My instinct would have to be that the base is off-spec. I use nothing but Warne rings and have never had a problem with the rings themselves. Do you have another base to try these rings on?
I use Warne Maxima rings, both fixed and QR, on a variety of Weaver style bases and have never had anything like you're experiencing happen. I would try them on a random set of Weaver style bases and if they still don't work right, call Warne's customer service people.
Did you tighten them incrementally using an alternating X pattern? I have 2 sets of those rings, and once I had them aligned and the scope on, I used that method. I have experienced no looseness whatsoever.
forepaw
"Only accurate rifles (that are light enough to be carried by a middle-aged man in rough country) are interesting"
If you use the pointed tips toward each other, they may touch tip-to-tip, but you won't see if the individual centerline axes are co-linear. Having the large flat surfaces butted together makes this easy to visually diagnose. I actually learned this tip here on da 'Fire . . .
Did you tighten them incrementally using an alternating X pattern? I have 2 sets of those rings, and once I had them aligned and the scope on, I used that method. I have experienced no looseness whatsoever.
forepaw
No, I tightened them according to the instructions. I figured that would give the best results.
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Warne says this is common with a lapping bar but shouldn't happen with a riflescope. The rifle scope tube is supposed to "flex" when you tighten the top screws whereas the lapping bar doesn't give any due to being solid steel.
They were helpful and are sending me another set of rings just to make sure there isn't a problem with the ones I've got.
Not sure how I feel about the rings flexing my Nightforce though....
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
I had that happen a few times when I didn't put enough torque on the bottom screws, though not as extreme as your case in the video.
I'd try really putting some torque on the bottom screws with a wrench instead of the Wheeler thing and see what happens, doesn't appear to me that you're putting much on them at all. Just a thought...
I use Warnes most of the time. Only issue I ever had was on one scope when the rear ring was tight (I tend to tighten things more than most) the power selection ring was stiff to adjust. Scope was a Redfield Revolution.
I suspect this was because the bases were basic Weavers rather than Maxima bases. It stopped doing it when I changed to Maximas.
I find it hard to believe that a rifle scope tube have much flex in it. How much flex could there be without compromising the integrity of the tube, something in the order of 1/10,000"?
Have you tested what the Warne people told by mounting an old or inexpensive rifle scope?
Warne says this is common with a lapping bar but shouldn't happen with a riflescope. The rifle scope tube is supposed to "flex" when you tighten the top screws whereas the lapping bar doesn't give any due to being solid steel.
They were helpful and are sending me another set of rings just to make sure there isn't a problem with the ones I've got.
Not sure how I feel about the rings flexing my Nightforce though....
I find it hard to believe that a rifle scope tube have much flex in it. How much flex could there be without compromising the integrity of the tube, something in the order of 1/10,000"?
Have you tested what the Warne people told by mounting an old or inexpensive rifle scope?
Why bother to test?? That statement is a disqualifier for me.
I find it hard to believe that a rifle scope tube have much flex in it. How much flex could there be without compromising the integrity of the tube, something in the order of 1/10,000"?
Have you tested what the Warne people told by mounting an old or inexpensive rifle scope?
Why bother to test?? That statement is a disqualifier for me.
What statement?
Why not test? He already has the rings and it wouldn't take most than 15 minutes to install an old or throw-away scope.
The entire tube flex explanation sounds like BS to me.
I find it hard to believe that a rifle scope tube have much flex in it. How much flex could there be without compromising the integrity of the tube, something in the order of 1/10,000"?
Have you tested what the Warne people told by mounting an old or inexpensive rifle scope?
Why bother to test?? That statement is a disqualifier for me.
What statement?
Why not test? He already has the rings and it wouldn't take most than 15 minutes to install an old or throw-away scope.
The entire tube flex explanation sounds like BS to me.
If you use the pointed tips toward each other, they may touch tip-to-tip, but you won't see if the individual centerline axes are co-linear. Having the large flat surfaces butted together makes this easy to visually diagnose. I actually learned this tip here on da 'Fire . . .
Not sure if I buy this or not. I suppose you could say both large cylinders must line flag against each other. But I am not sure how that would not be happening with the points, and easier to see.
Why do you think they come with points?
Googled to see if I being doing it wrong. But this seems to be something you learned here. Any articles? I read NRA and Brownells, which I am sure are fools.
I don't have an old or throw away scope with a 30mm tube.
The guy I spoke with at Warne explained it well and it makes perfect sense for whats hapening in the video. The bottoms tighten up to the rail just fine (Yes, I tried multiple makes of weaver rails with same results). When you tighten the top screws, there is nothing to give between the rings (solid steel lapping bar vs. hollow aluminum tube) so the bottom pulls apart the more you tighten the top screws.
I felt certain they were slipping on the base with the scope installed also but I may have been wrong or may have had the top screws too tight. Either way, after learning how the Warne rings secure the scope to the base, I am hesitant to try to recreate the problem with an expensive optic.
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
They are just reversed. Putting two flats against each other can show angles that would be very hard to see with two round points touching. You can use them both ways.
Similar to this:
Last edited by wareagle700; 08/11/17.
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
They are just reversed. Putting two flats against each other can show angles that would be very hard to see with two round points touching. You can use them both ways.
Similar to this:
Case in point - pointy tips would prolly be just about touching and one would think all is good . . . .
If you use the pointed tips toward each other, they may touch tip-to-tip, but you won't see if the individual centerline axes are co-linear. Having the large flat surfaces butted together makes this easy to visually diagnose. I actually learned this tip here on da 'Fire . . .
Not sure if I buy this or not. I suppose you could say both large cylinders must line flag against each other. But I am not sure how that would not be happening with the points, and easier to see.
Why do you think they come with points?
Googled to see if I being doing it wrong. But this seems to be something you learned here. Any articles? I read NRA and Brownells, which I am sure are fools.
Sinclair's don't even have flat spots.
I was going easy on your Zerk. I backed waaaay off my initial reply, cuz I try not to be an azz
Check out Kokopelli's product (hint - they don't even come with pointy tips)
I simply asked for an article, and if there was something new to learn. As I wrote I googled this to see if I was doing it wrong. Read Brownells, NRA, and Sinclair, plus others. My guess is they are not improved reading.
As I said, I was simply asking for an article.
If someone wants to be an azz over that, it is cause they are an azz.
These are not the norm. Figure me for not hearing of some rare product. Does not explain why they are better. I kinda think cheaper product. Easier to produce without points. I kinda think got swindled.
They are just reversed. Putting two flats against each other can show angles that would be very hard to see with two round points touching. You can use them both ways.
Similar to this:
Yup. The points could touch, and thinking your rings centerlines are identical you put your scope in there and torque it down and bend it slightly into a bow.
I don't have an old or throw away scope with a 30mm tube.
The guy I spoke with at Warne explained it well and it makes perfect sense for whats hapening in the video. The bottoms tighten up to the rail just fine (Yes, I tried multiple makes of weaver rails with same results). When you tighten the top screws, there is nothing to give between the rings (solid steel lapping bar vs. hollow aluminum tube) so the bottom pulls apart the more you tighten the top screws.
I felt certain they were slipping on the base with the scope installed also but I may have been wrong or may have had the top screws too tight. Either way, after learning how the Warne rings secure the scope to the base, I am hesitant to try to recreate the problem with an expensive optic.
If the bottom screws are in tight, like farmer tight, how can they pull apart without either stripping the threads of either the base or the screws themselves or by actually bending the screws?
Do the bases themselves flex?
I need to try this for myself, as I have a few set of loose 1" Warne rings at the shop.
Wow - it's been explained to you twice now on this very thread.
I can only lead the horse to water . . .
Pretty much said its better and you are retard for questioning.
I am not convinced it could so far out of whack in the pic, but the points would not show.
I asked for an article, not some guys opinion on a forum. You google how to use scope alignment rods, it doesn't agree. Maybe there is some new way to do it. Maybe either is as good as the other, Maybe doing both would be best.
But bringing two halves to fine point, seems pretty good. The axis of the rod and gun will align with the point. Which is the point of the whole thing.
But I guess you are smarter than the people who make them, and your arguement is cause we said so.
WTF do you think they bother pointing a point on it? Would be cheaper to make without it.
It's quite simple: The points can be touching and still not reveal a misalignment that the flats will.
Sometimes people who do things differently find a better way.
For example, the first thing I tell people who ask me how to better use a Lee collet size die is to ignore the manufacturer's directions. After the questioner correctly follows the procedure I've outlined they've pretty much always reported superior results.
Wow - it's been explained to you twice now on this very thread.
I can only lead the horse to water . . .
Pretty much said its better and you are retard for questioning.
I am not convinced it could so far out of whack in the pic, but the points would not show.
I asked for an article, not some guys opinion on a forum. You google how to use scope alignment rods, it doesn't agree. Maybe there is some new way to do it. Maybe either is as good as the other, Maybe doing both would be best.
But bringing two halves to fine point, seems pretty good. The axis of the rod and gun will align with the point. Which is the point of the whole thing.
But I guess you are smarter than the people who make them, and your arguement is cause we said so.
WTF do you think they bother pointing a point on it? Would be cheaper to make without it.
You have been here for just a little over a month and you have 455 posts. Perhaps it is time that you pay less attention to your keyboard and more attention to your screen.
It could be that the reason the "people who make them"...make them with both a flat and pointed end...is so one can use either. The world in which we all live is not always binary.
But as for my time here, just because I just joined doesn't mean I picked up a gun a yesterday. Just as you guys more likely picked up a rifle before you joined.
I do points and a magnifying glass. The points are lined up with the rifle's axis, and come to a point. To be extra careful you could do both. But I assume they come with points for a reason. I am not convinved you guys have re-invented the wheel. Flame away all you want. No one has provided an article.
What we have is you saying articles are just dummies writing stuff. Which can be turned around, if you are able to debate. But I will put weight on what the industry does. For my needs point and magnifying glass I suspect is good. I would suggest magnification either way. But since I just got here, I can't possible know anything.
But as for my time here, just because I just joined doesn't mean I picked up a gun a yesterday. Just as you guys more likely picked up a rifle before you joined.
I do points and a magnifying glass. The points are lined up with the rifle's axis, and come to a point. To be extra careful you could do both. But I assume they come with points for a reason. I am not convinved you guys have re-invented the wheel. Flame away all you want. No one has provided an article.
What we have is you saying articles are just dummies writing stuff. Which can be turned around, if you are able to debate. But I will put weight on what the industry does. For my needs point and magnifying glass I suspect is good. I would suggest magnification either way. But since I just got here, I can't possible know anything.
Just a simple reply is needed here. When one is doing something that works for him/her...an article is not needed for validation.
And to your point, "But since I just got here, I can't possible[y] know anything." I'll just say 1) Those are your words...not mine. and 2) If you are searching for an implication, I'll say it straight. I am not implying that you know nothing...I am implying that you do not know as much as you think you know.
But as for my time here, just because I just joined doesn't mean I picked up a gun a yesterday. Just as you guys more likely picked up a rifle before you joined.
I do points and a magnifying glass. The points are lined up with the rifle's axis, and come to a point. To be extra careful you could do both. But I assume they come with points for a reason. I am not convinved you guys have re-invented the wheel. Flame away all you want. No one has provided an article.
What we have is you saying articles are just dummies writing stuff. Which can be turned around, if you are able to debate. But I will put weight on what the industry does. For my needs point and magnifying glass I suspect is good. I would suggest magnification either way. But since I just got here, I can't possible know anything.
Could you place the two bars in a position where the they are perpendicular to one another and still have the points meet exactly?
Could you place the two bars in a position where the they are perpendicular to one another and still have the points meet exactly?
Yes, you could.
No you couldn't. They wouldn't touch. One would just be touching one sie of the other. Being point they don't have sides, just trying to dumb it down.
No one is going to tell you, yuo are a moron for even trying use this argument?
Using the flats, and being extra careful, probably works. I don't believe there is a case where that coud be off, and points line up. Points come the tip of the axis,which is what some one tried saying is the point of flats.
Either way will tell you if off alot. I am going to use what the pros use. Next time I will look both ways for amuzement.
Either way, if you really want to know you have to shoot, and than see what happens when you try walking it. Put your target up using a level.
Here's a quote from a chapter of a book called MODERN HUNTING OPTICS, and the chapter is an extended version of an article published in a major American shooting magazine: "Just because two dogs touch noses doesn’t mean their bodies line up. A pair of cone-type alignment rods can work, but only if a straight-edge is placed alongside both rods--or the rods are turned around so their flat ends butt against each other."
If you can't imagine two dogs touching noses, take two sharp pencils and place them on a table. Note that they do NOT have be perfectly in line for their tips to touch. In fact they can be at 90-degree angles to each other.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
An aluminum scope tube has PLENTY of flex, one reason ring-screws shouldn't be over-tightened, because beyond a certain point the tube will bend and not flex.
I once bought a new rifle that came with a new 3-10x Swarovski Z3. This was a package deal in a major firearms/gunsmithing store in a big Texas city. When I took the rifle to my range for the first time, the scope wouldn't adjust correctly, so I decided to replace it. It took so much effort to back off the ring-screws that they made an audible CRACK when they finally broke free, and when removed the scope has two visible "waists" where the rings had been. However, it did work correctly after the ring-screws were backed off to 20 inch-pounds.
I have run into this several times with scopes installed by supposedly professional gunsmiths, as well as many amateurs. Have even seen variables turned into fixed-powers by over-tightening ring screws. Usually the tube will spring back all right once the rings are loose, but not always. It depends on the thickness of the scope tube, and how hard the installer tightened the screws.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
Here's a quote from a chapter of a book called MODERN HUNTING OPTICS, and the chapter is an extended version of an article published in a major American shooting magazine: "Just because two dogs touch noses doesn’t mean their bodies line up. A pair of cone-type alignment rods can work, but only if a straight-edge is placed alongside both rods--or the rods are turned around so their flat ends butt against each other."
If you can't imagine two dogs touching noses, take two sharp pencils and place them on a table. Note that they do NOT have be perfectly in line for their tips to touch. In fact they can be at 90-degree angles to each other.
I get the point. But if you look at them closely, I say they will be lined up. Otherwise the tips will not be fully touching. Just a portion of each. Tips can only touch when they are aligned, otherwise you are off to the side of one of them. They are a fine point, lined with the center of the rod. Not big fat dog nose.
But it is probably good to flip it around and look at it both ways. Like I said I use a magnfying glass.
No, they are not fully touching when perpendicular. Stick your fingers together.
Mounted a set of Leupold QR this morning. Alternated holes to 15 inch/lbs. Then took one out at time and put some blue loctite on. Back to 15. Than did all 4 20, and 28. In the past I wasn't putting locker on rings, but decided to here. In the past I probably should have been tqing more often. I think I was actually way under tighening. I thought I was doing the opposite.
If a member wrote it, than it's tainted. Plus some joe blow wants to write about technical stuff. A good hunter may not be the most technically minded person. Conical points can only meet in one place. Myself, I make my living off things being technical and correct. People talking about points being able to meet at 90 degrees, proves my point.
Mounted a set of Leupold QR this morning. Alternated holes to 15 inch/lbs. Then took one out at time and put some blue loctite on. Back to 15. Than did all 4 20, and 28. In the past I wasn't putting locker on rings, but decided to here. In the past I probably should have been tqing more often. I think I was actually way under tighening. I thought I was doing the opposite.
Ring screw torque specs are typically given for dry assembly. Wet (lubricated) assembly, whether lubricated with oil, grease, powdered rosin, teflon, silicone, uncured thread locker, etc., results in greater strain on the fastener at any given dry torque setting. Your torque wrench measures the amount of energy used to install the fastener. Threaded fasteners are designed to stretch during assembly like a spring. If over tightened, the fastener will permanently deform, like a sprung spring that no longer returns to its original shape. Lubticating a threaded fastener reduces the amount of energy required to stretch the fastener during assembly. To this end, if fastener torque specs are given for dry assembly, reducing torque wrench settings during lubricated assembly will achieve adequate fastener stretch without exceeding the material's elastic threshold. The degree to which lubricated settings should be reduced depends on the quality of the lubricant.
Originally Posted by 16penny
If you put Taco Bell sauce in your ramen noodles it tastes just like poverty
Mounted a set of Leupold QR this morning. Alternated holes to 15 inch/lbs. Then took one out at time and put some blue loctite on. Back to 15. Than did all 4 20, and 28. In the past I wasn't putting locker on rings, but decided to here. In the past I probably should have been tqing more often. I think I was actually way under tighening. I thought I was doing the opposite.
Ring screw torque specs are typically given for dry assembly. Wet (lubricated) assembly, whether lubricated with oil, grease, powdered rosin, teflon, silicone, uncured thread locker, etc., results in greater strain on the fastener at any given dry torque setting. Your torque wrench measures the amount of energy used to install the fastener. Threaded fasteners are designed to stretch during assembly like a spring. If over tightened, the fastener will permanently deform, like a sprung spring that no longer returns to its original shape. Lubticating a threaded fastener reduces the amount of energy required to stretch the fastener during assembly. To this end, if fastener torque specs are given for dry assembly, reducing torque wrench settings during lubricated assembly will achieve adequate fastener stretch without exceeding the material's elastic threshold. The degree to which lubricated settings should be reduced depends on the quality of the lubricant.
Damn that is correct, and I forgot. The lube allows them to tighen further.
I am using it short range, so hopefully ok. But will have to keep track of this scope, and pay attention next time I use it. Hopefully didn't do damage.
I knew this from working on engines, but forgot to carry it over.
Lubing the bases makes more sense, since you cannot check them with scope on. Rings can be checked. My mistake. First time putting lube on rings. I don't think it is awful, but tq value should be backed down.
http://warnescopemounts.com/do-i-need-threadlocker/ We recommend all bases being mounted to a firearms receiver use a non-permanent threadlocker, which is typically a blue or purple color. A firearm barreled action is under immense stress when it is fired. This creates shock and vibration which can loosen the small screws that are commonly used to mount bases to the receiver. A small application of threadlocker, and the proper torque of no more than 25 in/lb (steel receivers only) will ensure that the base screws stay tight, even on the harshest recoiling rifles.
threadlocker
Warne does not recommend the use of threadlocker on our rings. When a threadlocking compound is applied to screw threads, it can act as a lubricant. When you torque lubricated threads vs. torquing dry threads, when using the same amount of torque, more pressure will be put on the scope tube due to the lubricated screw being easier to tighten. We recommend 25 in/lb of torque for all Warne rings, and that torque spec is intended for dry threads. If threadlocker was applied to the threads, and the ring was torqued to 25 in/lb, there is potential for scope tube damage. An easy way to make sure you are tightening mounts to the proper torque is to use the Warne TW1 torque wrench. It is preset at 25 in/lb with a T-15 Torx bit for easy installation.
An aluminum scope tube has PLENTY of flex, one reason ring-screws shouldn't be over-tightened, because beyond a certain point the tube will bend and not flex.
I once bought a new rifle that came with a new 3-10x Swarovski Z3. This was a package deal in a major firearms/gunsmithing store in a big Texas city. When I took the rifle to my range for the first time, the scope wouldn't adjust correctly, so I decided to replace it. It took so much effort to back off the ring-screws that they made an audible CRACK when they finally broke free, and when removed the scope has two visible "waists" where the rings had been. However, it did work correctly after the ring-screws were backed off to 20 inch-pounds.
I have run into this several times with scopes installed by supposedly professional gunsmiths, as well as many amateurs. Have even seen variables turned into fixed-powers by over-tightening ring screws. Usually the tube will spring back all right once the rings are loose, but not always. It depends on the thickness of the scope tube, and how hard the installer tightened the screws.
I lap most of my 1" rings, never original Weavers, before I use them and I've put a dent or two in alloy scope tubes, but I've never had a Warne ring come loose on the base when the top screw(s) were tightened, with or without a scope installed.
I have one of the 25 inch pound T-15 torque wrenches that Warne sells, but if more torque is needed, I could put a cheater bar on the "L" shaped Torx wrench that typically comes with newer bases and go "farmer tight".
If a member wrote it, than it's tainted. Plus some joe blow wants to write about technical stuff. A good hunter may not be the most technically minded person. Conical points can only meet in one place. Myself, I make my living off things being technical and correct. People talking about points being able to meet at 90 degrees, proves my point.
Further proof that you do not know as much as you think you know.
If a member wrote it, than it's tainted. Plus some joe blow wants to write about technical stuff. A good hunter may not be the most technically minded person. Conical points can only meet in one place. Myself, I make my living off things being technical and correct. People talking about points being able to meet at 90 degrees, proves my point.
Further proof that you do not know as much as you think you know.
Again, explain to me how two points can meet when not aligned?
I think the flats, should tell you too. But that the points won't work, is silly. That points can line up 90 degrees is simple minded. The points are on the same bar as the flats
They sell them with points for a reason. Would be cheaper to make them without the points.
It's so simple to see: Just put two well sharpened pencils on a flat surface. Their tips can still touch as well as you can resolve with the pencils in any number of non aligned positions.
The dog anolgy is for idiots. The person who came up with it, was not able to water the topic down to convey it.
The points are 3 dimensional tip of a cone. They are the center axis, which runs parrallel the circumference of the rods. The flats are at 90s. We are not talking about an infinite point, but a 3 dimentional finite point. Pencil tip should be a good analogy, but for some reason isn't getting through. If the pencil's are 90 degrees, one side or area is not being touch. More is being touched on the other side.
This should be very clear with two dimensional trianleges. At 90 degrees they both have sides that are touching, and sides that are not. They should not have any sides touching, but rather just their tips. The diamter is drawn from the center. It is created based on the center point. If one is not lined up, none will .
I tend to think either would work. But to think the points doesn't work is ignorant. It sad how Americans have such a poor understand of math and science these days. We have more physcial therapists graduating than engineers.
It's so simple to see: Just put two well sharpened pencils on a flat surface. Their tips can still touch as well as you can resolve with the pencils in any number of non aligned positions.
Great analogy. But the pencil tip is the center of the pencil, and comes to a tip. It is parallel with the outside of the pencil, which is what you are using to align the flats. It two tips are not meeting a their tips, then one is hitting the others side, or cone.
Great analogy, but you failed to finish it. Same with finger tips. Any tip that is on center axis.
Would a pyramid be easier to see?
There is no way the center axises can aligned and the axises along the circumference, not aligned. All go together. Which is why you are able to do it different that the standard way, and have it work out. Just comes down to which is easier to see.
A point is by definition one-dimensional. It has no length, height, width, or orientation Or axis. There is no such thing as a three-dimensional point. A line is two-dimensional. It has length and orientation but no height or width..
A body is three dimensional with length, height, and width.
A point is by definition one-dimensional. It has no length, height, width, or orientation Or axis. There is no such thing as a three-dimensional point. A line is two-dimensional. It has length and orientation but no height or width..
A body is three dimensional with length, height, and width.
We are using 3 dimmensional object
I though apex might be to big of word for you to understad.
A cone is a three-dimensional geometric shape that tapers smoothly from a flat base (frequently, though not necessarily, circular) to a point called the apex or vertex.
Actually, what I said was wrong, "good catch." A point is zero dimensional. A line is one-dimensional. A plane is two dimensional.
A cone is three dimensional.
The point at the tip of the apex can touch the point at the tip of another apex with many different orientations of the cones.
The point on top or your head however is destined to remain firmly planted up your ass.
Originally Posted by Zerk
It two tips are not meeting a their tips, then one is hitting the others side, or cone.
You're trying to make an argument using geometry, but you're not using the geometric definition of the term "point." You're using a different definition. Try using the correct one.
A point is dimensionless. It has no length, width, or depth. Therefore it has no sides.
@ Zerk: When you find youself in a hole, it's best to stop digging . . . .
Me??
Blows my mind that people don't see this. I think some do, they just don't want to say anything. Which is sad,but you got the butt buddy thing going.
Atleast you are checking. I didn't for a long time.
But there is no way the tips can not be aligned and the flats,which are perpindicular to the center axis, be right, or vice versa. Question is which is easier to see.
But there is no way the tips can not be aligned and the flats,which are perpindicular to the center axis, be right, or vice versa. Question is which is easier to see.
This is the sorce of your problem. You have turned this into an either or situation...or a my way is best argument.
If the question is which is easier to see, The answer is without question...THE FLATS.
Not only is it easier to see...one can use feeler gages to tell how much.
If you prefer to use the points...go for it...however, that does not make you right.
On the other hand, if one chooses to use the flats...that does not make him/her wrong.
We are up to 5 pages now and you can not seem to bring youself to that conclusion...and leave it alone.
The device assumes 2 dimensions have been removed from the argument by assuming mounts are in the same plane, in the x axis and the same "tilt" in the y axis so if they line up in the z. Not to be used on bad receivers etc
It is a good thing First focal plane scopes are not Mobius strips and 2nd focal plane are not Klein bottles or this could turn into 5-Manifold Topology dilemma
With what you are talking about the points of two alignment bars intersecting and touching as if everything was OK, would need both rings to be off exactly the same amount and in the same direction... almost impossible, thus is why you get one point slightly above/below or to one side... does it hurt to use both way, no... fact is best scenario would be to check using both way's. But point to point is easier to spot unless (both rings are off exactly the same amount and in the same direction).
It is a good thing First focal plane scopes are not Mobius strips and 2nd focal plane are not Klein bottles or this could turn into 5-Manifold Topology dilemma
This is out of hand! Where's Mathman when we need him? Dock Rocket? I'll never be able to mount a scope again unless we get this figured out.
Mercy ceases to be a virtue when it enables further injustice. -Brent Weeks
But there is no way the tips can not be aligned and the flats,which are perpindicular to the center axis, be right, or vice versa. Question is which is easier to see.
This is the sorce of your problem. You have turned this into an either or situation...or a my way is best argument.
We are up to 5 pages now and you can not seem to bring youself to that conclusion...and leave it alone.
I am the one who cannot leave it alone? I have said both ways have to be alignmnt, and either will work. I just refute the claim that the points can be lined up, and the flats not lined up. The flats are perpendicular to the center axis, that the points are on.
The problem with this site, is the intellectual incest, and butt buddy peer review.
Wrong, Zerk. Perhaps you can't tell from the poor quality phone photo, but the TIPS are touching...not the sides.
Something that comes to a point, can only fully touch something else that comes to a point at the point. The points are on a center axis. Both axises have to be lined up for the point to touch. Other wise the point of one is touching part of the point or below the other.
If you are going to trust the flats, you have to trust the points also. Comes down to which you think is easier to see. Either way, good for you, to use something.
All you need to do is Google Dry v. Lubricated Torque values in either inch/lbs or foot/lbs. You'll get a table that shows both values side by side: Dry vs. Lubricated.
All you need to do is Google Dry v. Lubricated Torque values in either inch/lbs or foot/lbs. You'll get a table that shows both values side by side: Dry vs. Lubricated.
I backed off three lbs. About hour after it was applied. Which maybe to late for it to reset, but shouldnt be pinching. I will google this thanks. I have seen companies state it for when using anti seize on stainless steel.
Either way, if you really want to know you have to shoot, and than see what happens when you try walking it. Put your target up using a level.
I use a a 6' carpenter's framing level to hang my targets. If I'm shooting to check tracking I use a plumb bob to get my vertical line. Anything else you want to ask me about, then tell me I'm wrong?
Yes, as a matter of fact you did. If I were sensitive I would have reacted long before now. I wanted to see how many people you would refuse to believe even though they were right, as am I.
Good idea about plumb bob. But intellectual incest on the scope alignment rods. I have to think some of you really know, but its is just the emporors clothes or just lying for a butt buddy. Loyalty above all else, except honor.
Seeing your location says working way back to TX. Explains alot. Most arrogant people out there. Funny cause they pretend to be free, but so many laws and regulations. Plus biblical heat. So know it is making sense.
But you have left TX, so you shouldn't be as dumb as the average Texan.
Yes, as a matter of fact you did. If I were sensitive I would have reacted long before now. I wanted to see how many people you would refuse to believe even though they were right, as am I.
So me saying either way will work, and that the industry standard works, has offended you? Lets just pin point this.
Good idea about plumb bob. But intellectual incest on the scope alignment rods. I have to think some of you really know, but its is just the emporors clothes or just lying for a butt buddy. Loyalty above all else, except honor.
Seeing your location says working way back to TX. Explains alot. Most arrogant people out there. Funny cause they pretend to be free, but so many laws and regulations. Plus biblical heat. So know it is making sense.
But you have left TX, so you shouldn't be as dumb as the average Texan.
The more you say, the more obvious your dumbassery is as well. You're doing good!
It is irrelevant what you think. What matters is the TRUTH.
Good idea about plumb bob. But intellectual incest on the scope alignment rods. I have to think some of you really know, but its is just the emporors clothes or just lying for a butt buddy. Loyalty above all else, except honor.
Seeing your location says working way back to TX. Explains alot. Most arrogant people out there. Funny cause they pretend to be free, but so many laws and regulations. Plus biblical heat. So know it is making sense.
But you have left TX, so you shouldn't be as dumb as the average Texan.
The more you say, the more obvious your dumbassery is as well. You're doing good!
Unfortunately, anybody can see what you posted on this before this point, so your latest post: "So me saying either way will work, and that the industry standard works, has offended you?" doesn't quite cut it.
The following quotes are copied and pasted from your first 5 posts on this thread:
Post 1: "Why are alignment rods in backwards?"
Post 2: "Not sure if I buy this or not. I suppose you could say both large cylinders must line flag against each other. But I am not sure how that would not be happening with the points, and easier to see. Why do you think they come with points? Sinclair's don't even have flat spots."
Post 3: "I simply asked for an article, and if there was something new to learn. As I wrote I googled this to see if I was doing it wrong. Read Brownells, NRA, and Sinclair, plus others. My guess is they are not improved reading."
Post 4: "I asked for an article, not some guys opinion on a forum. You google how to use scope alignment rods, it doesn't agree. Maybe there is some new way to do it. Maybe either is as good as the other, Maybe doing both would be best. But bringing two halves to fine point, seems pretty good. The axis of the rod and gun will align with the point. Which is the point of the whole thing."
Post 5: Agreed. I said you could use both.
My comment: NO YOU DIDN’T. In Post 4 you wrote "Maybe doing both would be best." That is far from saying "you could use both."
I usually don't get involved anymore in such sheer stubborn stupidity on the Campfire, but you're an entertaining exception. Congratulations, you may even exceed the irrational trolling of the legendary Lee24.
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans.” John Steinbeck
its going to be hard to get me to budge off the industry standard, and that the points won't work. The idea that the tips can meet at any more than one point, and be lined up is just BS. You can debate which is easier to see. I use a magnfying glass.
But you are right I am stuborn on this. Next time I will try both out of curosity. But doubt I am going to say Brownells and NRA are wrong.
its going to be hard to get me to budge off the industry standard, and that the points won't work. The idea that the tips can meet at any more than one point, and be lined up is just BS. You can debate which is easier to see. I use a magnfying glass.
But you are right I am stuborn on this. Next time I will try both out of curosity. But doubt I am going to say Brownells and NRA are wrong.
Did you see the pie chart posted earlier? All of the lines that denote the edges of the slices meet at one point. Now remove all of the slices except the blue one at 9:00 and the green one at 5:00. They still meet at one point, yet their centerlines are not collinear. Spinning each slice around it's centerline generates two cones, touching at one point, having non-collinear centerlines.
Weren't you a bit stubborn about learning that BC and not bullet weight is the deal with respect to wind drift?
its going to be hard to get me to budge off the industry standard, and that the points won't work. The idea that the tips can meet at any more than one point, and be lined up is just BS. You can debate which is easier to see. I use a magnfying glass.
But you are right I am stuborn on this. Next time I will try both out of curosity. But doubt I am going to say Brownells and NRA are wrong.
Did you see the pie chart posted earlier? All of the lines that denote the edges of the slices meet at one point. Now remove all of the slices except the blue one at 9:00 and the green one at 5:00. They still meet at one point, yet their centerlines are not collinear. Spinning each slice around it's centerline generates two cones, touching at one point, having non-collinear centerlines.
Weren't you a bit stubborn about learning that BC and not bullet weight is the deal with respect to wind drift?
I ran bullet calculator on 3 different BCs, and sa the difference. The heavy flat bullet drifter more than I thought it would. But heavier one with with similar BC, drifted less that lighter one.
If the axis are not lined up, they are not touching tip to tip, but tip, and side of tip.
Maybe one way is easier to see, I will take look next time, as I wrote a few times. But if they are line up tip to tip, and you look close with a glass that makes things look bigger, than they are lined up. I am going to use the instructions. You use what ever you like.
Can't you follow the construction? In the pie chart slice removal process I took out the slices between the two that are left. So the two slices that are left aren't touching except at the tips.
I don't care about a pie chart. Take to two pencil and puch them towards each other. Only way for the points to full touch is if lined up. Other wise point of one is touching part of point and side of other.
Manufacturer supplied directions aren't always the best. For example, I've helped several posters improve their results when using the Lee collet neck sizing die. The first step in my instruction set is ignore the instructions supplied with the die.
I don't disagree things can be improved apon. But people are saying the instructions don't work for the rods. All along I have said both should work, and up to you to decide which is more visible for you.
A concern about using flats, could be one rod holding one off the ring. Have to make sure you slide them towards each other and not drop in.
As for lee neck sizing instructions. Yours may be accurate, but they are also alot more time consuming. Lee wrote their instructions to sell dies. They work for most people. If they put those instuctions in, many people would not use them, and would not buy another die. In comparrassion to the rods, each is about the same time and skill level, so the instructions are not watered down.
My instructions are only time consuming once, the first time you use a given type of brass in the die. After that the user just sets the die to where it was last time and goes to it.
Ya, but they are alot more time consuming then lee's. They would not sell alot of dies. So in this case you could argue the instructions are not as detailed. But that is not the case with the rods. I am sure there are other instructions where they don't want to take on liability with risky set up or one that requires you pay attention. Again not the case with the rods.
Usually when people come up with something better, it is usually easier. Yours may be more accurate, but I didn't know there was a problem in the first place. Now people shooting greater ranges than me, do all kinds of stuff I don't do. I like learning about it. But my range is only 100 yards. Last year with a chainsaw I was able to make a spot where I could shot 100 yards. I kinda like up close better. But I like being able to move around more. But that is neither here nor there.
Even if what you do works, or is even better, that doesn't mean that the instructions are wrong or don't work.
So if someone like mathman is willing to show you the best way to do something, you're sticking with the instructions.
Brilliant.
For the sake of time yes.
I didn't think there was a need in the first place to change them. Are they better? People do somethings with more detail when it is required, and less when it is not. Same with scope alignment. I do it now. But for years, shooting at close range, it didn't matter.
Scope alignment is easy to do. Mathman's may produce a better product, but I am not sure they are worth the effort.
You seem to be missing what I said: My instructions are only more time consuming once per type of brass.
I don't think taking the time once to optimally adjust the die is a hardship.
It's similar to the FL die situation. The instructions supplied with them work, but they are not necessarily optimum for each particular chamber. So a meticulous handloader may take the time to learn how to adjust his FL die to suit each chamber for which he loads a given cartridge.
You seem to be missing what I said: My instructions are only more time consuming once per type of brass.
e.
What makes you think I missed that?
Your instructions would not sell alot of dies. May be better. Also a problem I didn't know existed.
You kept harping on the time consuming aspect. If you think the one time deal per brass type is too time consuming then I don't know what to tell you.
As to sales, I'm inclined to believe my instructions would sell more second, third and fourth sets of dies. I base this on the positive feedback I've received in the open and via private message about how following my instructions clarified things, cured problems, et cetera.
1) Single piece mounts like LaRue and ADM where there is a vertical protrusion from the base that contacts the scope tube from underneath. The two ring halves clamp onto that protrusion on the bottom and are then tensioned on the top
2) Symmetrically split separate ring halves like those on Warne rings. These come in two varieties: permanent attach and QD. With permanent attach, the two screws that tighten the rings onto the rail can potentially be loosened/opened when the top screws are tightened (that is what the Youtube video someone linked above showed). With QD set-up there is a separate clamp that grabs the rail, so with those, tightening the top screws is not going to effect how well the ring grabs the rail.
3) Asymmetrically split two piece rings like Vortex Viper. With these, one side of the ring and the bottom form a single unit. The ring clamp is separate and is not affected by any of the screws that are used to secure the scope. With these, you tighten the bottom two scews all the way and then secure the top two screws
4) Vertically hinged symmetrically split one piece mount made by Aero Precision. WIth this one, the ring halves hinge together at the top and you tighten these at the bottom, so you have two screws per ring.
Obviously, all of these can be susceptible to out of round ring halves which can apply assymetric pressure to the scope. I can definitely attest to that happening with the Type 4. I bought several of these on sale a while back since I was intrigued by their light weight. Half were out of round, so I had to lap them lightly. Once set up, they seem to stay put and the scope stayed zeroed. They do no return to zero well if removed, but they are light cheap and stay put after installation.
I have seen out of round Type 2 rings as well (I have a lot of mileage with Warne rings), but my take on these is largely the same: I try to not use them for tracking tests, but once set-up they stay zeroed. I have seen a couple of "out of round" 1" and 30mm models.
With Type 1, you can have a sort of a unique problem where the scope slides a little with respect to he base, since the bottom of the rings clamps onto the base of the mount, rather than onto the scope. These were all "set and forget" types.
With Type 3 (Vortex Viper), it sounds like they should work fine if they are not out of round, but no experience here
Yet, you feel like you're in a position to argue with a guy like mathman on the finer points of it.
What I am saying, is I have been using the factory method, and so far so good. There will always be people who go farther and like to modifying things. I am often one of them. But since this is working so far, I can't see an advantage. Someday after many reloads maybe I will think I should have done it different.
So yes I think if people were reading the instructions on line, they may not buy it. If they read anothe set of instructions with a couple of turns and done, they would buy that one. Maybe after using it, they would feel different. But people are not going to buy the harder one to use. Yes I know it is easy enough to do. But just turn the die is easier. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.
But since it has been working fine for me, I do feel that is acceptable to have an opinion. Why is he the only one allowed to have an opinion?
I suspect his is better, but since the factory is working, it can't be completely wrong.
You aren't wrong for having an opinion and nobody is arguing that the points weren't intended to be used. However, some of us have found that alignment rod flats show certain lines and angles better than two round points. Keep using whatever method works for you, I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that.
John 8:12 "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
You aren't wrong for having an opinion and nobody is arguing that the points weren't intended to be used. However, some of us have found that alignment rod flats show certain lines and angles better than two round points. Keep using whatever method works for you, I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that.
We wouldn't...
Zerk's problem transcends rings and alignment rods; those are but a symptom...
You aren't wrong for having an opinion and nobody is arguing that the points weren't intended to be used. However, some of us have found that alignment rod flats show certain lines and angles better than two round points. Keep using whatever method works for you, I don't think anyone here would have a problem with that.
This is pretty much what I said. Use what ever way you can see better. I believe it has to be lined up from either direction.
What makes me stupid, is saying the traditional way of using the points, will work.
Oh, and yes people will have problem if you use the points. They will say you are dumb or retarded. So yes, they will have a problem.
What makes me stupid, is saying the traditional way of using the points, will work.
Those are your words. And it is not saying the points will work...it's the fact that we are at 8 pages now and you will not let it go...even when someone offfers you an olive branch...giving you an out.
Stalemate...because you will not let it go? Does it matter what other people do? Do you feel the NEED to bring people around to your way of thinking...have to be right?
![[Linked Image]](http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/koko02.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://s19.postimg.org/xarsrllfn/pen.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp311/patrickgsinclair/96zvyt.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/charts/img/pie-sample.png)
