Leupold PRW FAILURE!!

[cwlongshot]

You may need to go with a 1 piece base/rings like the Tally or Dead-Nutz?

Excellent thinking !!!  I didn't think of that!

I have a dead nuts on one maxxi it's quite well built

[gcrank1]

Keep in mind which way the recoil impulse of the gun rearward under the scope is actually acting upon the ring stop  .

[jjas]

You may need to go with a 1 piece base/rings like the Tally or Dead-Nutz?

Excellent thinking !!!  I didn't think of that!

I have a dead nuts on one maxxi it's quite well built

I have a .357 that I'm thinking about putting a Dead-Nutz mount on but as I was reading the info on their website.......

Torque ALL screws in our mounts to 22 to 25 inch pounds and our mounts will hold on any caliber firearm. Torque all 1/2 hex nuts on our Freedom Reaper mounts to 40 to 50 inch pounds. Do not use thread locker, it is not needed. Please include How did you hear about us in your message...

......as you can see, it specifically says NOT to use loctite on the mount.  Does anyone know why it's not needed?

Just curious.....

[cwlongshot]

Well, I can tell you I locktited mine!!!  I learned long ago, blue lock tite is used on all scope bases!

The screws for the rings are WAY LONG!!! I do not mean to suggest they are hanging out... The threaded holes are DEEP and appear to be designed that way. Overall I like the mount. My single complaint is its just a bit too high for me.

CW

[quickdtoo]

I believe most mfrs recommend thread locker on base screws, but not on rings screws, that's how I've always done it.

Tim

[Darreld Walton]

If you stop and think about it for just a minute, consider what goes on when the rifle goes off and the bullet starts to move.  First thing that happens is the old law of physics that says things move apart...the bullet goes forward, the rifle goes back, and the scope, if there's any clearance at ALL, sorta slams back and forth in those grooves in the base.  That material won't take if for very long, especially in a rifle that gives it a head start, like the .500 does.
Those bases will work fine, but, they'll work much better if you find rings that fit those grooves very closely.  When I use Weavers, no matter the caliber, if there's any slop at all between the base groove and the ring, I push the bottom of the one ring against the forward edge of the base's groove and the other against the back, before, and while, I tighten the binding screw.  It has worked well so far for me, even with them "cheap" Weavers on the .500.  A close, or tight fit works better.

[cwlongshot]

If you stop and think about it for just a minute, consider what goes on when the rifle goes off and the bullet starts to move.  First thing that happens is the old law of physics that says things move apart...the bullet goes forward, the rifle goes back, and the scope, if there's any clearance at ALL, sorta slams back and forth in those grooves in the base.  That material won't take if for very long, especially in a rifle that gives it a head start, like the .500 does.
Those bases will work fine, but, they'll work much better if you find rings that fit those grooves very closely.  When I use Weavers, no matter the caliber, if there's any slop at all between the base groove and the ring, I push the bottom of the one ring against the forward edge of the base's groove and the other against the back, before, and while, I tighten the binding screw.  It has worked well so far for me, even with them "cheap" Weavers on the .500.  A close, or tight fit works better.

I too have and done this and do like the idea of it. As you say, it makes up for poor tolerances of some rings and or bases. I especially like to do this on rim fires. Even though there recoil is minute, its like a little ball peen hammer and considering the amount of rounds many people fire from rim fires they get all ot more firing time.

Just to clarify a bit on what happens to a scope under recoil; (For the most part I agree with you) The scope and mounts want to stay put. Tight bases and loose ring screws, will allow the scope to shift under recoil. If all is tight and they are quality components, they completely resist the recoil. Here is where the Kinetic energy comes into play. The heavier the scope and ring combo are the greater there resistance to the movement effects of recoil. (Again with tight screws) If that recoil is so intense to test the integrity of the materials or the tolerances of those materials. Things like this happen, the weak link becomes apparent, usually by its failure. In my case it was the recoil lug on the scope. Scopes (Properly mounted) almost always move forward under recoil of a firearm. The sharper the recoil, the more pronounced this becomes.

The obvious reason for my failure is simply the guns recoil shooting those heavy bullets. Remember, his cartridge can fire some really HEAVY bullets! I bought it to shoot 500G Hornady’s. I feel, the precise reason these rings failed is directly associated with the amount of contact and support at the ring to base connection. BUT I feel it would and could have been just fine where the recoil lug and scope base had been better designed. The way the ring is made, on this base the recoil lug on the ring cannot contact both sides of the base. So its support is single sided, right off the bat, its 50% as effective as it would have been where the base's slots ran full width. (As they would have with your Weaver or a good Burris ZEE ring) Then, the lug it self is only in contact with the rings base by less than 33% of its width and that’s only on one side. The rings recoil lug is less than 3/4" wide but only attached to the base of the ring by part of that measurement. That lug is kind of "L" shaped and the smaller side of the "L" fitting in the ring and the longer side touching the bases cross slot. That lug is not very well designed for heavy recoiling calibers. With proper base support, I think it would be fine for most all calibers. Likely fine for the 500.

I feel its a setup for failure with a heavy recoiling, heavy bullet firing firearm like the 500 S&W.

CW

[revbc]

For a little cheaper fix than the deadnutz, check out the ironsighter base.  It has a solid portion of the slot all the way across.  $12.99 from midway.  Not saying that anything will hold up to that 500!  That thing hurts all the way down here to Louisiana.

I can try to get a pic later if your interested CW

Bobby

[revbc]

Here's some pics of the ironsighter base.  Not the best, but you can tell they have more "meat" in the cross section.

[quickdtoo]

Definitely, looks like a an economical choice for the heavy kickers, thanks!

Tim

[Bigeasy]

Just a wild guess, but I wonder if there was a poor fit between the base cut outs and the damaged part, allowing the recoil lugs on the rings to slam against the open base cut outs, causing eventual failure.  I would bet a base with a solid, proper fitting cut, with no open center, would work well.  But yea, harder steel on the recoil lugs of the rings would be nice...

Larry

[quickdtoo]

I would bet a base with a solid, proper fitting cut, with no open center, would work well. 

Yes, that's been mentioned a couple times, about a week ago. 

Tim

The entire center of the base offers nothing to support the recoil stop/cross pin.

CW

Holy cow, I can't believe those PRW rings failed! Although, like you said, the base wasn't the best option. 

I doubt that would have happened in a Steel Warne base, where the grooves run all the way across.

[cwlongshot]

Just a wild guess, but I wonder if there was a poor fit between the base cut outs and the damaged part, allowing the recoil lugs on the rings to slam against the open base cut outs, causing eventual failure.  I would bet a base with a solid, proper fitting cut, with no open center, would work well.  But yea, harder steel on the recoil lugs of the rings would be nice...

Larry

Larry,
 Your correct, tighter tolerances definitely would have helped. But I will say these are no more and less then some in this respect.

As  mentioned. I tend to push the ring forward on the base as I tighten it down. These rings screws where plenty tight.

I didn't find the 500 a atrocious kicker. but getting a 500+ Gr bullet moving takes its toll....

CW

[Bigeasy]

I would bet a base with a solid, proper fitting cut, with no open center, would work well. 

Yes, that's been mentioned a couple times, about a week ago. 

Tim

The entire center of the base offers nothing to support the recoil stop/cross pin.

CW

Holy cow, I can't believe those PRW rings failed! Although, like you said, the base wasn't the best option. 

I doubt that would have happened in a Steel Warne base, where the grooves run all the way across.

Well Tim, your a regular one man forum...

Larry

[gcrank1]

I think this underscores the difference between real recoil impuse and felt, or perceived recoil.
We know that some of us can tolerate more kick than others, but the fatigue point on metals is pretty final and obvious, as here. Ive been through replacing broken parts on motorcycles and guns with more heavy duty versions, only to have the next item in line give out. Its kind of predictable to mechanical engineers, for the rest of us it can come as an 'OMG'.
I remember watching a guy shoot his custom stocked Siamese Mauser 45-70 with 458Win.Mag equivelent loads off a bench. He is a big guy and really leaning into it too, not rolling with the recoil. Shots started to scatter; a few more and the barreled action almost came out of the wood.
Something has got to give..........