did I hurt my new scope?

[crustyrusty]

I purchased a economy scope for my brothers new 25-06 savage rifle.. Its the same scope I use on my savage .223 rem. its a cv life 6-24x50 it has very good optics for the money.. so when I bought the ring mounts I opted for the same ring sets I have on my .223 a set of 30mm rings with plastic reducers to 1 inch. I went that route because I liked the idea of a soft material contacting the tube and not torquing the tube out of whack... so the ring set utilizes 4 screws per cap. once all of the thread locker dried I loaded up the gun and headed over to my buddies place to put some rounds down range.so I used fresh targets at 50 yards pulled the bolt out bore sighted the rifle to the target.then I looked thru the scope and the reticule was 2 feet to the left and low 1 foot.. so I adjusted the scope untill the cross hairs rested on the vertical but it would not adjust far enough to the right ..I ran out of adjustment..so i put four rounds in it and sure enough vertical was spot on but right=left was out and I had no more to adjust.. so is this a scope issue or is this a poorly drilled receiver?

 

[codybrown]

Could be scope, rings out of alignment, or receiver not drilled true. If it's the receiver you'll either need to use Burris rings with the inserts to adjust to the correct windage/elevation, or a set of std dovetail rings to adjust your windage that way.

 

[Spike A]

I had a buddy that had this issue with a 223... turned out the bases were off.. I do not know how when the place threw a scope on it to sell it didn’t realize it as the scope wouldn’t begin to sit right in the rings.... he took it to a gun smith... smith said I can fix it for $$$... or buy a set of windage adjustable rings and fix it with them...

 

[TAJ45]

Won't using the windage adj torque the tube? That will move the rear but the front will not be perfectly aligned. Think about it.

I love my Burris Sig insert rings.

 

[Spike A]

Won't using the windage adj torque the tube? That will move the rear but the front will not be perfectly aligned. Think about it.

I love my Burris Sig insert rings.

I get what you are saying... the rings he sold my friend had windage adjustments front and rear ... after monkeying with them.. I threw my lapping bar in them and lapped a slight amount and they looked rather good I was surprised my self... he did tell my buddy if he wasn’t happy with them to bring them back and he would refund him no questions asked... he did also say if it was a long range gun not only planning to be used up to 4-500..or a higher caliber he would recommend re drilling the action..

I personally would have had it re drilled but my friend just had a kid and was trying to pinch every penny he could..

 

[jds holler]

With Leupold type, windage adjustable rings the front ring pivots in the base and won't bind. that is the type I'd recommend. and economical on Ebay to boot. jd

 

[jds holler]

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Weaver-Gra...842196&hash=item23b83d4e03:g:RrgAAOSwhUpciXSF

 

[Spike A]

With Leupold type, windage adjustable rings the front ring pivots in the base and won't bind. that is the type I'd recommend. and economical on Ebay to boot. jd

i have a set of those on a hunting rife handed down from my grandpa... they have always held true..

 

[Ggmac]

Won't using the windage adj torque the tube? That will move the rear but the front will not be perfectly aligned. Think about it.

I love my Burris Sig insert rings.

No . They have been in use for 50 yrs . Still works .
Make that about 70 plus yrs .

 

[Ggmac]

I purchased a economy scope for my brothers new 25-06 savage rifle.. Its the same scope I use on my savage .223 rem. its a cv life 6-24x50 it has very good optics for the money.. so when I bought the ring mounts I opted for the same ring sets I have on my .223 a set of 30mm rings with plastic reducers to 1 inch. I went that route because I liked the idea of a soft material contacting the tube and not torquing the tube out of whack... so the ring set utilizes 4 screws per cap. once all of the thread locker dried I loaded up the gun and headed over to my buddies place to put some rounds down range.so I used fresh targets at 50 yards pulled the bolt out bore sighted the rifle to the target.then I looked thru the scope and the reticule was 2 feet to the left and low 1 foot.. so I adjusted the scope untill the cross hairs rested on the vertical but it would not adjust far enough to the right ..I ran out of adjustment..so i put four rounds in it and sure enough vertical was spot on but right=left was out and I had no more to adjust.. so is this a scope issue or is this a poorly drilled receiver?

I wouldn't trust the plastic insert , I'd check the inserts first , then the bases and rings and finally receiver .

 

[msinc]

Won't using the windage adj torque the tube? That will move the rear but the front will not be perfectly aligned. Think about it.

I love my Burris Sig insert rings.

I am gonna be odd man out here and say that yes, it absolutely positively will torque {maybe torque is not the right word??? Tension might be more correct because torque implies twisting} the scope tube if you have to adjust much windage to zero the scope. Especially if the front "dovetail" is as tight as it should be. Lock down the front ring where it belongs, start moving the rear side to side and yes it tensions the scope, period, end of story. Now, that's not to say they are bad rings or that they don't have their place.
While the type we're referring to is currently mostly made by Leupold, I think we might be more correct to call them "Redfield" style rings and bases because I believe Redfield is who brought them out many moons ago.
The proper way to do it as I understand it is to install them, zero the rifle and then remove the upper rings and scope and install ring centers. Adjust the front ring in it's dovetail to match the now properly adjusted rear and reinstall and check zero. This will relieve any tension or torque between the front and rear rings. You should only have to adjust the scope turrets for a re-zero at this point because you had the windage set on the ring.
There is one time when you probably should not use these style rings...they don't do too good on a very lightweight "mountain" rifle in a large caliber that has a lot of recoil and with a big heavy scope. This combo is a recipe for wondering if the barrel and/or scope is bad because it will not want to group and hold zero.
Personally, I use Leupold dual dovetail rings and bases whenever possible on hunting rifles. This style has proven themselves with some of the largest scopes and heaviest recoil hunting rifles out there. It bears mention that neither of these types will stand being taken on and off a rifle repeatedly.

Edit: I realize that not too many folks have taken the time and effort to bother doing it this way over the many years these rings have been out. That's okay, they can have a scope under tension. It might not be the best way, but it seems to have served a lot of shooters. Still, there is a method that makes this style ring tension free.

 

[Ggmac]

I am gonna be odd man out here and say that yes, it absolutely positively will torque {maybe torque is not the right word??? Tension might be more correct because torque implies twisting} the scope tube if you have to adjust much windage to zero the scope. Especially if the front "dovetail" is as tight as it should be. Lock down the front ring where it belongs, start moving the rear side to side and yes it tensions the scope, period, end of story. Now, that's not to say they are bad rings or that they don't have their place.
While the type we're referring to is currently mostly made by Leupold, I think we might be more correct to call them "Redfield" style rings and bases because I believe Redfield is who brought them out many moons ago.
The proper way to do it as I understand it is to install them, zero the rifle and then remove the upper rings and scope and install ring centers. Adjust the front ring in it's dovetail to match the now properly adjusted rear and reinstall and check zero. This will relieve any tension or torque between the front and rear rings. You should only have to adjust the scope turrets for a re-zero at this point because you had the windage set on the ring.
There is one time when you probably should not use these style rings...they don't do too good on a very lightweight "mountain" rifle in a large caliber that has a lot of recoil and with a big heavy scope. This combo is a recipe for wondering if the barrel and/or scope is bad because it will not want to group and hold zero.
Personally, I use Leupold dual dovetail rings and bases whenever possible on hunting rifles. This style has proven themselves with some of the largest scopes and heaviest recoil hunting rifles out there. It bears mention that neither of these types will stand being taken on and off a rifle repeatedly.

Edit: I realize that not too many folks have taken the time and effort to bother doing it this way over the many years these rings have been out. That's okay, they can have a scope under tension. It might not be the best way, but it seems to have served a lot of shooters. Still, there is a method that makes this style ring tension free.

Another note , back then most scopes had steel tubes .

 

[MihiT]

When fitting scopes I will "zero" the scope. That is, set windage and elevation in the middle of their adjustment, this has the crosshair optically centred with least chance of abberation or parrallax.
I fit the bottom half of rings to the gun and lay the tube in it and "boresight", if it's too far left or right I will swap the rings front to back, or 180 degrees (one screw left and one right, ie) to get it as close as possible. Then put the top halves on and nip them up, slack the mounts and torque the top, then torque the mounts, boresight again then start shooting.
Normally goes good.

 

[Texas10]

I'm finding the Warne rings to be very good. Just put a new scope on a new action and bore sighted it. Scope windage turrets where set at mid range, and it took only about 2 moa to get it zero'd. Maybe just lucky, but they're good, solid rings. I have all mine installed on 20 moa EGW rails.

For a my 223, I used Leupold mount/rings with adjustable rear mount. They're available in 1 inch and 30 mm.

 

[JMayo]

Swap the front and back ring might work.

 

[Whisky Tahoe Foxtrot]

Won't using the windage adj torque the tube? That will move the rear but the front will not be perfectly aligned. Think about it.

I love my Burris Sig insert rings.

No . They have been in use for 50 yrs . Still works .
Make that about 70 plus yrs .

These two scope mounting methods have their advantages. The Burris signature Insert system can adjust elevation and windage as well as alignment to minimize the amount of adjustment required by the scope.
The two signature product lines are Zee with a weaver style thinner cross bar and Xtreme Tactical with a fuil Picatinny cross bar. The XTR line has 6 screw ring caps per ring and up to 20moa of adjustment per ring. The signature series rings are known for their kid glove protection of the scope tube.

The Leupold dove tail system with a windage adjustable mount typically in the rear, can provide windage adjustment but not elevation adjustment unless a special base is used. Aligning the rings is best done with a steel bar used for lapping which removes all the tension in the system and will minimize ring marks on the scope tube. Lapped Leupold rings are classic and trusted by many.

Most of my medium and low recoil rifles have lapped Leupold rings and no issues. The Leupold system has not been flawless for me for 300 Win Mag, 338 Win Mag, and 338-378 Weatherby Mag so I switched to Burris XTR Signature. Since the I've had no issues on my magnum rifles with the XTR Signature rings.

 

[Cloudrepair]

I am gonna be odd man out here and say that yes, it absolutely positively will torque {maybe torque is not the right word??? Tension might be more correct because torque implies twisting} the scope tube if you have to adjust much windage to zero the scope. Especially if the front "dovetail" is as tight as it should be. Lock down the front ring where it belongs, start moving the rear side to side and yes it tensions the scope, period, end of story. Now, that's not to say they are bad rings or that they don't have their place.
While the type we're referring to is currently mostly made by Leupold, I think we might be more correct to call them "Redfield" style rings and bases because I believe Redfield is who brought them out many moons ago.
The proper way to do it as I understand it is to install them, zero the rifle and then remove the upper rings and scope and install ring centers. Adjust the front ring in it's dovetail to match the now properly adjusted rear and reinstall and check zero. This will relieve any tension or torque between the front and rear rings. You should only have to adjust the scope turrets for a re-zero at this point because you had the windage set on the ring.
There is one time when you probably should not use these style rings...they don't do too good on a very lightweight "mountain" rifle in a large caliber that has a lot of recoil and with a big heavy scope. This combo is a recipe for wondering if the barrel and/or scope is bad because it will not want to group and hold zero.
Personally, I use Leupold dual dovetail rings and bases whenever possible on hunting rifles. This style has proven themselves with some of the largest scopes and heaviest recoil hunting rifles out there. It bears mention that neither of these types will stand being taken on and off a rifle repeatedly.

Edit: I realize that not too many folks have taken the time and effort to bother doing it this way over the many years these rings have been out. That's okay, they can have a scope under tension. It might not be the best way, but it seems to have served a lot of shooters. Still, there is a method that makes this style ring tension free.

At this time and day I think the best way would be to align the action in a vise with an indicator on a tight fitting ground shaft and then check for parallel scope bass screw holes with gage pins to action bore then fix or align the scope rings and lap then as long as the lug and barrel action face all are true you should be there

 

[TAJ45]

A lot of trouble to go to when a set of Burris rings with inserts removes ALL of the alignment worry AND be done by anyone who can manipulate an allen/hex wrench.
Probably superior gripping power to boot.

 

[Cloudrepair]

A lot of trouble to go to when a set of Burris rings with inserts removes ALL of the alignment worry AND be done by anyone who can manipulate an allen/hex wrench.
Probably superior gripping power to boot.

Maybe
I think I would still prefer doing it right the first time.
If unable you could still us an alignment/laping bar to align then there is better hold and alignment and there are ways to align it without all the extra equipment. But we have gunsmiths for that.
If you cant do it on your own get someone that can.
No disrespect or insult intended I just cant handle stuff that isnt quit right.

 

[TAJ45]

MHO is that nothing is "quite right" = tolerances. You won't be doing it "right the first time". It's already been "done" when it was made.
AFA right the first time, you mentioned a trued rcvr....more $$. Gage pins, tight fitting ground rod for the action....if it and recoil lug are true????
Redrill and counterbore the holes in the base (s)? Do the same with the rcvr?
What stacking of mfrg tolerances is beyond your personal acceptance? How close does it have to be? To paraphrase a racing maxim, Tolerance is $$, how perfect do you want it?

Looking for near perfection in a mass produced part or willing to pay a smith/machinist going rate to repair, rework said part......???? Sow's ear trying for silk purse status.
Like you, no slight or disrespect intended.

If I want NASCAR quality, I'll probably not pay a local wrench to reman my mass produced 5.3 Chebbie to racing specs. IF I can bolt on a quality item that will provide everything I want to gain and only spending a fraction to do it, not to mention no lost time for work performed....?..... Other than "That's the way I'm wired" - I see no logical reason to go the reman route.

If it has to be the way you described, looking for dimensional quality for d q sake with results being secondary, by all means pay the piper and enjoy just knowing.