Scope slipping in mounts

[solo06]

So, I have a Leupold VX-6 3-18x44 (30mm tube) mounted on a 300 Weatherby. I used Talley Fixed Rings (steel), partly because I liked the smooth low profile/traditional hunting rifle appearance. I was trying to avoid big bulky tactical hardware. And, Talley has a good reputation for making solid scope mounts.

While installing them, although they are 2-piece base/ring units, I liked how solid the rings locked onto the bases, with very little movement allowed even before tightening the screws. I also liked how you could tighten them partially, rotate the scope into perfect alignment, and then finish tightening the screws to spec without the scope shifting/rotating out of alignment (as has happened with other rings I've used in the past).

I had also considered using Talley Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts. The 1-piece base/ring unit was attractive. However, when I called Talley to ask for their recommendation between the two, they recommended going with the Fixed Rings. Although there's nothing wrong with the Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts, they are made of aluminum, and so Talley recommended the steel Fixed Rings for maximum strength between these two materials.

Manufacturer torque specs for the rings are 30 inch lbs for the bottom screw, 20 inch lbs. for the top screw. Using a torque wrench, I did 30 on the bottom and put a few extra lbs on the top screw, to 25 inch lbs.

After a few days of shooting about 120 rounds total, I noticed that the scope had shifted under recoil. Of course, the .300 WBY has a lot more recoil than a .223 or .308. The scope moved about 1/4" until the rear ring was against where the scope tube widens for the magnification adjustment (preventing it from moving any farther). After removing the scope and rings, I found that a fair amount of the black finish was worn from both the scope tube and inside of the rings from the slipping. Aside from the frustration that the finish was worn, I did notice that the wear was perfectly even across the entire interior surface of the rings. I think this illustrates that they had perfectly even contact... they just couldn't hold on under this recoil.

I called Talley about this for guidance. I wondered if the rings just needed to be tightened a little more, perhaps 35 inch lbs. for all screws, or until the slipping stops. But, Talley recommended not tightening them beyond the original specs, and instead recommended reinstalling the scope and adding some silicone adhesive or fingernail polish to help adhere the rings to the scope to stop the slipping.

I'm not sure what to think about this. Is using silicone adhesive or fingernail polish to adhere scope rings to scopes a common practice? This sounds like a "duct tape solution" to compensate for a product weakness. I think scope rings should be able to hold onto their scopes without having to be literally glued to them. And, it's going to be frustrating trying to install the scope with adhesive applied, adjust for alignment, shoot to zero the scope, shoot a tall target test for reticle/bore alignment, adjust as necessary for perfect bore alignment... all while the scope may be slipping before the adhesive has set up... and yet complete these adjustments before the adhesive sets up permanently preventing further adjustment.

Although Talley recommended staying at their basic torque specs (30/20 bottom/top), how much torque is acceptable before it becomes dangerous for damaging the scope? Typically, when you hear that a scope is slipping in the rings, the conclusion is that the rings aren't tight enough and the solution is to tighten them. The weakest torque spec in this setup is the top screw at 20 inch lbs, which I don't think is a lot, and I would like to think it could handle some more torque. So, I really just want to skip the adhesive and tighten the screws more, but I'm also concerned about contradicting the manufacturer's recommendation.

What should I do?
1. Apply the adhesive as Talley recommended and leave the screws at spec torque.
2. Don't use adhesive and crank those ring screws tighter (beyond manufacturer specs).
3. Return the rings and try the Talley Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts, which use twice as many (4) screws (even though Talley said these weren't as strong as their steel Fixed Rings).
4. Return the rings and try tactical rings, like the Talley Tactical Picatinny Rings (although these are a lot bulkier than I'd like).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions, I'm stumped!

 

[GKPrice]

So, I have a Leupold VX-6 3-18x44 (30mm tube) mounted on a 300 Weatherby. I used Talley Fixed Rings (steel), partly because I liked the smooth low profile/traditional hunting rifle appearance. I was trying to avoid big bulky tactical hardware. And, Talley has a good reputation for making solid scope mounts.

While installing them, although they are 2-piece base/ring units, I liked how solid the rings locked onto the bases, with very little movement allowed even before tightening the screws. I also liked how you could tighten them partially, rotate the scope into perfect alignment, and then finish tightening the screws to spec without the scope shifting/rotating out of alignment (as has happened with other rings I've used in the past).

I had also considered using Talley Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts. The 1-piece base/ring unit was attractive. However, when I called Talley to ask for their recommendation between the two, they recommended going with the Fixed Rings. Although there's nothing wrong with the Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts, they are made of aluminum, and so Talley recommended the steel Fixed Rings for maximum strength between these two materials.

Manufacturer torque specs for the rings are 30 inch lbs for the bottom screw, 20 inch lbs. for the top screw. Using a torque wrench, I did 30 on the bottom and put a few extra lbs on the top screw, to 25 inch lbs.

After a few days of shooting about 120 rounds total, I noticed that the scope had shifted under recoil. Of course, the .300 WBY has a lot more recoil than a .223 or .308. The scope moved about 1/4" until the rear ring was against where the scope tube widens for the magnification adjustment (preventing it from moving any farther). After removing the scope and rings, I found that a fair amount of the black finish was worn from both the scope tube and inside of the rings from the slipping. Aside from the frustration that the finish was worn, I did notice that the wear was perfectly even across the entire interior surface of the rings. I think this illustrates that they had perfectly even contact... they just couldn't hold on under this recoil.

I called Talley about this for guidance. I wondered if the rings just needed to be tightened a little more, perhaps 35 inch lbs. for all screws, or until the slipping stops. But, Talley recommended not tightening them beyond the original specs, and instead recommended reinstalling the scope and adding some silicone adhesive or fingernail polish to help adhere the rings to the scope to stop the slipping.

I'm not sure what to think about this. Is using silicone adhesive or fingernail polish to adhere scope rings to scopes a common practice? This sounds like a "duct tape solution" to compensate for a product weakness. I think scope rings should be able to hold onto their scopes without having to be literally glued to them. And, it's going to be frustrating trying to install the scope with adhesive applied, adjust for alignment, shoot to zero the scope, shoot a tall target test for reticle/bore alignment, adjust as necessary for perfect bore alignment... all while the scope may be slipping before the adhesive has set up... and yet complete these adjustments before the adhesive sets up permanently preventing further adjustment.

Although Talley recommended staying at their basic torque specs (30/20 bottom/top), how much torque is acceptable before it becomes dangerous for damaging the scope? Typically, when you hear that a scope is slipping in the rings, the conclusion is that the rings aren't tight enough and the solution is to tighten them. The weakest torque spec in this setup is the top screw at 20 inch lbs, which I don't think is a lot, and I would like to think it could handle some more torque. So, I really just want to skip the adhesive and tighten the screws more, but I'm also concerned about contradicting the manufacturer's recommendation.

What should I do?
1. Apply the adhesive as Talley recommended and leave the screws at spec torque.
2. Don't use adhesive and crank those ring screws tighter (beyond manufacturer specs).
3. Return the rings and try the Talley Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts, which use twice as many (4) screws (even though Talley said these weren't as strong as their steel Fixed Rings).
4. Return the rings and try tactical rings, like the Talley Tactical Picatinny Rings (although these are a lot bulkier than I'd like).

Thanks in advance for your suggestions, I'm stumped!

First of all, which way did the scope move ? toward the muzzle or recoil pad ?

 

[RosinBag]

The screw heads will snap off under to much torque, so you can't just crank them down.

I would lap your rings, top and bottom, re-install scope and shoot it.

Your scope shouldn't need extra torquing. I have always lapped Talley rings. After a few strokes with the lappet, you will instantly see how much material you have removed and that will mean more scope to ring contact.

 

[solo06]

First of all, which way did the scope move ? toward the muzzle or recoil pad ?

I guess if you looked at the scope position before and after firing, the scope is sitting farther forward in the rings now, toward the muzzle.

But, I think the easier way to describe this is the direction the rings moved, rather than the direction of the scope moving. The rings moved rearward on the scope. Upon firing, the rifle action and firmly attached scope bases/rings all recoiled to the rear. Unfortunately, the scope wasn't completely along for the ride because the scope rings couldn't hang onto the scope tube, and the rings slipped along the tube to the rear. The rings slipped rearward from recoil until they slammed into where the scope tube becomes larger for the magnification adjustment ring.

Basically, I think the scope/ring movement is in the expected direction for loose rings (even though they were actually torqued to spec, and remained torqued to spec throughout firing).

 

[Shrek]

Lap the rings for sure. The last set of Talley lightweights I installed I had to lap the the heck out of them. Do NOT over torque the screws ! You can damage the scope , strip screws , ect and you need to fix the real issue. When you lap the rings I think you will find that only one edge of each ring is making good contact. That has been the case with the last three sets of Talley lightweights I have lapped and I would bet the steel ones are made on the same machine with the same outcome. If you can find a dab of grip rosin add that to the rings when you mount them after you lap the rings.

 

[hodgeman]

I've had this issue with fairly heavy scopes on fairly light, fairly hard kicking rifles. The rifle is basically accelerating out from under the scope.

You can lap the rings for more surface area, use some silicon to increase the friction between the ring and the tube, use aluminum mounts (Talley LWs) which more readily deform to fit the tube....or my favorite- all of the above.

A ring with a larger surface area like a Warne Maxima or some of the "tactical" type set ups will help as well.

I also tend to torque things down a little more ham-fisted than manufacturers suggest...caveat emptor on that one, but yes...they'll take more torque than they specify.

 

[GKPrice]

good advice all - (FYI, the rings didn't "move") IF the scope is actually slipping it will be forward

 

[solo06]

I've had this issue with fairly heavy scopes on fairly light, fairly hard kicking rifles. The rifle is basically accelerating out from under the scope.

Yes, I believe this is exactly what's happening. Everything (stock, barreled action, bases, rings) is accelerating/moving/recoiling together as a unit sharply to the rear when firing, except the scope because the rings aren't gripping it enough to bring it along for the entire ride. So, the scope momentarily slips from the rings' grip, and after the rearward recoil movement the scope is found sitting farther forward in the rings.

My scope also has Leupold's Alumina lens covers installed as well as an anti-cant level mounted to the scope tube. Although all of these components are aluminum and fairly lightweight, they nevertheless add additional mass to the scope, which doesn't help this situation. It's just that much more mass those scope rings will have to try to hang onto under recoil.

Several people have recommended lapping the scope rings. Although I know this is commonly done with many scope rings, I've also read in other threads on this forum that several people don't lap precision-machined rings of exceptional quality (such as nightforce rings). These particular Talley rings are reportedly precision-machined and come in numbered matched sets for a precise fit, for this very reason (each ring half is engraved with a unique number to match its unique corresponding ring half because they've been machined and finished to fit precisely together as a custom unit, and you're not supposed to mismatch the front and rear ring pieces when installing the scope, even though they may screw together, for this reason).

Additionally, lapping these rings would void the warranty. I'm concerned about that because if the rings continued to fail after lapping, I wouldn't be able to return them. So, I'm wondering if I should use the warranty to exchange them for Talley Lightweight Alloy Scope Mounts, or Talley Tactical Picatinny Rings?

 

[solo06]

You might try "ringtrue" ring tape from high power optics. It's made to stop what you are experiencing.

I've never heard of this product, but it looks promising! I guess the idea is that the polymer material will help the ring grip the scope better.

Does anyone have any experience with RingTrue Tape, especially if it fixed scope slipping?

 

[GKPrice]

SHEESH ! lapping scope rings is a tried and true method of trueing up your scope mounting system and "should" probably be done regardless of slippage - You would be better served to pick one forum, ROKSLIDE is an excellent one, and ask advice then make use of it (or not) I've used numerous Talleys and not had one single issue with any of them, likewise with DNZ - the accouterments you have on your setup do not amount to anything when compared to a Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender, etc so don't waste your time belaboring that issue - Leupold makes quality rings also and I've used most of them at one time or another over the years, they ALL work flawlessly

 

[KMD]

I hear the "lap the rings" BandAid cure tossed around all too often, when the base/action interaction is likely where the problem lies.

BEFORE YOU LAP RINGS, make sure the scope base/rail/Talley 1pc., is bedded true to the action!

Bottom line is, if the action screws are out of spec, or the base/rail doesn't mate true to the action, then that stress is going to be transferred to the RINGS. So many times, shooters ignore that integral connection and blame the rings as the culprit. If the foundation ain't true, then everything above it will be askew...

Do yourself a favor, bed your base true FIRST, then see if you still need to lap the rings.

FYI, I've never lapped rings in my life...

If your stuff is true and you're dealing with an undersized scope tube/oversized ring clearance, then try this:
http://www.mountsplus.com/AR-15_Accessories/AR-15_Scope_Rings/LLR-SGR-NR1.html

 

[RosinBag]

Poor mans lapping used to be done with paper as material to put between ring and scope. The ring duct tape is probably pretty similar.

 

[solo06]

You would be better served to pick one forum, ROKSLIDE is an excellent one, and ask advice then make use of it (or not)

Agreed! Rokslide is the only forum that I participate on, and I rarely even visit others. I have been continuously impressed with the experience and guidance shared by so many that have a lot more experience than I do.

I've never used these particular rings before and I've also never had a scope slip. And, there has been a lot to consider regarding ring design and materials (aluminum vs. steel vs. tactical designs), manufacturer instructions (lap vs. don't lap and torque specs), and mounting techniques/supplemental products.

So, thank you again for everyone's guidance and suggestions, it is sincerely appreciated!

 

[solo06]

FYI, I've never lapped rings in my life...

If your stuff is true and you're dealing with an undersized scope tube/oversized ring clearance, then try this:
http://www.mountsplus.com/AR-15_Accessories/AR-15_Scope_Rings/LLR-SGR-NR1.html

This looks like a good product. After doing a google search for scope mounting rosin, it looks like this is often used to stop scope slipping. I also found this article from American Hunter Magazine that recommended using rosin when installing scopes to prevent slipping.

Finally, while reading the above article, I noticed in the very first paragraph it talked about needing to degrease everything, using a cleaner to cut through all oil, etc. Then it dawned on me... since I was using steel rings, I coated them completely with oil as a rust preventative before scope installation. Slapping my forehead... of course, although oil is a rust preventative, it's also a lubricant, and likely helped the scope to slip under heavy recoil.

With my rings degreased plus a swipe of rosin, I'll bet my scope slipping days will be over.

A lingering question... with steel rings, and hunting in all weather conditions, is a rust preventative of any kind used prior to scope mounting (on the inside of the rings)? Or, do you just accept that they may rust a little against the scope, where you can't see it anyway?

 

[hodgeman]

T
A lingering question... with steel rings, and hunting in all weather conditions, is a rust preventative of any kind used prior to scope mounting (on the inside of the rings)? Or, do you just accept that they may rust a little against the scope, where you can't see it anyway?

I just wipe the outside down with a cloth that has a little oil residue and don't even think about it after that....

It might seem contrary (it's not meant like that), but any hunter doing it right is going to get a little rust on the rifle, a ding in the stock, and eventually drop one down a mountain. Don't sweat it, the memories are going to be worth more than the rifle regardless of condition.

 

[VernAK]

While there are several good suggestions above, I'm a stickler for reliability of my rifles and I think your rifle/scope combination is on the edge as the high recoil rifle and heavy scope combination is often problematic. Many of the aforementioned remedies may solve your problem but for how long and under what conditions. If successfully secured in the rings, will the scope withstand the recoil for an extended period?

My preference would be a lighter weight scope i.e. Leupold 6X

To address your concerns regarding corrosion under rings and bases, I find that an application of rubber cement under bases and rings acts as a gasket to keep out water and perhaps limit slipping in the rings.

 

[solo06]

I just wipe the outside down with a cloth that has a little oil residue and don't even think about it after that....

It might seem contrary (it's not meant like that), but any hunter doing it right is going to get a little rust on the rifle, a ding in the stock, and eventually drop one down a mountain. Don't sweat it, the memories are going to be worth more than the rifle regardless of condition.

That's good to keep in mind. With so many details to give attention to for long range hunting, it's easy to over-think things sometimes. I've been accused of that before.

 

[LaHunter]

If it were me, I would put a 1 piece rail type base on the rifle and install another set of rings that don't allow the scope to shift upon firing. It surprises me that the ring company gave you the recommendation that you received from them. The Wby 300 has a bad azz recoil and you probably need a stronger base/ring setup. I personally use a Leupold MK 4, 1 piece base and MK 4 steel rings. This setup is not light weight, but it is rock solid.

Good Luck

 

[KMD]

A lingering question... with steel rings, and hunting in all weather conditions, is a rust preventative of any kind used prior to scope mounting (on the inside of the rings)? Or, do you just accept that they may rust a little against the scope, where you can't see it anyway?

Spec your rifle to be able to handle the elements you'll be hunting in.
If you're hung up on steel, at least have it coated with something like Cerakote, Norrell's Moly-resin, Birdsong "T", or similar.

IMHO, a rifle should be as weatherproof as my boots, clothing, tent, etc. That usually requires: Cerakote on barreled action, a synthetic stock & aluminum rings/base.

I 2nd the notion to get a good one piece base, BED IT (if needed), and good aluminum rings. Seekins stuff is excellent, but not sure if he makes a base for Weatherby. EGW makes aluminum one pc. bases for Howa & Weatherby in various cant angles. You'll suffer a few extra ounces to tote if opting for a one piece aluminum base and quality rings. But you'll enjoy a more rigid, rust-free and secure connection to your optic...

Good luck!

 

[solo06]

Thanks for everyone's suggestions.

I've decided to upgrade the rings for greater strength, rather than trying to find solutions to make the original ones work. Both Talley and Nightforce make different options for Weatherby rifles, so I'll probably end up with something from them.

Additionally, I picked up some of that Scope Grip (rosin). At that price, it was worth a gamble. Wow, I couldn't believe how grippy that stuff was! And, the stuff is ground so fine that it's like dust, not sandy or gritty. I touched my finger to the powder and then tried to rub my fingers together. It was amazing how much effort it took to try to get them to slide. If it was like sand, I wasn't going to use it. But this stuff is so fine that it should be easy to dust the rings with this when assembling with the scope.

I expect the upgraded rings to work, plus some of this rosin powder for extra insurance against slipping.