Any reason for TO84 over UM Tikka rings? (Apart from cost)

[stephane110]

Hey folks,

Just wondering if there’s any reason to choose the TO84 rings over the UM rings for my tikka?
This is going on an MDT HNT26 chassis I’m putting together.
Got a stainless tikka t3x 6.5cm (chopped barrel to 19.5 inches), the HNT26 chassis, and a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 already all in hand. Now just choosing the rings for the scope. Originally I was going to choose to sportsmatch because they’re 3x cheaper than the unknown munitions rings up here in Canada. Then I realized I haven’t cheaper out on anything else in this build so what’s another couple hundred bucks…

Let me know your thoughts!

Thanks

 

[ljalberta]

Cheaper and lighter by about 1 ounce. I don’t know the exact height difference between them. I have 2 sets of the Sportsmatch and they’ve been excellent. I’m trying the UM rings on the next one, but wouldn’t hesitate to use the Sportsmatch if weight savings or costs saving is a priority.

 

[Ucsdryder]

Hey folks,

Just wondering if there’s any reason to choose the TO84 rings over the UM rings for my tikka?
This is going on an MDT HNT26 chassis I’m putting together.
Got a stainless tikka t3x 6.5cm (chopped barrel to 19.5 inches), the HNT26 chassis, and a Nightforce NXS 2.5-10 already all in hand. Now just choosing the rings for the scope. Originally I was going to choose to sportsmatch because they’re 3x cheaper than the unknown munitions rings up here in Canada. Then I realized I haven’t cheaper out on anything else in this build so what’s another couple hundred bucks…

Let me know your thoughts!

Thanks

Maybe the better question would be why the UM over the Sportsmatch.

 

[sdupontjr]

- Sportsmatch has a recoil pin in one ring in order to help from shifting.
- UM rings have pin in both the front and back and are movable. Meaning the ring placement give you more options being the recoil pin is separate from the rings.
- UM rings utilize bigger screws, thus allowing more clamping force to the rail for even more improvement.

there is a video on the site, just can't put my hands on it yet, that pretty much states the UM rings are an upgraded sportsmatch ring. The sportsmatch rings were originally designed for air rifles, but the integrated rail of the tikka is about the same as the air rifles, thus folks giving them a try.

 

[wind gypsy]

SM rings are cheaper, lighter, better looking (imo of course).

I’m more confident in the durability of the UM rings and having more recoil pin options is nice but I still think I’d buy sm if the height suited me.

 

[bnsafe]

If UM had 1 inch rings I woulda done that, but, they didnt

 

[PNWGATOR]

I have several sets of T084s and not planning on getting rid of them, but ALL future Tikkas will get the UM rings. They’re purposely built to do everything a ring should do and in this case, specifically for the Tikka.

 

[Overwire]

I have both. The SM rings are a little lighter and slightly lower (about 1.5mm) then UM lows. The part that clamps to the dovetail is a little thicker on the SM which makes me feel a little better. I’m not sure why UM made the clamp so thin, apparently it hasn’t been an issue for anyone, but it worries me a little.

The UM has a little wider scope clamping surface, which should allow slightly higher clamping force without damaging scope tubes. The SM are wider than many pic rings on the market but still not as wide as the UM. The UM screws are bigger but I didn’t measure the thread pitch before installing mine so I’m not sure how the mechanical advantage compares (I.e. I don’t know if they achieve the same or less clamping force for a given torque). I should have checked before installing.

The UM have 3 positions for recoil pins on each ring which makes it easy position the rings and pin them both, however; the recoil pins are tiny (3mm). With SM I always drill them out and install 5-6mm pins in both rings. I mill out a recoil pin slot in the action for the rear ring and use the factory slot for the front. I prefer this over the UM solution but realize most people aren’t able to drill their rings and mill the action.

Overall I think the SM is a superior ring, and it’s much cheaper. The UM is good though.

 

[peaches]

I'm pro capitalism but cannot see a reason to pay 3X over the Sports Match. They are very solid and no issues with the 3 pair I have. I wish UM success though.

 

[sbaker0029]

View attachment 659043View attachment 659044

Which trijicon is that and what high rings did you go with?
I've got a credo 4-16x50 and not sure which height UM I want/need to go with.

 

[gerry35]

If UM had 1 inch rings I woulda done that, but, they didnt

I emailed them the other day and they said they are going to have 1" rings within 2 months.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

I’ll likely never buy a set of the UM rings just because I have 3 extra sets of sportsmatch rings brand new sitting on my shelf. I can’t imagine buying enough tikkas to use up my sportsmatch stash then needing more rings.

 

[Northman.]

Sportsmatch used to make the scope mounts for Accuracy International.

 

[ElPollo]

Agree with others about the UM rings, the recoil pins, the fasteners, and the weight of the rings. That said, I would say that the Sportsmatch rings are well proven for their durability. I’ve used them extensively on three Tikkas ranging from 223 to 300 mag and have had no issues with them. Have not used the UMs yet, but they appear to be slightly ‘mo-bedda’ in terms of attachment, spiffier due to cool milling, and more expensive.

You’re also supporting an American small business instead of a British manufacturer ( maybe not a thing for a Canadian ). I’ve gotten all my Sportsmatch rings through Airguns of AZ in Phoenix. They’ve never had them in stock for Tikkas when I needed them, but have always been able to backorder them in reasonable time. You may have different suppliers in Canada.

 

[sdupontjr]

Which trijicon is that and what high rings did you go with?
I've got a credo 4-16x50 and not sure which height UM I want/need to go with.

Mine is a 4-16x50 credo. Not home, don't remember the height but I had to clear a CTR barrel. I'm out of town, I'll look at box when I get back.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have several sets of T084s and not planning on getting rid of them, but ALL future Tikkas will get the UM rings. They’re purposely built to do everything a ring should do and in this case, specifically for the Tikka.

I’m in the same boat and agree. SM are fine and functional and I’ll keep the ones I have. But after using two sets of UM I’ll keep using them for all future Tikkas of mine that don’t need a 20MOA rail.

UM seem to have better screws that are less prone to stripping. The recoil pin system seems much more robust (machined pin/screw in vs rollpin). I also love the look of the UMs.

 

[sdupontjr]

Med rings, 1.20". A nickle will have trouble getting between scope and barrel, but it's a CTR barrel. When I pulled the CTR rail, i stacked dimes in the ring locations until i got the right height to clear barrel. Measured both the stacks. Then get the ring dimensions to the centerline, which most are measured, add that to stack and got 1.18". So the 1.20" was just right.

 

[sbaker0029]

Med rings, 1.20". A nickle will have trouble getting between scope and barrel, but it's a CTR barrel. When I pulled the CTR rail, i stacked dimes in the ring locations until i got the right height to clear barrel. Measured both the stacks. Then get the ring dimensions to the centerline, which most are measured, add that to stack and got 1.18". So the 1.20" was just right.

I appreciate the info, thanks!