Again, Seekins!!
Badger is Wayyyyy overated!!
Care to back that up?
Yep....Every set of Badgers I have used have left rings marks...and yes they were torqued to spec. Fit and finish are more of an industrial type & the nut on the side seems to snag every damn twig that they can.
Are they tough and hold tight, no doubt.....but Seekins is a much better ring in my opinion!!
I see. It is down to your opinion and incompetence...
I strongly suspect that I've mounted more 34mm scopes, Schmidt Bender PMIIs all, in Badger Rings on Badger Rails than you have by an order of a 100 to 1 or better over the last 14 years. Should you feel this an unfair number please speak up.
You allow the scope to self center in the loose bottom ring halves on the rail. After the scope is has bottomed out in the bottom ring halves they can be seated torward the front firmly against the torque shoulders. This has largely been done to begin with and is only a minor final positioning. The ring caps can begin to be installed on the finger tight torque bolts on the side of the bottom halves. When scope is level, based on the reticle and the bottom of the erector housing to the top of the rail, the top ring caps can begin to be torqued. I typically use a feeler gauge to set ring gap and start initial torque 3-6 inch pounds under final torque and move up. I gauge how much tension that final torque is applying and alternate in a cross hatch pattern. As in back right, left front, front right, back left. This is done incrementally until the Seekonk MCX snaps over the first time. I then go back over the screws in the same order and check torque one final time. The final step is to torque the cross bolt on the rings to the rail with a 65 inch pound Seekonk T handle.
When PROPERLY mounted they don't leave ring marks. Granted you can scratch an aluminum scope tube with a steel scope ring ring unless you take your time and know what you are doing. True enough it is easier to avoid such ring marks with an aluminum ring that has HEAVILY RADIUSED edges. That said I prefer a steel rail on a steel receiver and steel ring on that rail... I don't have anything against Glenn Seekins or his products. As a matter of fact he asked me to be one his first dealers back before he had produced much of anything aside from a few early rings. He, at my request, tried to produce a lower 34mm ring to drop the 4-16x42 PMII closer to the barreled action. We found, due to the tube diameter, that significant reduction in mounting height was simply not possible. A reduction of .080" was achieved. 1" versus .920". I thanked him for opportunity, after running the rings for a couple of months, but politely passed. I did not think they offered anything over badger, or up to for that matter, and I still don't...
The "nut on the side seems to snag every twig that they can"... I see. Are you serious or generally just not all that bright? If the torque bolt on the side of the ring snags on twigs and boulders than I suspect you must really be into deep sniper craft. Dragging your rifle without a bag? If you are snagging twigs I am at a loss that you worry about scope ring marks. I've never heard an actual sniper mention the torque bolt catching on twigs. Is this really a problem for you?
Badger Rings DO have an industrial finish. That is one area where they could likely improve. That said the IMPORTANT thing about Badger Ordnance Rings and Rails has been in maintaining a super tight manufacturing tolerances and excellent metallurgy. The USMC, among many others, use Badger Ordnance without complaint. Granted they likely see less twig contact than you do. That said the rifles mounting system has yet to receive complaints.
They are THE 34mm Picatinny Ring GO TO company and have been for the past 15 years. To say you prefer Seekins Rings from your limited experience is one thing. Telling those how WAYYYYY overrated Badger Ordnance is, to those who know better from actual hands on, is an entirely different matter...
Matt.