Millet Scope Rings

D

daisy2007

New member
I was looking for some opinions/reviews on the Millet scope rings? I looked at some today but they have grooves on the inside of the rings (supposed to align and hold your scope better???)
If you do use these scope rings do you lap them?
 
I would get a set of Talley's or better yet; get a DNZ DedNutz base/ring combo. I got a set of Millet rings in on a trade deal. I tried to give them to one of my kids and he said "why do you hate me?". LOL!
 
Originally Posted By: NastyDaddy101Burris Signatures,never have ring marks again,no more lapping!!
yep...those inserts are fool-proof (i'm an example).
also,the Warne QD's .
 
Originally Posted By: Martyn4802I won't mince words here. Millet Rings are junk.

They looked like that to me. But I had no personal experience with them and wanted to hear from some who had. Thanks to all.
 
Originally Posted By: daisy2007Originally Posted By: Martyn4802I won't mince words here. Millet Rings are junk.

They looked like that to me. But I had no personal experience with them and wanted to hear from some who had. Thanks to all.

I have a set of Millets that a guy GAVE me when I needed a set at a match away from my home.
Look at the way the rings attach to the base and you'll see what I mean about junk. You never know whether or not the scope is aligned when you tighten up the attachment screws/clamps at the base of the rings. The concept is DUMB..
 
I use a set of millet aluminum rings on a benchrest rifle i have and they are not junk!! They are a good ring for the money. No ring marks on my scopes. I would stand for that!! Lee
 
I own 2 sets of them and am baffled that anyone would call them junk. HUH dont understand that at all I rate them very high especially for the money !
 
I thought someone might have saved me the trouble and would have stated the obvious by now... but I guess I'll have to type.
shocked.gif
laugh.gif


I call the Millett Angle-Lock rings "Mangle" locks... because they will mangle your scope.

Here's why:

Each ring will drift side to side depending on the amount you have the rail mounting screws turned in. Millett claims this is some sort of "built in" windage compensation capability.

However, when you drift the front ring lateral of the rear ring (or vice versa) the scope tube actually bends a few thousandths of an inch one way or the other. Think about it this way: If you drift the rear ring to one side or the other... the front ring stays firm in position. It does not swivel like a Redfield/Leupold front mount to allow the ring saddles to line up!

So you end up literally bending the scope tube one way or the other as you tighten the "mangle" lock rings.

The only way to avoid this is the run the rail mounting screws all the way in on one side (same side on both the front and rear rings), then tighten the rings to the Weaver rail using the opposing screws... then hope there is no manufacturing error in the sizing of the rings, so your scope tube remains linear.

So again... since these rings slide left to right in the notch in the Weaver base, they can and will get off axis with each other, causing the scope tube to be stressed significantly as you tighten all the screws down. The pressure will be highest in the diagonally opposing corners of the ring saddles... i.e. the front left edge of the ring and the rear right edge of the ring will "dig in" to the scope tube.

I would avoid the mangle locks.
smile.gif


Dan

 
Which ones? I don't like the angle-loc

I have had great results with the Picatinny Style and Turn in style like Leupold and others.

I think making a blanket statement that they are Junk, you may as well include just about any manufacturer.

One of my favorites that is "CHEAP" for a weaver or Picatinny base is the Weaver 4x4. They are just SOLID and only $14
 
I stand corrected I forgot about the Mangle loks that is an idiot idea, feel sorry for anyone who has them, That said the regular mounts are quality built and well worth the money
 
I won't buy another set. I had a set of Millet turn in rings that put a very deep gouge in a Bushnell 4200. There was a burr on the inside of one of the top caps i didn't see! Have since switched over to Burris Signatures on my rifles.
 
I have used the Millet rings on a few occassions and have had no problems with them.

Most of the time I have bought them, I've used the turn in front ring style ala Redfield/Leupold rings and bases.

On the few occasions I've used the angle lock ones, I simply back out the screw on the back side of each ring from tight the same amount to where they appear to be centered on the scope base and then tighter from the front/bolt side only. (This is actually in the directions for their use.)

No matter what rings I use, I always use a straight 1" steel rod to lay in the place of the scope to ensure I have good ring base alignment before tightening either ring top down.

So far no complaints... And I have removed/replaced a few scopes mounted with the Millet rings and I have never seen any scope rings marks on any of the scopes....

-BCB
 
I've got two sets and no problems. I used the Wheeler alignment tool and then lapped the angle-lock rings. No marks so far.
 
Originally Posted By: dan newberryI thought someone might have saved me the trouble and would have stated the obvious by now... but I guess I'll have to type.
shocked.gif
laugh.gif


I call the Millett Angle-Lock rings "Mangle" locks... because they will mangle your scope.

Here's why:

Each ring will drift side to side depending on the amount you have the rail mounting screws turned in. Millett claims this is some sort of "built in" windage compensation capability.

However, when you drift the front ring lateral of the rear ring (or vice versa) the scope tube actually bends a few thousandths of an inch one way or the other. Think about it this way: If you drift the rear ring to one side or the other... the front ring stays firm in position. It does not swivel like a Redfield/Leupold front mount to allow the ring saddles to line up!

So you end up literally bending the scope tube one way or the other as you tighten the "mangle" lock rings.

The only way to avoid this is the run the rail mounting screws all the way in on one side (same side on both the front and rear rings), then tighten the rings to the Weaver rail using the opposing screws... then hope there is no manufacturing error in the sizing of the rings, so your scope tube remains linear.

So again... since these rings slide left to right in the notch in the Weaver base, they can and will get off axis with each other, causing the scope tube to be stressed significantly as you tighten all the screws down. The pressure will be highest in the diagonally opposing corners of the ring saddles... i.e. the front left edge of the ring and the rear right edge of the ring will "dig in" to the scope tube.

I would avoid the mangle locks.
smile.gif


Dan



Dan nailed it. His analysis is spot on!!!
The angle locks are the rings I was referring to. They are junk, in the fullest meaning of the word junk too.
 
Back
Top