NEAR experience

alberta tactical rifle said:
Richard does make a nice product , and he can be a little tempermental to deal with but I am baffled as to why any scope requires 2 rings on the front. Apart from making it "Near ly" impossible to mount anything else like an ACD or scope tape on the scope and severely limiting where you can mount the scopeto attain perfect yerelief, I see no benefit.:confused:
As most are well aware I shoot BIG guns alot and have yet to have an issue with using 2 standard .750" wide rings to secure my NF or S&B scopes to my rifles.
Click to expand...

Both the rifles pictured seem to retain plenty of adjustment fore and aft utilizing the pic rail.
 
To mount my Sightron 10x50x60 I was told I would have to go with the 3 ring set up. Was not happy with this but agreed to it. On a 308.

Richard hasn't called me back so I am taking it as a sign form the gods, not to get it.

Really wanted the Alpha Hunter. But he can't make one for a 60mm objective without allot of $$$ invested.

Did I mention that he makes really nice stuff?

(heavy sigh)
 
With 60 mm objective, you can get away with TPS ring and Ken farrel base, instead of using Alpha mount, use 2 set of TPS ring. I have problem dealing with the guy in the pass, be happy to take my money somewhere else.
 
marcoman said:
Both the rifles pictured seem to retain plenty of adjustment fore and aft utilizing the pic rail.
Click to expand...

The rifle with the S&B looks to me to have VERY little room other than where it is mounted. Personally I think having the ring as close to a turret or transition to the objective that close is looking for greif, as in stress crack in the scopes tube. There appears to be only about 3/8" that that scope could be moved and all of that would be forward. To move the scope and mount will mean almost 1/2" increments.
Obviously it is working for the owner, but to have less of the scope tube dedicated to unnecessary extra rings still makes waaaaaay more sense to me.
 
I assume the idea of the extra ring is to prevent scope shifting under heavy recoil. My question therefore is: 'is this a solution looking for a problem?'. I mean, have there really been so many instances of scope shifting using the traditional two-ring setup so as to warrant the need for a third ring.
 
GunBoy said:
With 60 mm objective, you can get away with TPS ring and Ken farrel base, instead of using Alpha mount, use 2 set of TPS ring. I have problem dealing with the guy in the pass, be happy to take my money somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I looked at TPS and Farrel last night and they don't really appeal to me.

Obama started preaching "buy American" back in 08 so I went with Near.
 
Tomochan said:
I assume the idea of the extra ring is to prevent scope shifting under heavy recoil. My question therefore is: 'is this a solution looking for a problem?'. I mean, have there really been so many instances of scope shifting using the traditional two-ring setup so as to warrant the need for a third ring.
Click to expand...

I believe you may be correct, that it may be an attempt to solve a non existent problem and possibly to make something different so as to attract the sales from those who buy into the bigger or more is better plan.

Typically scopes that move are mounted/installed either incorrectly or in garbage quality rings.
I kinda chuckle at some of the abortions of rings that are sold today, most recently an expensive set of rings from a BIG name gun company in the USA that uses whopping big 12x32 screws and LOTS of them to lock down the top 1/2s in flimsy 6061 aluminum rings that are skeletonized to gain favor with "looks cool gang":bangHead:

Years ago we made some rings that employed only 1 per side 10x32 screws that were proven to have superior clamping strength than 3 per side 6x48s and to be more structural while requiring much less torque than is commonly used any ring maker I could find.
Cost of manufacturing prevented us from getting them to market, but I may look at reviving this project at some point.
 
TPS ring doesnt have look but it work, with Ken farrel base you can get away with medium ring, with 2 set of ring for he one scope, you would need To lap ring on the rifle to maximize alignment. UNlap ring will cause scope to mar or crack near adjustment and objective. There is still Alot of space on scope, may not need all 4 ring, 3 is plenty over kill even on 338lapua.
 
GunBoy said:
TPS ring doesnt have look but it work, with Ken farrel base you can get away with medium ring, with 2 set of ring for he one scope, you would need To lap ring on the rifle to maximize alignment. UNlap ring will cause scope to mar or crack near adjustment and objective. There is still Alot of space on scope, may not need all 4 ring, 3 is plenty over kill even on 338lapua.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the comments from everyone.

Gunboy I have to agree, among what I was looking for.

Canadian made
one piece (to avoid lapping)
low profile (my AI one piece, was way to high)
Availablility and support (I could not get ahold of Ken Farrel personally)

The front two rings are actually one peice on the bottom and two ring tops, if this is needed or not I am unsure however, it looks damn cool................

If it's not overkill your not trying hard enough LOL
 
wolfface said:
what I was looking for.

Canadian made
one piece (to avoid lapping)
low profile (my AI one piece, was way to high)
Availablility and support (I could not get ahold of Ken Farrel personally)
Click to expand...

Call ATRS and get them to build you whatever you're looking for and install it. Then it's just a matter of send it in, wait, get it back and go shooting. The one piece unit look scool, but I prefer the versatility of a standard Picatinny rail and ring setup.

With all those CNC machines, Rick should get into the scope ring game. Would make shopping easier for me!
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
The rifle with the S&B looks to me to have VERY little room other than where it is mounted. Personally I think having the ring as close to a turret or transition to the objective that close is looking for greif, as in stress crack in the scopes tube. There appears to be only about 3/8" that that scope could be moved and all of that would be forward. To move the scope and mount will mean almost 1/2" increments.
Obviously it is working for the owner, but to have less of the scope tube dedicated to unnecessary extra rings still makes waaaaaay more sense to me.
Click to expand...


IMG_3676.jpg

IMG_3667.jpg


You can always turn the mount around if you like. This is how I had it mounted when I first got my first mount. Richard saw the picture and told me it was on backwards:p Yes the bottom is one piece with three caps to hold everything together.
 
I think the one piece, 2 ring, lite weight set up is going to work just fine for me. I am also more than happy to support someone local. Many good comments here, and a compalaint about Richard, but no real complaints about the product, which is a good sign to me.
 
I have no complaints with Richard whatsoever. Outstanding stuff and customer service is beyond what you would expect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom