UM Hinged Scope Rings

[Unknown Munitions]

The clamp piece under screws that fasten to pic rail broke on mine. Um was aware and in the process of informing customers fri afternoon.

Thank you sir

 

[KenLee]

I actually haven't looked at any marketing to say what is good/bad about a hinge.

The ARC rings hinge on each side. There is 1 screw across the top that is horizontal. It's hard to actually rotate your scope while torqueing it down. They are simple and basic. You don't have 4-6 screws per ring for just the top cap.

American Rifle Company is the manufacture. If you get a minute take a look since I'm sure my explanation was lacking the design.

I can understand how the hinged on both sides design doesn't rotate the scope when tightening.
I'm undecided on this UM design however.
I do understand the tight tolerances on the hinged UM would undoubtedly cause far less scope rotation on tightening than the old Weaver rings. Hopefully none. I'm no expert on physics by any means. Just scarred from past one sided hinged ring experiences.
Maybe the screws being high on the one side takes away the rotation caused by the Weaver screws being low on one side.
Best of luck to the UM folks for thinking outside the box. Sorry to hear of the material / design issue.

 

[Formidilosus]

To all:


First, I do not speak for UM, Jake, or Ryan. These are my thoughts from what I have seen. I have zero monetary involvement or gain in any of these products.

Second, the issues that have shown in the hinged rings are not present in the Tikka. They are a completely different design, build, and geometry. Anything can fail, however the exact process that revealed some flaws in the hinged rings, has no effect on the Tikka rings. They have performed without issue, and as it stands are what I personally would, and do choose to use on my Tikkas.


On the UM Hinged rings. Yes it is unfortunate that there have been issues identified. The base clamp cracking on @eoperator is most likely a one off. That seems to me a flaw in material or a combination of base dimensions.

From what I understand UM learned that there might be an issue with the rings mid last week and immediately took steps to confirm whether it was an issue. Then, redesigned some things and sent more rings over the weekend to determine if that would correct it, or if the issues were inherent in the design. I was overnighted the altered rings and spent Saturday and Sunday shooting and evaluating them extensively. It was found that the issue was inherent to the design at some level, and Monday morning (today) Jake/UM alerted and addressed their customers of it.

It was asked about how UM would handle it- on a personal level, how do you ask for more? Yes, issues should be caught in testing before product release, however there will always be issues that show up in broad use in the field that do not show up in “lab testing”. Furthermore, UM did more work before releasing the hinged rings than any industry “standard” calls for because their is no industry standard with testing these things. The same issues that UM is unequivocally replacing all the rings for, the vast majority of rings on the market have the same failure points.
They aren’t shirking the responsibility or pretending it doesn’t exist. As soon as they were alerted to possible problems, they didn’t didn’t deny it- they confirmed it, and are doing the only honorable thing they can.

I have zero doubt that UM has and is learning from this and the products they release going forward will be bombproof before you get them. When I discussed with Jake at length about the issues and whether there were possible solutions, his base position was- “We don’t sell bullshit”. My prediction is that whatever rings follow these will be stellar.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

To all:


First, I do not speak for UM, Jake, or Ryan. These are my thoughts from what I have seen. I have zero monetary involvement or gain in any of these products.

Second, the issues that have shown in the hinged rings are not present in the Tikka. They are a completely different design, build, and geometry. Anything can fail, however the exact process that revealed some flaws in the hinged rings, has no effect on the Tikka rings. They have performed without issue, and as it stands are what I personally would, and do choose to use on my Tikkas.


On the UM Hinged rings. Yes it is unfortunate that there have been issues identified. The base clamp cracking on @eoperator is most likely a one off. That seems to me a flaw in material or a combination of base dimensions.

From what I understand UM learned there might be an issue with the rings on Friday, and immediately took steps to confirm over the weekend whether there were issues across the board or if those issues were isolated. I was overnighted multiple rings and spent Saturday and Sunday shooting and evaluating them extensively. It was found that the issue was inherent to the design at some level, and Monday morning (today) Jake/UM alerted and addressed their customers of it.

It was asked about how UM would handle it- on a personal level, how do you ask for more? Yes, issues should be caught in testing before product release, however there will always be issues that show up in broad use in the field that do not show up in “lab testing”. Furthermore, UM did more work before releasing the hinged rings than any industry “standard” calls for because their is no industry standard with testing these things. The same issues that UM is unequivocally replacing all the rings for, the vast majority of rings on the market have the same failure points.
They aren’t shirking the responsibility or pretending it doesn’t exist. As soon as they were alerted to possible problems, they didn’t didn’t deny it- they confirmed it, and are doing the only honorable thing they can.

I have zero doubt that UM has and is learning from this and the products they release going forward will be bombproof before you get them. When I discussed with Jake at length about the issues and whether there were possible solutions, his base position was- “We don’t sell bullshit”. My prediction is that whatever rings follow these will be stellar.

Thank you for your kind words sir, I appreciate you.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I appreciate the innovation with these rings. Innovation isn't easy and it's alot easier as a company to make the same old boring, heavy design that works than it is to make something newer and lighter that works better. I'll patiently wait for my next pair and in the meantime throw on some seekins rings which I have no doubt I'll be able to turn around and sell when my UM rings come in. ETA on the updated design @Unknown Munitions ?

 

[KenLee]

To all:


First, I do not speak for UM, Jake, or Ryan. These are my thoughts from what I have seen. I have zero monetary involvement or gain in any of these products.

Second, the issues that have shown in the hinged rings are not present in the Tikka. They are a completely different design, build, and geometry. Anything can fail, however the exact process that revealed some flaws in the hinged rings, has no effect on the Tikka rings. They have performed without issue, and as it stands are what I personally would, and do choose to use on my Tikkas.


On the UM Hinged rings. Yes it is unfortunate that there have been issues identified. The base clamp cracking on @eoperator is most likely a one off. That seems to me a flaw in material or a combination of base dimensions.

From what I understand UM learned there might be an issue with the rings on Friday, and immediately took steps to confirm over the weekend whether there were issues across the board or if those issues were isolated. I was overnighted multiple rings and spent Saturday and Sunday shooting and evaluating them extensively. It was found that the issue was inherent to the design at some level, and Monday morning (today) Jake/UM alerted and addressed their customers of it.

It was asked about how UM would handle it- on a personal level, how do you ask for more? Yes, issues should be caught in testing before product release, however there will always be issues that show up in broad use in the field that do not show up in “lab testing”. Furthermore, UM did more work before releasing the hinged rings than any industry “standard” calls for because their is no industry standard with testing these things. The same issues that UM is unequivocally replacing all the rings for, the vast majority of rings on the market have the same failure points.
They aren’t shirking the responsibility or pretending it doesn’t exist. As soon as they were alerted to possible problems, they didn’t didn’t deny it- they confirmed it, and are doing the only honorable thing they can.

I have zero doubt that UM has and is learning from this and the products they release going forward will be bombproof before you get them. When I discussed with Jake at length about the issues and whether there were possible solutions, his base position was- “We don’t sell bullshit”. My prediction is that whatever rings follow these will be stellar.

First time I wished I owned a Tikka so I would buy some rings from UM. Most folks follow the deny and avoid any blame philosophy. It's nice to see someone do what's right.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

I appreciate the innovation with these rings. Innovation isn't easy and it's alot easier as a company to make the same old boring, heavy design that works than it is to make something newer and lighter that works better. I'll patiently wait for my next pair and in the meantime throw on some seekins rings which I have no doubt I'll be able to turn around and sell when my UM rings come in. ETA on the updated design @Unknown Munitions ?

We have our design meeting Wednesday this week, prototypes by end of next week hopefully. All new tooling takes some time, Salmon River Solutions Ken will work his magic! Anodize takes 10 days, realistically October for delivery of the new design.

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

We have our design meeting Wednesday this week, prototypes by end of next week hopefully. All new tooling takes some time, Salmon River Solutions Ken will work his magic! Anodize takes 10 days, realistically October for delivery of the new design.

That is what I figured. I have a lot of hunting to do in October so those bad boys will get thrown on post season. Maybe this is an excuse to get another baby atacr for my extra set of 34mm rings...lol there's always a bright side. Look forward to the redesign

 

[BrentH]

I can understand how the hinged on both sides design doesn't rotate the scope when tightening.
I'm undecided on this UM design however.
I do understand the tight tolerances on the hinged UM would undoubtedly cause far less scope rotation on tightening than the old Weaver rings. Hopefully none. I'm no expert on physics by any means. Just scarred from past one sided hinged ring experiences.
Maybe the screws being high on the one side takes away the rotation caused by the Weaver screws being low on one side.
Best of luck to the UM folks for thinking outside the box. Sorry to hear of the material / design issue.

I mounted a NF SHV into a set of these last week. Took forever to get the scope to stay level while tightening the cap. Actually had to start with the scope unlevel, so that when I tightened it it would rotate it to level. Also had to go thru the tightening sequence several times in order to get all screws torqued correctly (middle one kept getting loose). Seems like there is also an issue with the bubble level. If it got all the way to one side, the bubble would get stuck, and I would have to lay my gun all the way over to the opposite side to get it to come back to the middle.

Would love to check out another pair when they re-release them, but for this season I am going to go back to my other rings.

 

[amassi]

How refreshing to see a company not only own their mistake but put action into fixing it in record time and communication.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

I mounted a NF SHV into a set of these last week. Took forever to get the scope to stay level while tightening the cap. Actually had to start with the scope unlevel, so that when I tightened it it would rotate it to level. Also had to go thru the tightening sequence several times in order to get all screws torqued correctly (middle one kept getting loose). Seems like there is also an issue with the bubble level. If it got all the way to one side, the bubble would get stuck, and I would have to lay my gun all the way over to the opposite side to get it to come back to the middle.

Would love to check out another pair when they re-release them, but for this season I am going to go back to my other rings.

When tightening multiple bolt in close relation to one another it is not uncommon to have to go through the torque sequence multiple times at the same torque value to get them all to the same amount of torque. As metal stretches to yield a value of 20 inch pounds on one, the next bolt will have an easier time achieving that same value. Very common with anything using multiple bolts (think wheels)

 

[KenLee]

I mounted a NF SHV into a set of these last week. Took forever to get the scope to stay level while tightening the cap. Actually had to start with the scope unlevel, so that when I tightened it it would rotate it to level. Also had to go thru the tightening sequence several times in order to get all screws torqued correctly (middle one kept getting loose). Seems like there is also an issue with the bubble level. If it got all the way to one side, the bubble would get stuck, and I would have to lay my gun all the way over to the opposite side to get it to come back to the middle.

Would love to check out another pair when they re-release them, but for this season I am going to go back to my other rings.

Yep that's definitely deja-vu from my old experiences with Weaver hinged rings.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

We have enough experience with hinged ring operation to say confidently it is incredibly difficult, possibly impossible, to have even torque on the scope tube with only 1 hinge point. ARC rings with dual hinges do a great job specifically because of the 2 hinge points applying even pressure on the scope.

For this reason we are abandoning the single hinge point. We attempted to look at scope rings with a completely open mind and design these rings for hunters. We've learned many lessons along the way, some being very expensive!

I will bring you guys along this time with the redesign and the thoughts behind each change and maybe one of you has input that changes the design like the threaded pins for the Tikka rings! I already wrote a pin spec and have RFQ's out today for that great change brought about from Roksliders input.

We are meeting tomorrow to review the ring design. Once prototyped they will go to @Formidilosus for testing and feedback.

Design changes:
1- No more hinge, explained above.
2- Two screws in each position instead of 3, this has been proven effective in the Tikka design and will make torqueing easier and more repeatable for the consumer. Should also keep the weight similar because we are replacing 6 screws from the hinge ring with 6 screws on the redesign.
3- Steel clamp and Aluminum clamp will be tested, the steel clamp will increase weight slightly but offer superior strength against deformation during the torqueing process. Overall rail clamp design and hinge point will also change.
4- Level and position is fantastic so it will remain the same along with the overall design and look of the ring.
5- Recoil lug will be a press fit hidden behind the level and cover plate for more consistent manufacturing in the tight recoil lug/picatinny corners.
6- They will need a new name because they won't be hinged any more, any suggestions?

Initial look without screw quantity changes.
This process will move quickly to prototype so if you have some ideas get them on here!

 

[NSI]

Is there any sense in making a 20MOA cant for .223 users who won't have a canted rail anymore?

-J

 

[Tullis94]

Will they still be 7075? Are you still planning to machine/match pairs? Will this effect pricing?
I'm sure this has been damn hard on you guys, but I'm glad to see you doing your absolute best to make it right. I'm a big fan of Unknown Munitions!

 

[Brandon.miller.4]

We have enough experience with hinged ring operation to say confidently it is incredibly difficult, possibly impossible, to have even torque on the scope tube with only 1 hinge point. ARC rings with dual hinges do a great job specifically because of the 2 hinge points applying even pressure on the scope.

For this reason we are abandoning the single hinge point. We attempted to look at scope rings with a completely open mind and design these rings for hunters. We've learned many lessons along the way, some being very expensive!

I will bring you guys along this time with the redesign and the thoughts behind each change and maybe one of you has input that changes the design like the threaded pins for the Tikka rings! I already wrote a pin spec and have RFQ's out today for that great change brought about from Roksliders input.

We are meeting tomorrow to review the ring design. Once prototyped they will go to @Formidilosus for testing and feedback.

Design changes:
1- No more hinge, explained above.
2- Two screws in each position instead of 3, this has been proven effective in the Tikka design and will make torqueing easier and more repeatable for the consumer. Should also keep the weight similar because we are replacing 6 screws from the hinge ring with 6 screws on the redesign.
3- Steel clamp and Aluminum clamp will be tested, the steel clamp will increase weight slightly but offer superior strength against deformation during the torqueing process. Overall rail clamp design and hinge point will also change.
4- Level and position is fantastic so it will remain the same along with the overall design and look of the ring.
5- Recoil lug will be a press fit hidden behind the level and cover plate for more consistent manufacturing in the tight recoil lug/picatinny corners.
6- They will need a new name because they won't be hinged any more, any suggestions?

Initial look without screw quantity changes.
This process will move quickly to prototype so if you have some ideas get them on here!

View attachment 580175

Glad you are bringing us along!

1) I hope you plan to keep the three screws per side as pictured above?

2) I would love to see a machined in place recoil lug similar to seekins rings.

3) Is the clamp going to apply pressure downward onto the top of the rail as well as inward on the sides? I know some rings do this and some don't. Preference being towards ones that do.

4) Continuing to use same size hardware all around? Hopefully.

5) Have you entertained the thought of a titanium clamp like NF ultralight?

6)Have you considered not completely hollowing out the center and leaving some material for more clamp surface area? More friction? (Similar to tikka rings)

7) How about a laser engraved UM logo on top for brand recognition? When I show them off to people at the range, brand recognition could boost sales more than just rokslide users.

8) Please don't make them any narrower either. As a rail user I love using wide rings, even with short scopes.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

Is there any sense in making a 20MOA cant for .223 users who won't have a canted rail anymore?

-J

To make the rings canted, they have to have a set installation distance apart so that won't work.

 

[Unknown Munitions]

Will they still be 7075? Are you still planning to machine/match pairs? Will this effect pricing?
I'm sure this has been damn hard on you guys, but I'm glad to see you doing your absolute best to make it right. I'm a big fan of Unknown Munitions!

Yes they will still be 7075, Yes that is currently the plan, pricing will remain the same at this time, thank you for your support!

 

[Unknown Munitions]

Glad you are bringing us along!

1) I hope you plan to keep the three screws per side as pictured above?

2) I would love to see a machined in place recoil lug similar to seekins rings.

3) Is the clamp going to apply pressure downward onto the top of the rail as well as inward on the sides? I know some rings do this and some don't. Preference being towards ones that do.

4) Continuing to use same size hardware all around? Hopefully.

5) Have you entertained the thought of a titanium clamp like NF ultralight?

6)Have you considered not completely hollowing out the center and leaving some material for more clamp surface area? More friction? (Similar to tikka rings)

7) How about a laser engraved UM logo on top for brand recognition? When I show them off to people at the range, brand recognition could boost sales more than just rokslide users.

8) Please don't make them any narrower either. As a rail user I love using wide rings, even with short scopes.

1- Two screws in each position instead of 3, this has been proven effective in the Tikka design and will make torqueing easier and more repeatable for the consumer. Should also keep the weight similar because we are replacing 6 screws from the hinge ring with 6 screws on the redesign.

2- Machined in place recoil lug is extremely difficult to remain consistent in the corners of the non clamp side pic area that meets the lug

3-Yes the clamp already put pressure down and squeeze, that's where the clamp pivot comes in to play.

4-Yes, same size hardware

5-Yes, we looked in to a titanium option......Nightforce uses a molded titanium beta and we would prefer to machine steel in house rather than molded titanium. We would machine high grade titanium but it does not come in square bar stock and would have to be water jetted from a flat plate.

6-Yes, we've considered leaving the gap on the top clamp solid and will do so if it does not pass @Formidilosus strict testing as currently designed.

7-I thought through laser engraving the rings and there wasn't a great inconspicuous spot with the hinge design, a more opportune place may present itself with the new design.

8-They will stay at 1" wide as the original hinge ring design is.

Thank you for your questions!

 

[Mike D Texas]

We have enough experience with hinged ring operation to say confidently it is incredibly difficult, possibly impossible, to have even torque on the scope tube with only 1 hinge point. ARC rings with dual hinges do a great job specifically because of the 2 hinge points applying even pressure on the scope.

For this reason we are abandoning the single hinge point. We attempted to look at scope rings with a completely open mind and design these rings for hunters. We've learned many lessons along the way, some being very expensive!

I will bring you guys along this time with the redesign and the thoughts behind each change and maybe one of you has input that changes the design like the threaded pins for the Tikka rings! I already wrote a pin spec and have RFQ's out today for that great change brought about from Roksliders input.

We are meeting tomorrow to review the ring design. Once prototyped they will go to @Formidilosus for testing and feedback.

Design changes:
1- No more hinge, explained above.
2- Two screws in each position instead of 3, this has been proven effective in the Tikka design and will make torqueing easier and more repeatable for the consumer. Should also keep the weight similar because we are replacing 6 screws from the hinge ring with 6 screws on the redesign.
3- Steel clamp and Aluminum clamp will be tested, the steel clamp will increase weight slightly but offer superior strength against deformation during the torqueing process. Overall rail clamp design and hinge point will also change.
4- Level and position is fantastic so it will remain the same along with the overall design and look of the ring.
5- Recoil lug will be a press fit hidden behind the level and cover plate for more consistent manufacturing in the tight recoil lug/picatinny corners.
6- They will need a new name because they won't be hinged any more, any suggestions?

Initial look without screw quantity changes.
This process will move quickly to prototype so if you have some ideas get them on here!

View attachment 580175

It’s a bummer to see no more hinge, I love my ARC rings but a lighter weight option would have been great.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro