These were branded CZ rings? Or rings sold to fit a CZ?

 

Branded CZ Rings. I thought, "How could I go wrong?" I found out.

 

I've never seen that happen before. How tight did you torque the screws?

 

I don't remember exactly, but not more than 25 inch pounds on my FAT. That's usually the spec. It didn't crack while I was tightening it.

 

I am not 100% sure what to make of this or have a solid opinion. One one hand there is a trend for CZ to build everything with a lower manufacturing cost. On the other hand, I prefer the weight reduction of aluminum rings on guns I carry or dont actually benefit from the weight. And softer aluminum might be a little gentler on the scopes and the gun. I am trying to remember but I believe there was an aluminum weaver tipoff ring where just that one little piece was made of steel. Somebody. It left a nasty scare on the rifle. It is a fact people over tighten. There is that too. The smart move for CZ might be to use steel for that little piece and heavy handed people just go ahead and scar up the rifle. Seems, the part should not break. Could it be wrong alloy for the application? Or re design with one screw or more width? Looks like a weak design.

Might be worth the trouble to call CZ and ask them to replace it. That would give CZ a heads up and get you a replacement set of rings. I know what Ruger would do and that is drop the little piece into a padded envelope and send it out. No question.

 

Wow. Strange.

Was that wet or dry? Oil or Locktite? Not that it should matter much. I’ve read that can cause +/- 15%. Your situation looks more like a manufacturing defect.

I hand-tightened all my life and never had a problem until I decided to get serious and use Warne’s little PRC-made torque-wrench on a Warne ring. First time I ever stripped a ring screw. Stripped right out like it was nothing.

I’ve recently started using a Wera Safe-Torque 7510. No problems.

 

Thanks for the photo, just used a set of CZ factory rings today.
New 457 in 17HMR
35-40 inch pounds CZ recommended.
I questioned that much, but tightened to 39

 

Get a set of Warne 7.3 rings and don’t look back.

 

Those are great but I remember when they sold for $24 a set, liked 'em a lot better then, lol.

 

Cracking like that suggests they may be using MIM parts (metal injection molding). MIM does pressure well, but not flexure. It's cheaper to make lots of small parts that way, and that's why they use it. Save for the cost savings, there's a lot to not like about MIM - but that's another story. Examine the parts looking for small numbers, seams (where the mold halves meet) etc. are telltale signs of a MIM part.

 

I had the exact same thing happen to me. Broke at the exact same place. I had adjusted within the torque limits as specified. I found the crack when I went to remove the scope from the rifle to move it to another rifle.
When I backed the screw off it fell apart.
It is definitely a MIM part. States it is Aluminum. More like compressed aluminum dust.
And to answer the above it was dry when I torqued them down.

 

Strange indeed. I've pretty much always used 16-18 in/lbs on the rings and 18-20 for the bases. I did however need to go up to 25 in/lbs on an Area 419 pic rail recently. It slipped at the recommended 20-22. So far so good at 25 tho. I wonder if you could just return them for a replacement to Amazon?

 

Can't return the part to Amazon; they say they are no longer available. Don't want to bother with CZ. Why would I want to install rings that I can't trust?

 

I have always used Leupold No Tap steel rings for the 11mm and 3/8 inch dovetails on my CZ, Sako and Steyr 22 cal rifles. Ruger rings for the 77/22 are sure beefy

 

I would give CZ a chance to make it right. They do stand by their stuff and treat folks well. I bought an NIB shotgun from a private party that was actually 8 years old that had like a 20# trigger pull. I contacted their service people who immediately sent me a mailing label to return it. 2 weeks later it was back with a great trigger.

 

Actions like this may provide some power for some CZ engineer to push back against certain corporate bean counter. Pure speculation on my part, but there you have it. It maybe CZ already dropped this ring product, but we just learned that at post #15. A gift certificate might be nice, just for asking.

 

if you bought the rings on Amazon, there’s no guarantee they are original CZ rings. They could be fake. If you bought them from a legitimate dealer, you would be able to go to C Zand I’m sure they would replace the ring. I have original CZ rings on my 452 and they have been fine.

 

This!!! I would have used Warne, Leupold, Burris, or any other brand-name STEEL rings for .22 dovetails. Too much crap on Amazon is PRC-sourced from who knows what factory, made of who knows what alloy, and offered by who knows who. Half the time, if you have saved the link, the vender is gone when they fail. With Warne, I use the 72x/73x series if rimfire rings.

Those CZ rings from Amazon might have been OK if they had a single screw for the dovetail clamp. Two screws is overkill for a rimfire recoil and the two holes weaken the unknown alloy clamp.

 

I have used both Leupd and Burris tip off rings and never had a problem with either one.

 

I only use Talley rimfire rings on my CZs. Never any problems.

 

Assuming they are legit CZ and not fake (and I have no idea why anyone would fake something like a scope ring), the replacement would probably be a MIM part as well. They probably won't change the process of making them until or unless there are lots of failures.

Companies invest a fair amount of money for the complex molds used to make MIM (metal injection molded) parts. They get that money back in spades as the parts are cheaper to make than machining the same small parts from steel or aluminum. However, IMO, MIM parts have some potential failings for things with critical dimensions such as sears and hammers etc, MIM parts can vary dimensionally during the process of cooking out the binder and heating the parts in the oven to sinter the metal particles together. I've measured a P229 sear at over 0.002" out of parallel from side to side and it's engagement with the hammer notch was only about 50% of the normal surface area.

That said, MIM parts do well with compressive forces but not so well with flexure. The MIM process can result in hidden voids and flaws. You won't likely find many MIM springs or safety harness buckles.

 

Well that make sense as mine were not over torqued and were not cracked that I could see when I started to remove them but as soon as I relieved the pressure from the screw in cracked in half. It is stated to be aluminum.

 

Always stick with name brand rings, like Leupold, Weaver, Burris, etc. There are a ton of junk scope rings out there. I also generally also avoid any rings made of aluminum.

 

I have used several brands from amazon. One in particular is called God Turtle, yes that is right, God Turtle. I have used 6 sets of these, and have yet to mark a scope, they are wonderful.

If you order less than some of the brands you mention, a simple dimension check, and they should be good to go. If there is a problem, send them back. Machined, great rings for 20.00 bucks a set, 30 MM. I wish I could buy them again. Aluminum is fine if applied correctly. There are thousands of sets in use today.

 

Seems Cz bases are of a size that is common on air rifles and bb guns. So much of the on-line products are made for that market.

 

I really question CZ on their torque specs; the figure cited seems high to me. In 2011-12 when I bought my then-new 455, I actually questioned the forum here about CZ's high torque spec on the grub screws - 40 inch-pounds, was what I recall at the time ?? It's been a while...

Anyway, the actual number was printed in the paper manual. My double-check was given the green light here, only to read a couple of years later that it has been acknowledged as excessive and to use much less - this was after more than one RFC member ended up with deformed chambers. Huh.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I do all my rimfire dovetail rings to 10 in-lbs ("wet") regardless of manufacturer, and never a problem.
Woodchuck's citation of CZ's numbers @ 35-40 in-lbs (in Post #10) seems crazy to me.

 

Have you Contacted CZ yet and reported the rings were cracked ? They might replace them , but would be worth the call if they did ! Just a thought .

Team Frady Outdoors Adventures

Jim Frady

 

Everything I have read about torque for rings says 12-18 in lbs. any more is excessive and not needed.The clamp for the dovetail can be up to 25 in lbs., but only on steel rings. JOMO