20 replies to this topic

[Malak]

I was wondering if the Badger Ordance rings are worth three times the Warne Maxium permanent rings?

I am building a new 308, Rem 700 with Hart barrel and AICS 1.5 (I know, Iknow, real creative).

Anyways,
I can get 30mm rings from Warne for about $50, that seem to be rock solid. Or for about $150 I can get Badger rings that I know are rock solid.


Any thoughts? Or other suggestions?

[Religious Shooter]

I've read that the Badger's tolerances are so tight that you won't have to lap them (assuming that your rail is OK).

Personally if I was going to use a high dollar scope (USO, S&B, NF, etc.) I'd get the Badgers just because.

If you can get/wait for them TPS rings are almost as well thought of and are noticeably cheaper.

http://www.tpsproducts.com/

Check out the Burris XTR's if the budget is tight.

http://www.midwayusa...leitemid=148716

They are made out of aluminum (good or bad?). I have them on my MOR and 3 gun rifle and like them.

[Malak]

(assuming that your rail is OK).

I will be using a Badger one piece 20 MOA base.

[EricW]

1) Run, do not walk, RUN away from anything with TPS on it. And yes, I do own a pair of TPS rings. Externally *similar* to Badgers. That's right about where the similarities end.

2) Virtually all rings require lapping - or at least a lapping bar to use to properly align them. Go to Sinclair, pay your money, and be done with it. There's just no other good way to do the job right without using your scope as an alignment jig (generally considered bad).

3) You get what you pay for. With Badger you're getting a consistent product from a company who doesn't ship their rejects in the hope that most of them will just go in the garbage and never come back. The nuts are properly heat treated so that the corners don't roll over when you torque them up. The holes in the caps are concentric and properly toleranced. The fasteners are custom, high-grade fasteners, not off the shelf hardware that may or may not shear off.

4) I beg to differ on TPS's "reputation." They've got a reputation alright.

Is it obvious that I'm going to just cough up the money on Badgers next time? I hate to slam a company, especially one that's local. But dealing with TPS was *not* one of the more pleasant experiences of my life. Save profanity for more worthy causes, I beg of thee.

[smokshwn]

I know that there have been well documented "issues" with TPS. Having said that I bought their aluminum rings and bases two years ago before problems started and both items were well made, and at the time TPS provided great customer service.

There are several products that can compete with the Badgers. There are a lot of folks very hot on rings and bases from Glen Seekins
www.heatseekins.com as well as Ken Ferrell's stuff. There is also a brand called Acculock that has gotten very good reviews.

That being said, it doesn't matter how perfect your rings and rail are if you bolt them to an action that is the slightes bit skeewampus. You should always lap your rings in. If nothing else you get the rings to make 100% contact with the scope tube which increases the holding power a great deal. This also assures correct alignment.

check out

www.snipershide.com

for tons of reviews on all products related to long range precision shooting.


Good luck, Craig

[sfinney]

I know that there have been well documented "issues" with TPS. Having said that I bought their aluminum rings and bases two years ago before problems started and both items were well made, and at the time TPS provided great customer service.

There are several products that can compete with the Badgers. There are a lot of folks very hot on rings and bases from Glen Seekins
www.heatseekins.com as well as Ken Ferrell's stuff. There is also a brand called Acculock that has gotten very good reviews.

That being said, it doesn't matter how perfect your rings and rail are if you bolt them to an action that is the slightes bit skeewampus. You should always lap your rings in. If nothing else you get the rings to make 100% contact with the scope tube which increases the holding power a great deal. This also assures correct alignment.

check out

www.snipershide.com

for tons of reviews on all products related to long range precision shooting.


Good luck, Craig

+1, I've had good luck with TPS and Ken Farrel products. Your results may vary.

[Religious Shooter]

He he... I knew EricW would chime in on TPS.

I would rebut that you should take into account what the rest of the TPS customers say. Having enough rings to sell? They currently are having problems. No doubt. But otherwise most customers have been satisfied with their rings.

Anyways...

If you have to lap all rings all the time... then I'd say just go for the XTR's.

What's the point or advantage of having Badgers? Other than the exacting tolerances (and what is that worth if you have to lap them?) why are they better? ...strength? ...coolness factor?

Strength... Unless you have a Surgeon or other action with a built-in base I think the screws holding the base is the weak link in the 700's scope system. I really doubt the any decent ring would fail before those screws. For the recoil that the .308 generates the XTR's or the Maximas are plenty strong.

The XTR's contact area's depth is 1". There are three torx screws on each side (for a total of six) that hold the top of the ring in place. I've have two screw set-ups and I would occasionally find one of the screws on a side loose. It's nice having that extra screw that the Warne won't have.

But if you have the money just buy the Badgers.

[EricW]

What's the point or advantage of having Badgers?

Time.

Time not wasted in having to fart around with an improperly built product that was *knowingly* shipped out.

Time not spent going through and amazing amount of bureaucracy to return a product to a teeny tiny company. Those turkeys actually acted like they were doing me a favor by taking back their rings and replacing them.

Time not wasted in having to wait around to get what you should have got to begin with.

Edited by EricW, 17 August 2006 - 07:58 AM.

[milanuk]

Warne rings and bases have been doing me pretty well the last couple years. Their 20 MOA rail is about the lowest height I could find for my 10FP (unlike Farrell's which is like a skyjacker by comparison). The 30mm Tactical rings have worked pretty well for me too... Once I cinch them down w/ a 1/2" nut driver, they ain't goin' anywhere. I started using them because I picked a set of rings and bases up from a prize table at the Idaho State Sniper Championships... Warne had a few employees there shooting as well, nice folks. They've been making efforts to 'be seen' at the tactical/precision rifle matches in the region (PNW) and donating heavily to the prize tables. I've used BO, GG&G, Leupold MkIV, etc. and for my uses (granted, I don't generally bang the shit out of my guns/scopes) the Warnes do just fine. Plus they are *steel*, which gives me more of a warm-n-fuzzy than the aluminum rings from Burris or even Seekins Precision (good guy, good shooter, I just don't warm to aluminum rings right now).

YMMV,

Monte

[smokshwn]

Just an fyi aluminums are usually considered to be stronger than their steel counterparts. However many "steel" feel that they want steel instead of aluminum. Kinda punny huh?

[Malak]

Just an fyi aluminums are usually considered to be stronger than their steel counterparts. However many "steel" feel that they want steel instead of aluminum. Kinda punny huh?

Are you refering to holding power? because that would sorta make sense... the aluminum would seem to want to conform to the tube instead of dig into it? i an not sure if that is right... and since most scope tubes are aluminum...

[EricW]

Rings that are machined out of 7075-T6 might be "as strong as steel".

Rings that are made on the same line that just extruded a bunch of aluminum window frames....I don't think so.

[smokshwn]

My understanding (from both TPS and Ken Ferrel) was that the aluminum that they used in their products offered strength and durability standards over their comparable steel products. When I asked why they even bothered with steel both replies were along the lines that the majority of consumers only felt comfortable with steel and they were simply responding to market demands. One of the reasons I bought the TPS aluminums were not only the far cheaper price but the fact that they offered to replace the aluminum components with steel if I was at all dissatisfied with the aluminum.

Here are some comments from Jeff @ Nightforce concerning their ultralight aluminum rings:

--- the rings are actually stronger than steel. The cross-bolt and locking nut are titanium, and the rings themselves are aluminium. Tests showed that the steel rings broke at 48,000 (units not remembered, but I suspect that this was a sheer strength, so it was probably PSI) and the aluminium at 77,000. Nightforce and the military tests showed them harder to break than steel.
--- the aluminium would corrode but not rust, which was nice if they were exposed to salt water;
--- the Navy SEALS have been using the Ultralights almost exclusively since they came out and is not reporting any problems with them even on their .50 cal weapons;
--- Nightforce believes that the Ultralights are so much better than steel that they are selling them below cost to increase their popularity;
--- he thinks enough of them that he is converting all his steel rings on his personal guns to Ultralights;

and some more comments from Glen Seekins

I build bases and rings and use 7075 t-6 aluminum and steel bolts. The aluminum rings are still overbuilt and are overkill for what they do. There are a bunch of opinions on steel vs. aluminum and I didn’t want to start a bickering thread and detour from your original question. Aluminum, titanium and steel all have very different mechanical properties. Depending on the condition of each material (there are a bunch) one may bend while the other breaks. Aluminum is vastly overlooked for some reason, but holds its own im most aspects. Titanium believe it or not is not as strong as steel. Again different conditions and properties change things. It is stronger than some steel, but so is aluminum. For some reason there is a conception that Titanium is stronger than steel, but lighter than aluminum. Titanium is heavier than aluminum, but lighter than steel.


Anyway just food for thought.

[recon215]

I have TPS low rings on my rifle. They actually came with my IOR scope, but then again, there are not many out there making 35mm rings.

[EricW]

Aluminum is vastly overlooked for some reason...

It's no mystery to me. A lot of aluminum rings and based are extruded out of cheap, soft aluminum. Machined and anodized 7075-T6 is an entirely different animal and comes with a substantially "enhanced" pricetag. I know Glen, and would have bought his rings had they been available. I've seen them in person and they're built like a brick sh*thouse. It does need to be noted that Glen's rings are a bit beefier than a comparable Badger set. IIRC, they were nearly on the order dimensionally of a set of Badger 50's.

[Malak]

I know what you guys mean about everyone thinking titanium being the bees knees. Titanium has a great strength to weight ratio, but so does magnesium...

anyways, I don't think the effectivness of a ring is in its ability to tow a tanker, but in its ability to hold the scope without slipping or losing zero... Point being, if you were to make a set of rings out of un-attain-ium, and they weighed nothing and were indestructbale, but only had a 20% contact surface area with the scope, then the scope would probably still slip.

I have not heard of too many cases of rings failing, as in breaking in half, in normal use. But I can remember my first 300WM caused my hugemongous Springfield 56mm scope to slide forward like an inch after about three shots (I had crappy rings that I did not tighten down enough). But i bet I would have needed a mallet to break those crappy rings.

So, I have no doubt aluminum rings would hold just fine, if you were had well.

Just a thought: I think people alot of times assume that heavy means strong. Or that heavy means more expensive.

[smokshwn]

Malak,

+1 on the heavier is stronger/better fallacy. Also I think too many people look at the rings as needing to be able to withstand recoil which in fact many "lesser" rings do just fine. On a tactical rifle where the ring/base combo really needs to perform is getting banged around under God knows what conditions and holding zero.

EW

I definitely wish Glen's stuff had been out. I love the slimline clamping system instead of the ungodly half inch bolt that everyone else seems to use. Gives you a lot more space around an already cramped area.

Edited by smokshwn, 17 August 2006 - 08:53 PM.

[Malak]

craig, exactly where do you get Glenn's rings?

[EricW]

http://www.seekinsprecision.com

[smokshwn]

thanks, Eric

[Malak]

thanks for the link Eric... those look pretty good. I like the fact they are CNCed from billet 7075-T6 and use grade 8 hardware. You can get six stud rings and 25MOA base for under $200. Hum.... we might have a winner

I really appreciate when a company gives ACTUAL specs on what they are making/using... instead of some stupid string of totally obscure marketing terms. the ultimate superdooper tactical milspec navyseal commando extreme blah blah blah.