AusVarmint

The scope I picked up from Louie the Fly turned up last week, and so I was very keen to mount it on the Omark and try it out.

I had bought some low QRW Leupold rings so I mounted them on the rail, lapped them, centred the windage turret on the scope and then bore sighted it. The reticle was pretty close so proceeded out to zero the rifle with the left-over FMJ target loads I bought from the rifle club.

My first shot at 50m was waaaayy out to the left, wound across to the right and shot again, then moved back to 100m, and shot again. And wound. And shot. After 60x 1/4" clicks I hit the limit of adjustment and still was around 2" to the left of POA:
I swapped the rings front to back, and then from having the lever facing to the left to facing right, but this didn't fix the problem.

The previous scope on this rifle was in high vertically split Warne rings which didn't seem to have this problem, so I kept an eye out for some Warne Maxima QD low rings which are also vertically split. As I was driving home from a work meeting in Melbourne on Monday I called into a shop in Ballarat and they had just what I wanted so home they came.

Been a busy week at work so the only opportunity I had to check them out was after dark one night under the spotlight. Centred the windage turret, bore sighted and then zeroed at 100m. Here are the results:
Looks like if rings don't have windage adjustment then vertically split might be the way to go.

Marcus

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

Seems to work for you mate, never tried them myself as I like the Lynx stud type mounts with windage front and back.

I have a few sets of warne? rings which are vertical split and I find them such a PITA to set up. Much prefer the horizontal split, but what ever works for you.

I'm with camel go the lynx or the hillver stud mounts , don't even need to use the windage on your scope if you don't want to

I also much prefer horizontally split rings with windage adjustment, and I specifically bought the Leupy QRW rings over the Warnes in the first place because of this.

I have the Lynx stud base and rings on my .22-250 and like the flexibility that the front and rear windage adjustment gives but they can be a bit fiddly to get right. I think that the fact that the front rings can swivel on the stud (if the grub screws are not done up tight) while adjusting the rear for windage has to be a good thing - less likely to stress a scope tube.

Unless the QRW rings had some issue with tolerances it seems that in this case the vertically split Warne rings did a better job at centering over the line of the bore.

Like the man said - whatever works!

Marcus

GriMo wrote: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!

Branxhunter wrote:I also much prefer horizontally split rings with windage adjustment, and I specifically bought the Leupy QRW rings over the Warnes in the first place because of this.

I have the Lynx stud base and rings on my .22-250 and like the flexibility that the front and rear windage adjustment gives but they can be a bit fiddly to get right. I think that the fact that the front rings can swivel on the stud (if the grub screws are not done up tight) while adjusting the rear for windage has to be a good thing - less likely to stress a scope tube.

Unless the QRW rings had some issue with tolerances it seems that in this case the vertically split Warne rings did a better job at centering over the line of the bore.

Like the man said - whatever works!

Marcus

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

Hmmm, not being an expert on this stuff could someone post some pics and explain the pros and cons of the various types of rings? I'd be interested to learn something

kjd wrote:

GriMo wrote: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!

Why? I love the Warne mounts and find them relatively easy to fit. What exactly don't you like?

Branxhunter wrote:I swapped the rings front to back, and then from having the lever facing to the left to facing right, but this didn't fix the problem.

I think this would confirm the problem isn't the rings, swapping front to back and reversing should have had it shooting an equal distance the opposite direction if it was a ring issue.

Ive got about 6 sets of QRW rings and never had a problem with the rings.

Much prefer horizontal split to me vertically split rings just look wrong.

kickinback wrote:

kjd wrote:

GriMo wrote: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!

Why? I love the Warne mounts and find them relatively easy to fit. What exactly don't you like?

I find them enormously frustrating to mount. I guess from a pure engineering point I also don't see any benefit to the vertical split that would compensate for that difficulty. Granted I'm no engineer but the vertical split seems to make tension in the scope also defendant on tension required to lock onto the dovetails. In a horizontal arrangement they are two entirely different attachment points and as such can be torqued as desired.

As I said, not an engineer that just "feels" better to me.

kjd wrote:

GriMo wrote: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!

Is that because the vertically spilt rings (ie; Warne T3 QD's) make you put the scope on wrong?

BB

Buff Buster wrote:

kjd wrote:

GriMo wrote: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!

Is that because the vertically spilt rings (ie; Warne T3 QD's) make you put the scope on wrong?

BB

I'm sensing a story here. Maybe someone fucked up and blamed something else?

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

BB