!!!

yeah, it will work--but i've turned a lot of rings with wooden dowels, and the 20 footpounds of torque needed to turn said rings always results in wood compression. with that in mind, the ultimate end is that the rings may not be "squared" at exactly 90 degrees to the axis of the bore, and unless you employ some means to accurately check and verify that, you're potentially settling for less than perfect. compounding this situation is the fact that if you find a straight 4 foot dowel, tomorrow it will likely be warped...

but perhaps this may better illustrate:

160 years ago alot of hardy folks made their way across this country in praire schooners drawn by oxen, and the trip took 4-6 months. a drawn out, difficult trip.

47 years ago my brother crossed the country in an old ford, and it took him 5 days. according to him, it was a nice trip, spiced up with stopping for a few panoramic pics.

two weeks ago my son crossed the same distance in a commercial airliner, and the trip took about 7 hours--pretty effortless...

for certain all three of these means "got 'er done".

why travel in a wagon when you don't have to, especially when there's more efficient means readily available...

after a couple of revisions, Montana Container has developed a suitable container for shipping the Scope-Tru tool. here are 30 photos of the complete package from our photo bucket album:

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums...0BAR%20%20%20%20the%20package/?start=all

in addition, here are 4 photos of "the whole process condensed into just 4 views":

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h344/joyce_57/Scope%20Tru%20%204%20photos%20of%20process/


though i had planned on the website being complete by mid October--it is not ready yet. my hope is that it will be complete in the next few weeks. there is a considerable amount of information on the development of this tool.

the website address will be:

http://parabola-llc.com/

there are a total of 10 businesses involved in bringing this tool to market--nine are in Bozeman, and one is in Jordan, Montana. the Scope-Tru product is registered in the Made in Montana Program. the one inch diameter tool is ready, and the 30 mm tool is now fully designed, and almost ready to machine the first production runs.

as i mentioned a couple months ago--if time allows--scenarshooter will be putting up a few photos of the tool, and how to use it. but as noted, this will come later on this fall, as Pat is "snowed-under" right now, due to the arrival of that exciting time of the year...

Yeah, I could never figure the use of the two bars with points on end. Years ago I had a fine, fine machinist at the refinery where I was working at the time make a single bar (actually two) of OD equal to the average OD of a number of Leuplod scopes I owned at the time. With care and a touch of 1200 grit lapping compound I can get the rings set dead nutz. Once there, a final minor lap job and all is good. He also helped me out on a number of other what would have been high dollar fixes on a couple of cars. He was from Argentina and old school learned. If I could draw it properly he could nail it, quickly too.

it's nice to know there are guys out there that find innovative solutions to these problems--not only for the challenge--but to raise the bar as well. these same guys really care about their equipment, and they want to get as close to perfection as possible. just from what you're saying, you surely must be one of those people...

running into those individuals who are old school trained--none of this hurry up and "get the job done quick"--they want to achieve their best, and in their quest to bring that out, they often produce the best. you're really fortunate to meet a fellow like that machinist, as you were able to blend your ideas with his skill-sets in order to innovate the solution that surely carried the day...

i've been amazed (reading some past posts on this thread), at the clever innovations that some of the campfire members have utilized in order to achieve their goals--sockets, calipers, electrical tubing, etc., all very, very clever and innovative--and it handily achieved their goal--to get the job done, and to get it done well.

Yeah, I guess not. Is there going to be a translation into English? I somehow never managed to learn Latin!

Too funny. Shades of Life of Brian.


Pete

was that latin? i wasn't sure, but you should try sitting there and proof reading page after page of dat stuff...

all humor aside, i imagine jeff will have things ready in a few weeks.
meanwhile, i don't know why the pages appear as they do right now while it is under construction--but i'll ask jeff about it...

when the website is complete i'll put up a short post on the 'fire to let anyone know who might be interested, that it's "back in the english saddle again..."



here is a link to a 12 step procedural photo sequence for standard rings (dovetail front/windage rear):

http://s1105.photobucket.com/albums/h344/joyce_57/SCOPE%20TRU%20%20procedural%20sequence/

and here is a real short video of the basic process, distilled down to 4 photos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2sLqgLRYs