I've used a bunch of Warne Maximas and the vertical split has never been a problem. Go slow when leveling the scope and it's a piece of cake.
The Tikka specific version is rugged. They grip the rail tight, and have a lug. The Talleys and DNZ rely on the mounting screws. Whether it matters or not, only you can decide.
I've used a bunch of Warne Maximas and the vertical split has never been a problem. Go slow when leveling the scope and it's a piece of cake.
The Tikka specific version is rugged. They grip the rail tight, and have a lug. The Talleys and DNZ rely on the mounting screws. Whether it matters or not, only you can decide.
Yea ,as I posted originally the mounts that clamp directly to the rifle seem to me would be stronger than 4 little screws. Especially with so little surface area on the Tikka T3 to mount the scope rings on.
I do not prefer vertical split rings (specifically the Warns) due to several issues, though many haven't seemed to have problems.
I have used Tally LWs, DNZ, factory rings, and piccatinny rail/rings on T3s and only use the piccatinny setup now.
The Tikka Performance gen2 rails with decent piccatinny rings is a solid mounting system.
What are the specific issues with the Warnes? Is that the aluminum or the steel rail? Which rings?
I do like the Weaver type system but just cant decide which system is the strongest.
On the one hand the Warnes have only one recoil lug or pin for the front ring compared to the Weaver/piccatinny style which has a lug on the bottom of both rings which engage in a slot.
On the other hand there are only 4 tiny screws that hold the Weaver/piccatinny rail to the rifle. The Warne clamps to the actual rifle.
Sure wish I were an engineer so I could figure out for sure which is the strongest,least likely to move or fail system !
If you think about how vertical split rings tighten, they pinch the scope tube instead of clamping it. The tightness of the screws to the base also effects the tightness of the scope. It's a poor design.
The Warn Vertical Split rings broke the only two HDMRs that I have seen or heard of (out of hundreds). Both mounted to spec, and both exhibited the same issues- parralax lock up, inconsistent tracking, sporadic zero shifts.
I agree that a direct mount is the way to go for strength, however I haven't seen one for a tikka that checks all the blocks. There is more to it than just screws. Ring spacing is a huge issue with regards to zero retention and fending abuse and piccatinny gives the most options there. Every sniper rifle in military use, uses a piccatinny setup and there are many reasons for that- strength being one.
If you think about how vertical split rings tighten, they pinch the scope tube instead of clamping it. The tightness of the screws to the base also effects the tightness of the scope. Its a poor design
The Warn Vertical Split rings broke the only two HDMRs that I have seen or heard of (out of hundreds). Both mounted to spec, and both exhibited the same issues- parralax lock up, inconsistent tracking, sporadic zero shifts.
I agree that a direct mount is the way to go for strength, however I haven't seen one for a tikka that checks all the blocks. There is more to it than just screws. Ring spacing is a huge issue with regards to zero retention and fending abuse and piccatinny gives the most options there. Every sniper rifle in military use, uses a piccatinny setup and there are many reasons for that- strength being one.
I called Warne and asked them about the rings and tech there told me that the sintered steel had copper in it which actually allowed the rings to bend to fit the scope! I dont know if this is true but that is what he told me.
I take it that you believe the Warne rings caused the problems in the two HDMR scopes because of the pinching design? What is parralax lockup??
I would think that since the rear ring can be placed several different places on the dovetail that ring spacing should be adequate?
While the Military sniper rifles use the Piccatinny system I think that maybe the reason could be that most rifles are not designed to use a direct mount system ?
Do you use the steel or aluminum rails and what rings are you using?
They were/are absolutely the cause of it. We put several more scopes in them just to check and they all had the same symptoms.
Parralax lock up is when the tube gets pinched (usually) and while the parralax knob is adjusted, the actual parralax is "locked" and unmoving.
I'm ok with both steel and aluminum rings and rails. For Tikkas I want the integral lug on the rail. The Tikka Performance Gen 2 rail is designed better than any other that I could find as of a couple of months ago. There are lots of good rings on the market, I generally prefer Nighforce ULs.
They were/are absolutely the cause of it. We put several more scopes in them just to check and they all had the same symptoms.
Parralax lock up is when the tube gets pinched (usually) and while the parralax knob is adjusted, the actual parralax is "locked" and unmoving.
I'm ok with both steel and aluminum rings and rails. For Tikkas I want the integral lug on the rail. The Tikka Performance Gen 2 rail is designed better than any other that I could find as of a couple of months ago. There are lots of good rings on the market, I generally prefer Nighforce ULs.