Leap scope mount from Scalarworks - QD 7075-T6, 5.46oz

[3 AE]

pomyc, Just to clarify. My Vortex Razor 1-6 is the non-E version. I went with 15 Inch-Pounds dry. Do you recall what torque value you used on your own non-E Razor / BOBRO combo? I know the difference in weight between the "E" and non-E is 4 oz. Now this is just pure speculation on my part, but where did all the weight reduction come from? Is it lighter lens material, lighter tube material, thinner wall thickness, lighter erector set, etc., etc., etc., a combination of some or all? Since I'm not walking patrol, standing a post, or having to hump it up and down or near and far, I don't care about the extra ounces. Heavy like a tank! I'll take that in this situation.

[RHINOWSO]

Now this is just pure speculation on my part, but where did all the weight reduction come from? Is it lighter lens material, lighter tube material, thinner wall thickness, lighter erector set, etc., etc., etc., a combination of some or all? Since I'm not walking patrol, standing a post, or having to hump it up and down or near and far, I don't care about the extra ounces. Heavy like a tank! I'll take that in this situation.

Vortex has made it clear weight reduction didn't affect durability and thus far that seems to be the case.

[Scalarworks]

I appreciate the answer and you doing it on a Saturday!

Any time.

[arptsprt]

My notes indicate I used 16 in/lbs with blue locktite with the Bobro.

I was just at the range today with the carbine that has this Razor 1-6/Bobro combo (Colt CCU) and have to say what a sweet setup it is in my opinion. And yes, I’m paranoid so I ran through several drills using different magnifications and the thing is dead on across the board.

pomyc, Just to clarify. My Vortex Razor 1-6 is the non-E version. I went with 15 Inch-Pounds dry. Do you recall what torque value you used on your own non-E Razor / BOBRO combo? I know the difference in weight between the "E" and non-E is 4 oz. Now this is just pure speculation on my part, but where did all the weight reduction come from? Is it lighter lens material, lighter tube material, thinner wall thickness, lighter erector set, etc., etc., etc., a combination of some or all? Since I'm not walking patrol, standing a post, or having to hump it up and down or near and far, I don't care about the extra ounces. Heavy like a tank! I'll take that in this situation.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arptsprt]

I agree no reason to panic. Based on your explanation of your specs and testing you did, and the fact I saw no evidence of damage of the tube when I took it off the mount, I too am leaning toward a bad scope. But as I mentioned, Vortex is absolutely convinced it was over torqued.

Did you test ring locations in relation to the center turret? There was about 1/8” between rear ring and turret on mine and, again, Vortex mentioned rings too close to the turret can cause issues, especially if overtightened.

I really think it would be a good idea for you to contact them and explain your data. I spoke to two technical support reps and neither recognized your company name or mount type. I provided you the name and extension of the primary tech handling my case in my email response to you. I also see Vortex has a rep who’s active on this forum and I will PM him and make him aware of this thread.

Per your data, does the Nylok (sp) thread lock on your screws have the same hydraulic effect as loctite?

And, yeah, I’m going to be super paranoid about tightening to 25 when Vortex was very direct that “I shouldn’t of done that.”

That means that torque applied to fasteners, in and of itself, is meaningless unless it's taken in the context of what it's screwing into.

Larger diameter screws require more torque to produce the same axial clamping force as a smaller fastener. In this specific case; a standard #8-32 @ 18in*lbs = our #10-32 @ 20.85in*lbs.

Our rings have a ~20% larger surface area than most standard split rings. That means you can safely apply ~20% more pressure to securely hold your scope, while exerting the same force as a smaller traditional split ring. That takes us up to 25in*lbs of fastening torque. We spent a lot of time testing our mounts with a lot of scopes from Vortex, Kahles, Swarowski, Leupold, NF, and S&B.

For what it's worth, this is the first reported instance we've heard of this happening with one of our mounts, and we've got a lot of these mounts out in the wild, many of them with Razors in them.

Based on the evidence I'd say this was one bad scope out of thousands that Vortex sell. Vortex are handling it like pros and are replacing pomyc's scope as we speak. I don't think there's any reason to panic.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[arptsprt]

I PM’d the VortexOptics rep active on M4carbine.net.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[VortexOptics]

Wow this has been quite the conversation going on here right under our noses! Apologies for the lack of response on our end. Thanks for looping us in.

First off - Let's just clear up the "This has been happening more and more to our scopes lately" statement. Honestly can't speak to exactly what the rep was trying to get at with that statement as we weren't on the phone during the conversation to get context, but there is no more increase percentage-wise in scopes coming back for crushed tubes than ever before. Speculating here, but perhaps they were simply getting at the fact that more than any other issue, overtorquing of rings is the most common issue we see (And we're not alone there in the optics world) and with more and more people getting into optics these days (LPVO's, long range shooting being all the rage right now, better scope technology and performance making its way into more affordable optics, etc) the instances of inexperienced scope buyers overtorquing their rings is higher than before. The Razor does NOT have thin tubes. It is extremely durable and no accommodations in durability have been made in order to achieve any other variables. In fact, seeing a crushed tube on a Razor E is kind of a jaw dropper around here. The lightening to the "E" model came almost exclusively from changing some materials internally from brass (An easier material to machine) to aluminum (A more difficult material to machine, but far lighter, and no less durable). If this scope were weak, there wouldn't be a Geissele-specific mount for a specific group within SOCOM to make a mount specific to that scope... i.e. - some hard asses use them.

Onto the mount specs - we do indeed recommend 15-18 inch pounds DRY on the screws that clamp the rings around the scope tube. (Using loc-tite lubricates the threads and will cause a false torque reading. By the time your wrench cams over, the screws will be torqued about 20-30% tighter than the wrench indicates. Ask this guy here how he knows after breaking a bolt in a subframe of an old BMW because I torqued it down with anti-sieze on the threads and severely overtorqued it because the threads were lubricated... *Facepalm*) This is the case primarily with common horizontally-split rings - go for an even ring gap (Don't ever go to close the gap) and torque all screws to our recommended specs. There are ring manufacturers who make these rings who recommend tighter, but trust us, they are machinists, not optics-engineers.

All that said, there are some exceptions. Vertically split rings, for example, you torque far differently. Almost, always, we recommend torquing down either the top or bottom fully before even touching the other side's screws around the scope tube to 20 inch pounds or even more depending on the mount and then moving onto the other two screws on the other side to torque to our recommended 15-18 inch pounds to finish. In that case, you do want the ring's gap to be fully closed on one side and open on the other. Examples - ADM Recon Mount, Our old Pro rings, Warne vertically split rings, etc.

Scalarwork's design is unique with the "Hinge" at the top. In the past when we've seen some hinge designs like that of Aero (Still quite a bit different), it's been the case that we recommend not even going above 15 inch pounds to avoid an impingement. I'm checking around right now but it's Monday morning and everyone who would have knowledge to this particular mount is in meetings and the guy writing this doesn't have any direct experience. It's likely you're going to want to still stick within the 15-18 inch pound torque range, but will confirm soon.

[arptsprt]

Thanks for the reply and information.

You might me right about the context of the comment this is happening more and more. But it was said. And your tech included additional information about use of contemporary materials etc... just passing along what I was told.

I think it would be very beneficial for Scalarworks and Vortex to discuss this and provide feedback to the end user. Based on my conversations with Scalarworks, they have done extensive testing of torque values on a myriad of scopes, including the Razor, and they have good data as to the justification behind their recommended torque values.

Let me be clear, I am nowhere near inexperienced with mounting scopes. I have been doing this for years, including as a job many moons ago, and I have never damaged a scope from over torqueing.

I’m currently using a newer Wheeler Fat Wrench in/lbs torque wrench. Scalarworks is familiar with this wrench and even understands the error factor of it. Scalarworks does not believe my use of the wrench was a factor considering its margin of error at their recommended torque spec.

Scalarworks; does your torque spec take into account the Nylok thread locker you include on the screws?

Vortex Rep; to reiterate, when I removed the scope from the mount to send it back, there was no noticeable signs of being crushed and only very minor wear marks from the rings on the finish.

The more I learn, the more I’m leaning toward a defective scope from the onset.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VortexOptics]

Thanks for the reply and information.

You might me right about the context of the comment this is happening more and more. But it was said. And your tech included additional information about use of contemporary materials etc... just passing along what I was told.

I think it would be very beneficial for Scalarworks and Vortex to discuss this and provide feedback to the end user. Based on my conversations with Scalarworks, they have done extensive testing of torque values on a myriad of scopes, including the Razor, and they have good data as to the justification behind their recommended torque values.

Let me be clear, I am nowhere near inexperienced with mounting scopes. I have been doing this for years, including as a job many moons ago, and I have never damaged a scope from over torqueing.

I’m currently using a newer Wheeler Fat Wrench in/lbs torque wrench. Scalarworks is familiar with this wrench and even understands the error factor of it. Scalarworks does not believe my use of the wrench was a factor considering its margin of error at their recommended torque spec.

Scalarworks; does your torque spec take into account the Nylok thread locker you include on the screws?

Vortex Rep; to reiterate, when I removed the scope from the mount to send it back, there was no noticeable signs of being crushed and only very minor wear marks from the rings on the finish.

The more I learn, the more I’m leaning toward a defective scope from the onset.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have no doubt the folks over at Scalarworks have done their homework and have no issue with their mount. We do feel it necessary to do our own testing and can understandably provide another very valuable host of information to the topic. Again, I'll follow up once I have the information on here, but felt the conversation had gone far enough we should probably at least chime in now to start.

It sounds like you are quite familiar with the process. If you've been doing this for years, it's likely, though, that this is a new system/style of mount to work with and like we said, there are unique attributes to each style of mount that may create some differences. We like to think we're quite experienced as well with mounting optics (In addition to engineering and making them) and even we run into times with a new mount/system/ring style where we create an impingement and have to restart. It's no shot to anyone's experience or knowledge if it happens.

"Crushed" is quite a misnomer and its unfortunate that this term has caught on. It's such a dramatic term it would imply that a crushed scope tube would be extremely obvious and ugly, but it's more of a deformation/impingement and many times if it's not severe, it can bounce back as soon as the rings are loosened (And then just a re-mounting with different torque specs can solve the whole problem in those cases). Wear marks on the scope's finish are a tell tale sign of an impingement having happened to be honest. Time will tell as it sounds like this scope is coming back to us now? It's highly possible there was an issue with the scope and we won't count it out as anything is possible. Once we receive it back, it will go through full testing to see what the issue is exactly.

More to follow soon.

[arptsprt]

Thanks.

Yeah, I would consider you experienced at mounting scopes too... lol.

Look forward to the follow up.

We have no doubt the folks over at Scalarworks have done their homework and have no issue with their mount. We do feel it necessary to do our own testing and can understandably provide another very valuable host of information to the topic. Again, I'll follow up once I have the information on here, but felt the conversation had gone far enough we should probably at least chime in now to start.

It sounds like you are quite familiar with the process. If you've been doing this for years, it's likely, though, that this is a new system/style of mount to work with and like we said, there are unique attributes to each style of mount that may create some differences. We like to think we're quite experienced as well with mounting optics (In addition to engineering and making them) and even we run into times with a new mount/system/ring style where we create an impingement and have to restart. It's no shot to anyone's experience or knowledge if it happens.

"Crushed" is quite a misnomer and its unfortunate that this term has caught on. It's such a dramatic term it would imply that a crushed scope tube would be extremely obvious and ugly, but it's more of a deformation/impingement and many times if it's not severe, it can bounce back as soon as the rings are loosened (And then just a re-mounting with different torque specs can solve the whole problem in those cases). Wear marks on the scope's finish are a tell tale sign of an impingement having happened to be honest. Time will tell as it sounds like this scope is coming back to us now? It's highly possible there was an issue with the scope and we won't count it out as anything is possible. Once we receive it back, it will go through full testing to see what the issue is exactly.

More to follow soon.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk