Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/24/2002 9:50:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 9:52:19 AM EDT by Unicron]
I am trying to build a target rifle fellas.
So far I have a 700 LTR .308, and some stuff being shipped to me: Badger base, and Leupold 4.5-14x50mm LRT mildot.

I really want some detatchable scope rings. I have a small ass roadster...and a hard case just won't fit in the trunk. I would like to be able to remove the scope from the rifle during trasport.

Anyone have any experience/comments on the A.R.M.S. #22 Throw Lever Rings?

www.armsmounts.com/list.html#22

I could care less if it perfectly re-zeros when I remove and attach the scope. My main concern is weather I will loose any accuracy with this type of ring system?

Thanks in advance!
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 10:03:56 AM EDT
I use the ARMS #22 rings and they mount just as securely as any other. They also have anti-mar pads that do not chew up your rails. If you are going to be removing and mounting your scope often, this is your best choice. You should not have any problems using them. Loss of accuracy has not been an issue.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 11:19:28 AM EDT
I am probably one of the few people that doesn't care for the #22s. In my experience, I have lost at least 1/2 MOA of accuracy. If you MUST have quick detach rings I would suggest the Leupold QRWs. They have levers that you can feel the tension. The #22s levers are NOT adjustable, if your rail is out of spec then your rings will not be tight. I am almost positive that the QRWs are available in 30mm even though they are not listed in Leupolds literature.

Now, putting QR rings on the rifle you are building is like putting a screen door in a submarine. You are doing everything right EXCEPT for the rings. Get the Badgers or Mark 4s and sell the dam roadster.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 11:58:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2002 11:59:21 AM EDT by Unicron]

Originally Posted By FrankSquid:
I am probably one of the few people that doesn't care for the #22s. In my experience, I have lost at least 1/2 MOA of accuracy.



FrankSquid,

Thanks for speaking up.

When you say you lost 1/2 MOA of accuracy...are you are talking about loosing accuracy compared to your Mark 4 rings?

Or do you mean you loose 1/2 MOA when you detach and re attach the scope?

Thanks!
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 12:10:06 PM EDT
Yes
&
Yes

Your rifle system should be capable of .5 MOA accuracy. With QR rings I doubt it will be a 1 MOA or better rifle.

To shoot for consistent accuracy, one must eliminate all of the variables. You are ADDING a variable with the QR rings. You eliminate that variable with good rings that are torqued to spec.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 12:14:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FrankSquid:
I am almost positive that the QRWs are available in 30mm even though they are not listed in Leupolds literature.



They are indeed. I had a pair for a SS 10x42-M with a 30mm tube. Worked quite well for me.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 12:18:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FrankSquid:
Your rifle system should be capable of .5 MOA accuracy. With QR rings I doubt it will be a 1 MOA or better rifle.



Man...> 1MOA because of QR rings sucks pretty hard!
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 12:48:45 PM EDT
I am in the same boat as you. I have decided to bag the arms QR rings/mount because it seems like a unnecessary risk.

I am going to get something like badger or Mk4's myself. Check out http://www.leupold.com/resources/MountFitChart/default.asp and look at their mounts selector tool. It is pretty handy for finding the recommended height rings and bases.
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 1:21:27 PM EDT
Ken_in_Va,

Have you tried the rings before?
Link Posted: 7/24/2002 3:07:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicron:
Ken_in_Va,

Have you tried the rings before?



nope, I did ask around and got enough bad experiences out of the batch that I decided not to risk it. I do have a ARMS QD mount for my Hk-91 that is a piece of crap. It doesn't return to anything near the same point and actually rocks on the reciever. The thing cost me $150 and it sucks.

Nobody said anything bad in my research about the QRW leupold rings if you really want quick release.

Good Luck

Link Posted: 8/8/2002 8:08:49 AM EDT
FrankSquid,

You were right! The ARMS #22 rings did not grab onto my badger base tight enough. They were moving, and even wore off some finish on the Badger base...and I only have 28 rounds through the rifle!

The first thing that tipped me off was my point of impact was stringing left to right:

http://urbansniper.150m.com/armory/us010.JPG

I should have listened to you in the first place. Luckliy the store I bought them from is taking them back; I'm getting some Leupold Mark 4 rings instead.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 9:42:14 AM EDT
before you return the rings (if you haven't already) try this;

1] install the scope on the rifle as you have it now (throw lever in the "tight" position)
2]loosen the rings so the scope is loose
3]loosen your front throw lever and push the ring foward while tightning the throw lever.
4]loosen your rear throw lever and pull the ring to the rear while tightning the throw lever.
5] relevel your scope and tighten the rings.

This should eliminate your front to rear slop and may improve your groups.
You are not far from that .5 MOA. Good luck.
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 12:01:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2002 12:02:34 PM EDT by Unicron]
FrankSquid,

I found a way to transport the rifle (with scope mounted) to the range in my small ass car. Other than cleaning...I don't see a need to remove the scope. I just exchanged the arms #22 for the Leupold Mark 4's.

The store had some medium height Leupold Mark 4 30mm rings. The rings fit pretty good with the badger base and the Leupold 4.5-14x50mm.

I did what you said about taking up the front and rear slope with the Mark 4 rings...except I pushed the front ring toward the rear and the rear ring towards the front.

I torqued down the big nut on the Mark 4 rings to the base; 65 inch/lb. with a Craftsman torque wrech.

I hope this helps my groups!

I'll post some pics of the range trip this weekend early next week.

Thanks!
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 4:41:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2002 11:52:45 PM EDT
FrankSquid, thanks for the info on setting up a scope on the ARMS rings. At least now I know that I went about it the right way. Anyway, my applications all involve Picatinny rails.
Link Posted: 8/9/2002 8:02:39 AM EDT
Who cares what your rifle looks like, how does it shoot? I don’t drag my rifles by chains from the back of my truck but a tiny scratch along the rail isn’t going to keep lead off targets.

Why even bother to use detachable rings if you're looking for the last n'th of a degree of accuracy?

If you want your AR to be a benchrest rifle look at what the benchrest bolt-action rifle shooters use on their rigs and the way they treat them.

I have never seen a serious benchrest shooter with detachable sights. Never. (Nor have I seen them shooting a semi-automatic ).

My benchrest rifle is carefully transported, coddled, cared for, worshipped and I use voodoo and sacrifice small furry animals (at great distances in front of the barrel) to its accuracy.

My AR's are used to put fast lead on targets rapidly.

[zen]Focus on the function of the rifle, as it is in the nature of the AR, and its owner, to be many things. Trying to do all things best at once is impossible as what makes a rifle a fine battle weapon makes for a rotten varmint rifle and visa-versa. Define a mission and the form of the rifle will follow that function.[/zen]

I have both the ARMS and QDR rings and can hit silhouette-sized targets at distances too far to shoot a 62-grain bullet at with both of the ring types.
Top Top