I bought a new Tikka T3 a while back and the individual I bought it from said something to me that stuck with me. I mentioned to him that I wanted to just mount the rings on the rifle as it would be better than using bases as well, he said it wouldn't make any differences mounting bases. This generated some thought, so I compared the two different setups side by side:
1st setup:
machined locations on rifle for bases, machined bases, machined rings - this is three machined pieces that have a cumulation of tolerances. The machining operations include profiling the barrel, drilling and tapping the base locations, machining the bases, drilling holes for the bases to mount onto the barrel, machining bore of the rings, slitting the rings, the dovetail of the rings, the removable portion of the dovetail, the mounting screw.
2nd setup:
rings mounted directly on rifle does two things for you, first the grooves on the rifle that accept the rings are machined true to the rifle, this is either done in one setup where they can do all machining at once which is best, or in a few setups where they have to take the receiver on and off the machine to do all machining steps, they'll just have to touch off a couple of known reference points. The machining operations involved are the dovetail profile on the rifle, machining bore of the rings, slitting the rings, the dovetail of the rings, the removable portion of the dovetail, the mounting screw.
So comparing the first setup with the second setup:
1st setup - there are minimum of nine machining operations on seven different components (2 ring top halves, 2 ring bottom halves, 2 bases, 1 barrel) - the three primary dimensions x, y, z are used to machine during each operation so that is 9x3 = 27 dimensions where error can cumulate.
2nd setup - There are six machining steps on five different components (2 ring top halves, 2 ring bottom halves, 1 barrel), the three primary dimensions x,y, z there are 5x3 = 15 dimensions where error can cumulate.
By the time these tolerances cumulate this can create stress on the tube of the scope, this is why I assume that some like the Burris setup with the inserts as it would help to alleviate some of these problems.
All toll assuming the two setups have the same tolerances used in manufacturing their componets, the Tikka setup will always come out a clear winner. It is less complex and a better design to attach your scope.
1st setup:
machined locations on rifle for bases, machined bases, machined rings - this is three machined pieces that have a cumulation of tolerances. The machining operations include profiling the barrel, drilling and tapping the base locations, machining the bases, drilling holes for the bases to mount onto the barrel, machining bore of the rings, slitting the rings, the dovetail of the rings, the removable portion of the dovetail, the mounting screw.
2nd setup:
rings mounted directly on rifle does two things for you, first the grooves on the rifle that accept the rings are machined true to the rifle, this is either done in one setup where they can do all machining at once which is best, or in a few setups where they have to take the receiver on and off the machine to do all machining steps, they'll just have to touch off a couple of known reference points. The machining operations involved are the dovetail profile on the rifle, machining bore of the rings, slitting the rings, the dovetail of the rings, the removable portion of the dovetail, the mounting screw.
So comparing the first setup with the second setup:
1st setup - there are minimum of nine machining operations on seven different components (2 ring top halves, 2 ring bottom halves, 2 bases, 1 barrel) - the three primary dimensions x, y, z are used to machine during each operation so that is 9x3 = 27 dimensions where error can cumulate.
2nd setup - There are six machining steps on five different components (2 ring top halves, 2 ring bottom halves, 1 barrel), the three primary dimensions x,y, z there are 5x3 = 15 dimensions where error can cumulate.
By the time these tolerances cumulate this can create stress on the tube of the scope, this is why I assume that some like the Burris setup with the inserts as it would help to alleviate some of these problems.
All toll assuming the two setups have the same tolerances used in manufacturing their componets, the Tikka setup will always come out a clear winner. It is less complex and a better design to attach your scope.
