Vertically spilt versus horizontally split scope rings

[GriMo]

There is a story Glen. I'll let Keefy tell it though.

BB

He's too busy taking photos of hotel dunnies...

[Branxhunter]

Did you go back and check the point of impact with the original FMJ target loads from the Hamilton RC?

No I didn't, as I used the last few rounds I had left zeroing the scope in the QRW rings. I agree it would be a definitive test to use the same load to test the difference purely from changing rings, but:

- I doubt that a change in load would give 55-60 clicks difference in windage at 100m;
- the rifle was originally zeroed with the FMJ rounds with the old scope and higher permament Warne rings with no windage adjustment issues;
- the FMJ load and 155gn A-max load I had developed both shot to basically same point of aim (ie within 1-2 inches windage) with the old rings; and
- the 150gn SP load also seems to shoot within 1-2 inches windage from the centre of the windage adjustment of the scope when in the Warne QD rings, and so seems to mirror the performance of the other two loads.

Did I somehow mount the scope wrong in the QRW rings? Never say never, however as I wrote above I mounted the scope in 3 different combinations of ring alignment without resolving the issue. Each time I mounted a scope in Warne vertically split rings it was right first time.

As the old Colgate ad used to say "Why is it so?". I have no idea. I didn't write this thread to neccesarily offer an irrefutable explanation, but to suggest an option for others to try if they find themselves in a similar situation. If I hadn't had the success with the first set of Warne rings I probably would have concluded that the drill and tap of the action for the rail was misaligned, and could have gone down the path of trying all sorts of fixes when a simple change of rings ended up addressing the problem.

Marcus

[kickinback]

There is a story Glen. I'll let Keefy tell it though.

BB

He's too busy taking photos of hotel dunnies...

You mean doing trade in hotel dunnies?

[MISSED]

Vertically split rings are the work of the devil, made for masochists I tell ya.

I tremble every time a customer wants a set on a rifle!

Just wait till someone whats a set of Conetrols or Buehlers

[220]

As the old Colgate ad used to say "Why is it so?". I have no idea. I didn't write this thread to neccesarily offer an irrefutable explanation, but to suggest an option for others to try if they find themselves in a similar situation. If I hadn't had the success with the first set of Warne rings I probably would have concluded that the drill and tap of the action for the rail was misaligned, and could have gone down the path of trying all sorts of fixes when a simple change of rings ended up addressing the problem.

Marcus

Its got me stuffed, as you said you swapped the rings front to back so if either ring was off centre this should have shown it up, you also rotated them 180 degrees so if they were both off this should have shown it.
As I said ive got about 6 sets of the QRW on bases from warne, RT, weaver & Williams and haven't had a problem.

Heres an explination
Rail is misaligned the warne rings are also misaligned the two cancel each other out and work

[aaronraad]

Did you go back and check the point of impact with the original FMJ target loads from the Hamilton RC?

No I didn't, as I used the last few rounds I had left zeroing the scope in the QRW rings. I agree it would be a definitive test to use the same load to test the difference purely from changing rings, but:

- I doubt that a change in load would give 55-60 clicks difference in windage at 100m;
- the rifle was originally zeroed with the FMJ rounds with the old scope and higher permament Warne rings with no windage adjustment issues;
- the FMJ load and 155gn A-max load I had developed both shot to basically same point of aim (ie within 1-2 inches windage) with the old rings; and
- the 150gn SP load also seems to shoot within 1-2 inches windage from the centre of the windage adjustment of the scope when in the Warne QD rings, and so seems to mirror the performance of the other two loads.

Did I somehow mount the scope wrong in the QRW rings? Never say never, however as I wrote above I mounted the scope in 3 different combinations of ring alignment without resolving the issue. Each time I mounted a scope in Warne vertically split rings it was right first time.

As the old Colgate ad used to say "Why is it so?". I have no idea. I didn't write this thread to neccesarily offer an irrefutable explanation, but to suggest an option for others to try if they find themselves in a similar situation. If I hadn't had the success with the first set of Warne rings I probably would have concluded that the drill and tap of the action for the rail was misaligned, and could have gone down the path of trying all sorts of fixes when a simple change of rings ended up addressing the problem.

Marcus

I would have suggested a scope swap as well, but it sounds like you've pulled enough hair out already...is there any left?

[GriMo]

Did you go back and check the point of impact with the original FMJ target loads from the Hamilton RC?

No I didn't, as I used the last few rounds I had left zeroing the scope in the QRW rings. I agree it would be a definitive test to use the same load to test the difference purely from changing rings, but:

- I doubt that a change in load would give 55-60 clicks difference in windage at 100m;
- the rifle was originally zeroed with the FMJ rounds with the old scope and higher permament Warne rings with no windage adjustment issues;
- the FMJ load and 155gn A-max load I had developed both shot to basically same point of aim (ie within 1-2 inches windage) with the old rings; and
- the 150gn SP load also seems to shoot within 1-2 inches windage from the centre of the windage adjustment of the scope when in the Warne QD rings, and so seems to mirror the performance of the other two loads.

Did I somehow mount the scope wrong in the QRW rings? Never say never, however as I wrote above I mounted the scope in 3 different combinations of ring alignment without resolving the issue. Each time I mounted a scope in Warne vertically split rings it was right first time.

As the old Colgate ad used to say "Why is it so?". I have no idea. I didn't write this thread to neccesarily offer an irrefutable explanation, but to suggest an option for others to try if they find themselves in a similar situation. If I hadn't had the success with the first set of Warne rings I probably would have concluded that the drill and tap of the action for the rail was misaligned, and could have gone down the path of trying all sorts of fixes when a simple change of rings ended up addressing the problem.

Marcus

Wasn't that Julius Sumner Miller?

[Camel]

Yeah it was his trademark saying, but then he also helped mrs Marsh in at least one colgate add that I remember. Why is it so, that the blue dye in this water goes into the piece of chalk ? or some shit like that. Mrs Marsh after she had been goosed......"but it does get in"

[GriMo]

Yeah it was his trademark saying, but then he also helped mrs Marsh in at least one colgate add that I remember. Why is it so, that the blue dye in this water goes into the piece of chalk ? or some shit like that. Mrs Marsh after she had been goosed......"but it does get in"

No idea who that is but I vaguely remember those ads

[Branxhunter]

Yeah it was his trademark saying, but then he also helped mrs Marsh in at least one colgate add that I remember. Why is it so, that the blue dye in this water goes into the piece of chalk ? or some shit like that. Mrs Marsh after she had been goosed......"but it does get in"

Yeah mate, that is the one I was thinking of.

Marcus