scope flex

[Rman]

Originally Posted by ramonmark

Leupold Mark 4 picatinny rail and rings. Also a Leupold Mark 4 scope.

Personally, I would not be the least be worried about that set up. It would be difficult to get enough mis-alignment there to be concerned about.
I'm sure some may argue.

R.

[Leeper]

When scope tubes were damaged by Weaver rings, it was more a reflection of the ineptitude of the installer than anything else. This applies to scope tubes damaged by other mounts as well. Because of the method of manufacture (stamping) the Weaver strap almost always had two small humps inside, adjacent to the holes. By simply grinding or filing these down, the risk of scope tube damage was eliminated. Leeper

[foxhunter540]

Rman.... If you can read my post i have no issuse's with aligned rings mine are LEVEL rings hence i use a lapping bar and to LEVEL the rings so my scope is LEVEL in the rings is that clear enough.As i stated my alignement is usually pretty much dead on.But then what do i know for doing my own scope mounting for 40 years.Miss aligned holes and base's are another thing and as you stated and i agree is not the rings...just put on a set of leupold 30mm rings today and had to lap the bottom saddles. Very little mind you but still shaved them.Nothing shaved off the sides at all...

[flint guy]

Im using a leupold mk 4 15moa picatinny and rings on a rem 700 long action. I have no idea if it flexes or how much. If I was to bed this assembly.... I would bed the rail to the action corect? The ring to the rail is left alone? It showed no mesurable change after lapping.

Something I would like to ask is the addition of a sunshade and its relation to the flex and movement of the scope. I assume it will add to the flex, particullarily to the front portion beyond the ring. Simple physics suggest the added weight and leverage would make a difference as leeper said longer scopes flex more. The recoil of a magnum exagerating the problem. Any precision shooters spend anytime thinking on the benifits vs consequence of a sunshade? Can the forward weight alter harmonics or does it matter being on the reciever not the barrel? If your base was lifting, or vibrating under heavy recoil due to flex would this change harmonics also?

Originally Posted by Leeper

ineptitude of the installer than anything else. . Leeper

Seems like a popular statement from you Bill. Correcting this one issue at the mfg stage isn't unreasonable to expect a mfg to follow through with. If the cost to remove the two or 4 said points was too high, surely a crafty literary like yourself could have included some verbage in the instructions.
First time installers would likely have to learn from the school of hard knocks!

Not a nice lesson if you were particular about your equipment and had limited funds.

[twofifty]

Precisionshooter, I'll second what leeper said and raise you that there are lots of guys out there (present company excepted) who are mechanically inept. Guys who break most anything metal they work on. Or the Dremel guys who don't know when to stop.

We've all known buddy who thinks nothing of torquing ring base screws as if they were replacing axle U-bolts on a 1-ton dually.

[hardy]

If you have one nice scope that makes its rounds on a few different rifles why not forgo all this money and time and buy a quality set of Burris Signature rings! I have a few sets and they grip a scope like no mans business and they also dont leave ring marks. Now if you just plain like to tinker go ahead and lap or epoxy the rings. Just me making a pretty simple second choice, good quality. If you dont want the weight or the scope height increase of a rail the plastic shims also come with moa added in up to 30MOA for the real long stuff! JMHO

[Leeper]

One rifle/mount combination which will often benefit greatly from lapping or some form of machining is the Ruger 77 with factory rings. Usually not too bad, occasional specimens are dismal. Leeper

[petew]

Interesting banter, but I can not see the value in laping a ring set without doing a dial check of the scope tube to see if it is straight, and round.

Its a good thing I got my scopes mounted a long time ago before I knew I did it all wrong. But after up to 40 years, the lousy job I did is still working. There must be something right about even tourque, by feel, and thread locker called clear nail polish..

[DaleJ]

The best value is highest quality equipment. I would sooner pay $600.00 for a Near base and scope specific Alpha mount than $25.00 for the Weaver scope mangler setup. Burris signature rings would be useable if the base clamp was removable, a tip off instead of a slide off.

I won't grind scope rings to make garbage useable.

[foxhunter540]

heck its only money lol

[hardy]

Originally Posted by DaleJ

The best value is highest quality equipment. I would sooner pay $600.00 for a Near base and scope specific Alpha mount than $25.00 for the Weaver scope mangler setup. Burris signature rings would be useable if the base clamp was removable, a tip off instead of a slide off.

I won't grind scope rings to make garbage useable.

Good point about the clamp on the burris rings! thats about the only dislike. Just clamping straight on instead of sliding or scraping over the rail would be nice.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by Rman

Personally, I would not be the least be worried about that set up. It would be difficult to get enough mis-alignment there to be concerned about.
I'm sure some may argue.

R.

I've yet to see any rail pull a receiver into alignment.

[Rman]

Originally Posted by chuck

I've yet to see any rail pull a receiver into alignment.

Wow. Thats brilliant!
I have never seen a rail pull a reciever into alignment either.
Now what?
R.

[Pathfinder76]

rails move to receivers.

[Rman]

Originally Posted by chuck

rails move to receivers.

Very good, Chuck. Would you like a cookie? Maybe a gold star to put on your fridge?
If you have something to say, then say it. Or, just keep sitting on the fence. Its up to you.

R.

[Pathfinder76]

Bent and contorted rails put rings out of alignment. It's kinda like a two piece base with an ugly rail and compromised loading/ejection port.

[Rman]

Originally Posted by chuck

Bent and contorted rails put rings out of alignment. It's kinda like a two piece base with an ugly rail and compromised loading/ejection port.

I agree again.
You figure the fella that asked the question in the first place would be able to bend and contort a Mark 4 base?
Is that what you are trying to say?

R.

[Pathfinder76]

It's possible I guess.

[Rman]

Originally Posted by chuck

It's possible I guess.

Keep guessing. It looks good on you.

I thought you said you've used every mount known?
And now you're guessing?
No cookie, and no gold star...

R.

[Pathfinder76]

Did I neglect to mention I didn't mount his scope? Sorry.

[Rman]

Originally Posted by chuck

Did I neglect to mention I didn't mount his scope? Sorry.

Don't apologize to me. You should apologize to the guy that asked the question. Your best guess may have put some doubt in his mind about his extremely stout mounting system.
I wouldn't figure that you would have to have had mounted a Mark 4 rail to know that it would be impossible to bend one in order to get it on an out of whack reciever. Kind of the same way that it would be impossible to mount one in the first place if the holes were out of alignment.
But then, I really should have known that you were just guessing.

R.

[Leeper]

Dale,
That's where you and I differ. I am happy to spend a small amount of time to correct minor deficiencies if the result will perform as required. I see nothing wrong in spending a lot of money for a mount if that is what makes you feel good but if the performance can be matched with effort rather than dollars, well, that's alright too.
Ultimately, it is performance that counts most but I freely admit that pride of ownership weighs heavily for many as well.
In the end, any mount that holds the scope in alignment with the bore and maintains that alignment under the conditions under which the rifle is used, is a good mount. That the owner could or could not afford to spend more for the mount than some do for the rifle is not important except to the owner. Leeper

[foxhunter540]

Originally Posted by Leeper

Dale,
That's where you and I differ. I am happy to spend a small amount of time to correct minor deficiencies if the result will perform as required. I see nothing wrong in spending a lot of money for a mount if that is what makes you feel good but if the performance can be matched with effort rather than dollars, well, that's alright too.
Ultimately, it is performance that counts most but I freely admit that pride of ownership weighs heavily for many as well.
In the end, any mount that holds the scope in alignment with the bore and maintains that alignment under the conditions under which the rifle is used, is a good mount. That the owner could or could not afford to spend more for the mount than some do for the rifle is not important except to the owner. Leeper

and this is why this man is worth waiting to do custom work PRIDE and KNOWLEDGE goes a long way

[DaleJ]

Originally Posted by foxhunter540

and this is why this man is worth waiting to do custom work PRIDE and KNOWLEDGE goes a long way

So lets say to travel to Kamloops or Burns Lake or even Homestead to compete for a weekend. Very easy to spend $1000.00 on fuel, accommodation and refreshments. Why would you bother modifying scope rings to save a few dollars. I spend serious money on custom target rifles, scopes, and preparing ammo capable of getting the job done and to have a Micky mouse set of rings fail during the match would stupid. Even more stupid would be paying someone to fix a POS set of rings. Last thing I want to hear from my gun smith would be "that extra $150.00 is for lapping your Weavers"! The original post showed a video of a Schmidt and Bender doing "the funky chicken" on a receiver because of poor scope mounts, how many gyrations will this scope take before everything inside the tube is shook loose? Saved $500.00 on rings and bases but destroyed a $3500.00 scope. Weavers might be an upgrade on a Cooey..........

[Leeper]

But you see, I frequently travel to matches and have done so, whenever I felt so inclined, for the last forty years. I know what it takes to compete and I'm frequently fairly successful at it. I have never suffered an equipment failure which cost me the match. I take that back; I did have a scope fail after a fellow competitor knocked my Heavy Varmint rifle over and the objective end of my Lyman scope broke off. I didn't anticipate that!
The things is, years of shooting at matches, carrying rifles in rough conditions while hunting, and testing scope and mount setups in the shop, has given me a fair idea of what one absolutely has to have to be able to have reliable performance from a scope and mount. The truth is, if you can handle the homely appearance and lack of snob appeal, there are many situations where those POS Weavers will do a stellar job. If one is competing in a venue where weight is a concern, their light weight is a virtue. By the way, if your gunsmith would contemplate charging you 150 dollars for doing anything to a scope mount, I wouldn't turn my back on him!
As I said before, a person is certainly welcome to spend all he wants on a scope and mounting system if that buys him piece of mind. What he should not do is ridicule the choices of those who may be less affluent but who may be just as enthusiastic about competition as he is. Especially if they are making their choices based on experience and a measure of success.
Lapping, re-machining, or bedding of rings and mounts are operations undertaken to correct potential shortcomings in a mount. If such remedial action is warranted, there is certainly nothing wrong with it and the method chosen is up to the practitioner. The option, of course, is to buy a different mount which is, hopefully, perfect.
Once again, if a scope mount holds the scope securely and accurately and generally does what is required of it, it is a good mount regardless of who made it or how much it cost.
Meanwhile, if I place poorly at a match, it will be unlikely to be the fault of my scope mount which may come from any of a number of makers. Instead it will be because I'm not reading the wind well that day while my fellow competitors are. If I do well, I will typically refrain from criticizing their choice in equipment. Leeper

[gitrdun]

The above pretty well reflects my opinion also.

But back to the original post. Is anyone aware of what happens to a component that wants to flex under a shock load but is so bolstered and stiffened that it cannot?

Edit: if the mounting system is secure and the scope built to manage such flexure and returns to home position after the shock load has been removed, then I see nothing wrong in that video, certainly not with the flexing which is how the topic started.