• The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.

Scope Rings for Springers (re: TimmyMac's comments)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
T

Ted

Member
Mar 25, 2015
363
65
Wisconsin
I was going to reply to Tim Mac's comment in the FX rings thread. But, then decided to start a new conversation because I think the info he dropped should have it's own conversation.

Tim said: "I would never use the FX rings on a Spring gun. The way they rotate around a mounting point would put the structural stresses through the Scopes Tubing. For a Recoiless or nearly recoiless gun that wouldn’t be a problem but a Spring gun needs a One piece mount and the load paths cannot go to the scopes tubing. Scopes were never meant to add structural integrity to the mounting arrangement but split rings on springers stress scope tubes, especially high mounts with large heavy glass."

His comment made me stop and think re: my own understanding of the need for one-piece mounts......

When considering which rings/mounts were appropriate for an application, I had always thought in terms of "can they hold zero, or not". I had never considered stress to the scope body. So, are you [Tim] saying that by using two-piece mounts on a spring gun, the scope undergoes considerably more stress by being the "bridge" between the front and rear mounts? Is this the main reason a one-piece mount is recommended for spring guns - to reduce stress on the scope; not to insure that the rings hold their POI?
 
Ted: Though my experiences are somewhat limited, compared to many other springer shooters, I have found that the one piece mounts will work, provided that there is more than two screws per ring. An example that I like to use is the RWS Lock Down mount. This has a pin in the rear most portion designed to fit into the retaining hole at the rear of the dovetail/weaver rail. This system (two screw) works pretty well on mildly recoiling springers. Once you graduate to the magnum springers, the excessive recoil will push the scope backwards against the front ring and objective bell. Tightening the ring screws to a point just short of stripping out the threads will work, but I'm lacking the physical attributes to determine where that exact point is. Cutting it as short as I can, there are some good one piece mounts out there and there are much better one piece mounts out there. If the two piece mount has a locking pin for the rear and four screws per ring, it will work just as designed. Steel rings usually do not strip out either. I hope my input was helpful. Rik
 
Upvote 0
What happens in the real world is the split ring set is invariably only stopped by the rear stop hole and Rear mount. All the thrusting loads wioll be on that mount alone and the tube with the front ring will pack back and lean the rear mount aft and transfer the thrust loads to an angular force that wants to bend the scope tube at the rear clamp.
Scope tubes are thin wall and are only meant to hold the scope weight as they clamp into a secure structure. Spring guns kick the scope a lot and the constant rearward thrust needs the base structure of the mount to be what holds the mounts vertical (not the tube strength).
The worst mount I've seen relative to this scope abuse problem on springers is the so-called 1piece RWS C mount, which in its ten iterations was just a BAD Idea from the start. Many mounts have followed the same easy to adjust theme and all wound up with products that were engineered by salesman. Mounts for Springer cannot be allowed to rotate around the mounting fastener to the ring connection. It is weak engineering, to be kind. It doesn't belong on a spring gun, to be sure.

TimmyMac1
 
Upvote 0
"The worst mount I’ve seen relative to this scope abuse problem on springers is the so-called 1piece RWS C mount, which in its ten iterations was just a BAD Idea from the start."

Hi Tim, good to see you here. I'm a bit confused as the C-Mount appears to be a really good mount and appears to not have the design inadequacies of that of the 2 piece mounts. I have been using the Beeman One Piece Mount on my .177 HW97 and .22 Kodiak for quite a few years with great results. As I recollect I sent the Kodiak mount to you to get it machined for barrel droop.

Can you elaberate on how the C-Mount puts a torque on the scope tube and recommend a few mounts that you would prefer over the C-Mount.

Jay



 
Upvote 0
If the scope rings are connected to the base by a single screw the mount is rubbish on a springer IMO. The RWS C-Mount was engineered by a non-engineer. It has bent every scope tube that it was ever trusted to clamp to a springer. I know the salesman that designed it. It is the worst design that has endured countless rethinks and beef-ups that none of which were going to fix the real problem. RWS has always been the poster child for what not to do while mounting a scope.

TimmyMac1
 
Upvote 0
Tim - I was still confused so I did a little more looking around and I think I understand what you are talking about. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I was looking at this mount and it appeared that the rings were machined from a single piece of material:


And it looked just fine to me. Then I ran across this mount and I think what Tim is talking about is the way the rings are tied to the connecting bar with the single screw for each ring and the mount is made up of 3 pieces, screwed together:



And this mount is not much better than this mount:


But this mount, machined from one piece is what you are looking for.


Please correct if necessary.

Jay
 
Upvote 0
DLK - Please let us know how those work out for you.
The concern that I have with them is with the clearance between the sliding shafts ant the bores they are sliding in.
There is clearance there and how much is the question. The next question is how well the side locks up at the end of the travel and how repeatable it is.
I am not similar with this mount although I am with sliding mounts used with camera zoom lens optics. Here's a little food for thought and the diagram below might illustrate it.
There is some movement in the slide - let say there is .001 of an inch (an average human hair is .003 in) over the 4 in length of the slide makes an angle - and at 50 feet that angle makes a distance of .13 in. or a little more than 3/4 MOA or .78 at 100 yards. And that would make a group center to center of about a 1/4 of inch at 50 feet or 1.50 inches at 100 yards - and that is only scope error. The other question is, how repeatable does the slide return after every shot. Break barrel airgun manufactures have the same problem with the lock up of the barrel and the accurate gun mfg's go to great lengths to maximize the lock-up accuracy. Personally, I don't think I want to add this problem into the POI error equation.



Please let me know if I missed something.

Shoot Straight - Jay
 
Upvote 0
To confuse the issue RWS has called every mount they ever carried, that gave any adjustability/compensation, a C-Mount. So the older C-Mounts that the rings attached to the base via a single screw (the ring can rotate around) is the subject of my Ranting. By looking at the current offering is is apparent the C Mount designers have ditched that concept and followed another path that seems structurally adequate.
Early on in Airguns the need for adequate mounts wasn't satisfied by very many makers. In the 80's we had Weaver Tip-offs that held and all the stuff RWS & Beeman had that didn't hold the scope well.
Now we have some great choices thanks to Sportsmatch, BKL, and a host of others gleaning opportunity from expired patents. In my experience it is a bad idea to have the scope tube buttressing mount structure. It is not up to that task and you need to realize that when making mount choices.

TimmyMac1
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
Upvote 0
Believe it or not i did a presentation on this not to long ago. I was proven that it doesn't matter if the rings are bridged or two separate rings. Although bridged mounts have more reliable accuracy on spring guns. Two piece rings only will do damage to a scope tubing if they are to tight or to loose. Also obviouly if the scope is a rifle scope and not a rimfire or airgun scope, the spring puts a lot of pressure on the front lens(es). Two piece ring have proven to me to be more reliable on springs but that is most likely because of my cheaper bridged rings.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu