View Full Version : Razor Gen III 1-10 mount
Well, made the jump today from red dots to LPVO. Ordered the new Razor GEN III 1-10. While its gonna be a few weeks out, I need to order a mount. What's everyone's preference? First thing that jumped to mind is Scalorworks because I own one of there products and love it, but also thought of Geissele as I've heard good things. Any others I should be aware of and what to look for?
Badger Condition 1 Mount. I have them on several guns and they are far better than the Geissele mounts that I was using before, with regard to their modularity and the available options for ring size and height. They also offer a 1.70 height, which is equal to any of your lower 1/3rd red dot mounts. Badger offers an LE/Mil price that is very attractive and they also have several dealers that carry them, including Triad Tactical and Brownells.
I didn’t even think about mount height now that I think of it. I always run a absolute co-witness with my back up iron sights with my dots so that’s the height I guess I’d prefer.
Both ADM and LaRue make "cantilever" 34mm mounts, which given the (almost excessively) long eye-relieve of Vortex LPVOs, are pretty much requirement in my book unless you have a monolithic receiver (such as SCAR, ACR, or MRP). Also, and at least with LaRue mounts it's somewhat future-proof as you can buy replacement rings. For example, say the Razor Gen-4 switched to 35mm tubes, you can just order the 35mm rings, swap them out, and not have to buy the whole mount again.
In theory ADM rings are interchangeable too, I just don't know if you can buy replacement rings.
https://www.americandefensemanufacturing.com/view/product/5/
https://www.larue.com/products/larue-tactical-spr-m4-scope-mount-qd-lt104/
VT.
If I where to get the Geiselle super percision ar15 mount which mount length should I use? They have standard, extended, and hyper extended.
If I where to get the Geiselle super percision ar15 mount which mount length should I use? They have standard, extended, and hyper extended.
I used the extended and it worked well with my 1-6 Razor. But I agree on the Badger C1 mount, if nothing else, its a bit lighter and the lower 1/3 height is awesome. There's a lot of posts about mounts in another ongoing thread, I think its 1-6 vs 1-10 or something like that.
I ended up ordering the Badger Condition C1 mount with the 1.7 height. Now the wait begins....
Optic should ship in 4-5 weeks I'm told. Super stoked to get it and shoot it.
I think what bothers me most is the torque disparity between what Vortex wants, and what most mounts want.
Vortex= 11-18 in-lb
Most mounts= 20-25 in-lb
I think what bothers me most is the torque disparity between what Vortex wants, and what most mounts want.
Vortex= 11-18 in-lb
Most mounts= 20-25 in-lbThe funny thing is Vortex QD mounts are made in USA (by ADM) and as I recall that same ADM mount has higher torque specs if you get the instruction from ADM.
But keep in mind torque spec on the rings are typically "maximum recommend value" and you should always torque it to the lower of your scope's max torque vs the ring's max torque. If Vortex expects their rings to nearly always be used with their own scope, and their scopes recommend no more than 18 in-lb, then listing the rings at the same torque spec will reduce user confusion.
Unless not cutting the vertical slots on the ADM rings increased surface contact area so lesser torque is required to securely hold the optic...?? :D
VT
Sent from my J9210 using Tapatalk
The funny thing is Vortex QD mounts are made in USA (by ADM) and as I recall that same ADM mount has higher torque specs if you get the instruction from ADM.
But keep in mind torque spec on the rings are typically "maximum recommend value" and you should always torque it to the lower of your scope's max torque vs the ring's max torque. If Vortex expects their rings to nearly always be used with their own scope, and their scopes recommend no more than 18 in-lb, then listing the rings at the same torque spec will reduce user confusion.
Unless not cutting the vertical slots on the ADM rings increased surface contact area so lesser torque is required to securely hold the optic...?? :D
VT
Sent from my J9210 using Tapatalk
Interesting. My C1 mount is calling for 20in# So do I do that or what the Razor gen3 says?
NOTE: Vortex Optics recommends not exceeding 18 in./lbs. (inch/pounds) of torque on the ring screws, and not exceeding 35 in./lbs. on the base screws. If using something other than a Vortex® mount, verify torque from manufacturer specifications. DO NOT use a thread locking compound on the threads. Thread locking agents lubricate the threads, which can increase the applied torque. If thread locker is used on the threads, do not exceed 11 in./lbs. on the ring screws.
That’s what it says in the literature for the gen3
NOTE: Vortex Optics recommends not exceeding 18 in./lbs. (inch/pounds) of torque on the ring screws, and not exceeding 35 in./lbs. on the base screws. If using something other than a Vortex® mount, verify torque from manufacturer specifications. DO NOT use a thread locking compound on the threads. Thread locking agents lubricate the threads, which can increase the applied torque. If thread locker is used on the threads, do not exceed 11 in./lbs. on the ring screws.
That’s what it says in the literature for the gen3
That sounds about right. If their 18 in-lb max-torque is dry-torque, the common practice is take 30-40% off if the nut/bolt is properly lubricated. 18 in-lb x 0.6 = 10.8 in-lb so the math checks out. I would assume Badger's 20 in-lb is "max recommended", so I would torque it to the scope's spec only (18 in-lb or 11 in-lb when lubricated). This way you don't run any risk of collapsing the tube.
Also keep in mind, 11 in-lb might sound very little... but the actual clamping force applied to the scope body are magnitude higher. A quick check using 11 in-lb and 8-32 screws calculate to over 400 lbs of axial clamping force. And that's with just ONE screw; you've got 4 screws per ring and two rings to hold onto the scope. So even at 11 in-lb, that scope is not going anywhere.
That sounds about right. If their 18 in-lb max-torque is dry-torque, the common practice is take 30-40% off if the nut/bolt is properly lubricated. 18 in-lb x 0.6 = 10.8 in-lb so the math checks out. I would assume Badger's 20 in-lb is "max recommended", so I would torque it to the scope's spec only (18 in-lb or 11 in-lb when lubricated). This way you don't run any risk of collapsing the tube.
Also keep in mind, 11 in-lb might sound very little... but the actual clamping force applied to the scope body are magnitude higher. A quick check using 11 in-lb and 8-32 screws calculate to over 400 lbs of axial clamping force. And that's with just ONE screw; you've got 4 screws per ring and two rings to hold onto the scope. So even at 11 in-lb, that scope is not going anywhere.
What about the base to the flattop. Badger says 65inch pounds... sounds like a lot lol
What about the base to the flattop. Badger says 65inch pounds... sounds like a lot lol
That one go with what Badger says. Unlike the top ring, which is clamping on a hollow tube with thin walls, the cross-section of picatinny rails are solid 7075... you won't damage it.
If you care to know more on the engineering side, there are two main factors at play. One is the screw size - the larger the screw is, the less it can "convert" torque into clamping force (I am over simplifying it but that's the general rule). I don't know what size screws Badger use on the rings vs. base clamps, but the base screws look to be a lot bigger. Therefore, to achieve the same clamping force you will need higher torque on the base screws. The second is contact surface; the smaller the contact surface the more clamping force is required to create enough friction to keep things from sliding (e.g. under recoil). Since they use very small "claws" on both side to hold into your upper (much smaller contact surface compare to the rings), a proportionally higher clamping force (and thus torque value) will be needed to make them stay put. This is also why Aero Precision mounts, with their continuous rails clamping onto the upper, can use much lower torque value.
So although 65 in-lb feels high (compare to the 18 in-lb on the rings), given it's design and application it's probably normal. I have to imagine Badger's engineers know what they are doing. ;-)
Oh and also, assuming 65 in-lb is "dry" torque, if you were to use thread-locker you should take 30-40% off that figure. Max it out at 45 in-lb and confirm it holds zero. You can always tighten the screws more later on, but if you over-torqued the screw and collapsed / deformed certain parts, that would be much harder to fix...
VT
What about the base to the flattop. Badger says 65inch pounds... sounds like a lot lol
Most cross bolts require 65in lbs on a 1913
Good too know gents thanks!
RKB Armory
05-11-20, 10:50
Badger also reminds us that they recommend 65 INCH pounds. Not foot pounds.
INCH pounds. Not foot pounds.
Yeah, that mistake will ruin your whole week. ;)
That one go with what Badger says. Unlike the top ring, which is clamping on a hollow tube with thin walls, the cross-section of picatinny rails are solid 7075... you won't damage it.
If you care to know more on the engineering side, there are two main factors at play. One is the screw size - the larger the screw is, the less it can "convert" torque into clamping force (I am over simplifying it but that's the general rule). I don't know what size screws Badger use on the rings vs. base clamps, but the base screws look to be a lot bigger. Therefore, to achieve the same clamping force you will need higher torque on the base screws. The second is contact surface; the smaller the contact surface the more clamping force is required to create enough friction to keep things from sliding (e.g. under recoil). Since they use very small "claws" on both side to hold into your upper (much smaller contact surface compare to the rings), a proportionally higher clamping force (and thus torque value) will be needed to make them stay put. This is also why Aero Precision mounts, with their continuous rails clamping onto the upper, can use much lower torque value.
So although 65 in-lb feels high (compare to the 18 in-lb on the rings), given it's design and application it's probably normal. I have to imagine Badger's engineers know what they are doing. ;-)
Oh and also, assuming 65 in-lb is "dry" torque, if you were to use thread-locker you should take 30-40% off that figure. Max it out at 45 in-lb and confirm it holds zero. You can always tighten the screws more later on, but if you over-torqued the screw and collapsed / deformed certain parts, that would be much harder to fix...
VT
That is way more than I have read.
https://lotusmarques.com/info/technical/29-general/164-torquetension-relationship-the-forgotten-factor
Loctite has a k-factor of 0.15.
I remember some publication had stated 242 was 0.14 with oil, 0.20 without. But we are not building space-shuttles so for these purpose it should be close enough. Nonetheless, at 0.15 I suppose we may need to back off torque as much as 50% since most scope rings use black-oxide bolts?
I remember some publication had stated 242 was 0.14 with oil, 0.20 without. But we are not building space-shuttles so for these purpose it should be close enough. Nonetheless, at 0.15 I suppose we may need to back off torque as much as 50% since most scope rings use black-oxide bolts?
Consider that Geissele ships their mounts with blued screws, and the screws are lightly oiled. Geissele does not advise cleaning them. The K factor of Loctite and light machine oil is near the same. Geissele recommends 15-18in-lb. Geissele supplies the SOCOM mount for Vortex specific optics, among others. Sphur waxes their screws, which carries a k factor of 0.1. They recommend 15-25 in-lb torque and NOT removing the wax.
http://www.spuhr.biz/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=135
https://www.nishkian.com/bolt-torque-versus-tension/
Consider that Geissele ships their mounts with blued screws, and the screws are lightly oiled. Geissele does not advise cleaning them. The K factor of Loctite and light machine oil is near the same. Geissele recommends 15-18in-lb. Geissele supplies the SOCOM mount for Vortex specific optics, among others. Sphur waxes their screws, which carries a k factor of 0.1. They recommend 15-25 in-lb torque and NOT removing the wax.
http://www.spuhr.biz/wp-content/plugins/download-attachments/includes/download.php?id=135
https://www.nishkian.com/bolt-torque-versus-tension/
Yeah this is turning into a science lesson!! ;)
Both ADM (the previous topic) and Aero ships their mounts with dry black screws. I haven't had the disposable income to buy a Geissele or Sphur or Badger mounts yet, so I can't comment on them. Perhaps it is more an academic debate what "most" rings means... but if it means the most quantity of them sold, I would still think "most" of them ships with dry screws.
That said, if the subject is how much torque to back off, then we first need to make sure the two K-factors are at least from the same source. For example:
https://amesweb.info/Screws/torque-coefficient-k-factor-table.aspx
Black screws .30, lubricated .18. That's 40% reduction.
https://www.fullerfasteners.com/tech/fastener-finish-k-factors/
http://crestfasteners.com/catalogs/general%20info/Fastener%20Tightening.pdf
Black screws .20, anti-seize .13. That's 35% reduction. (But note it also says machine oil is .21...)
So, if you use the dry black screw k-factor from link 1 (.30) and compare it against the 2nd link's anti-seize factor of .13, that would yield a 57% reduction... and be totally wrong since we are now comparing apples to oranges. To put it in perspective, we don't know where the 0.10 "wax" reference is from; and if we use 0.30 k-factor on black screws from the first link, and Sphur's waxed screws at 0.10, we would need to back off the "18 in-lb" torque by 66.67% = 6 in-lb — if you were to mount a Razor on a Sphur mount. However, if your reference that says waxed screws carry a K-factor of 0.10 also says black oxide screws carry a k-factor of 0.15, then you would only back it off 33%...
Anyway, what is the consensus of scope-manufacturer recommendation vs. mount-manufacturer recommendations? Do you use the lower of the two, do you always follow the scope or the mount's figure, or do you say "if the two doesn't match, don't use them together"?
VT
That is way more than I have read.
https://lotusmarques.com/info/technical/29-general/164-torquetension-relationship-the-forgotten-factor
Yes k-factor is confusing as hell to most people. That's why Europeans ditch torque all together and went to pre-load + angle... they don't care of the screw is rusted or teflon-coated with lube, you tighten them exactly the same way and you will get the same clamping force.
https://i.imgur.com/p9F2IoG.jpg
I vote Scalarworks....
Both ADM and LaRue make "cantilever" 34mm mounts, which given the (almost excessively) long eye-relieve of Vortex LPVOs, are pretty much requirement in my book unless you have a monolithic receiver (such as SCAR, ACR, or MRP)
Yep, this has been my experience with Vortex LPVOs. Vortex also makes a cantilevered mount that works well: https://vortexoptics.com/precision-extended-cantilever-mount-34-mm.html
With the Condition One mounts -- on an AR15, you're going to have the scope pushed way toward the front of the mount, which is not ideal for the erector mechanism (that's straight from Vortex).
Yep, this has been my experience with Vortex LPVOs. Vortex also makes a cantilevered mount that works well: https://vortexoptics.com/precision-extended-cantilever-mount-34-mm.html
With the Condition One mounts -- on an AR15, you're going to have the scope pushed way toward the front of the mount, which is not ideal for the erector mechanism (that's straight from Vortex).
Where did they say that? I don’t feel like mine is much closer than what I’ve seen in their photos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did they say that? I don’t feel like mine is much closer than what I’ve seen in their photos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Vortex responding in Razor 1-10 thread on TOS:
“ To answer the questions above, it's not ideal to have your rings butted up against the turret housing, objective bell, or the mag ring. It happens, and plenty of people have gotten away with it without issue, but if we see it and someone is having issues, we're not surprised in the least. At each one of those points (More so with the objective bell when you have a scope with adjustable parallax) there are mechanicals underneath that need to move and function without impingement. Parallax cell, turret adjustments, erector gimble, etc. If you're using rings that have any imperfections such as high/low spots in the machining (These are often times not even easily seen by the naked eye) even if you torque to spec, it can cause enough pressure on those spots to create an issue. If you overtorque the rings, then you're for sure going to have issues. It's not always a matter of complete failure or freezing, but can just keep things from working perfectly the way they were intended.
When possible, try to keep your rings mounted around any scope tube somewhere near the middle of each portion on either side of the turret housing. Better to mitigate any potential source of any kind of problem than to roll the dice and maybe get lucky.”
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.