Steel has 3 times the density of Aluminium. That means, for the same volume/physical size, steel weighs 3 times more than aluminium and is stronger than aluminium (but not 3 times stronger). On the other hand, for the same weight, aluminium will be 3 times bigger than the steel, is about 40% stronger than steel.
Now, to achieve the same strength you will need steel that is about 40% heavier, and 60% smaller in size compared to aluminium. The weight difference is why most modern mid-ranged bicycles use aluminium for its frame instead of steel.
Steel has two mechanical advantages over aluminium - it is wear resistant and it is fatigue resistant. these two advantages means we use steel to make rifle barrels and knifes and swords. Also for bikes where fatigue resistance is important - for example park BMX - steel is used over aluminium.
But these two advantages has no application to rifle scopes rings. I have never seen or heard a scope ring breaking in half due to fatigue caused by repeated recoil. In fact, I would have thought if there is recoil induced fatigue, the scope would probably die before the ring dies. Yet as far as I know all scopes, cheap or expensive, use aluminium for the body. No one uses steel. So obviously everyone thinks that the thin aluminium tube is strong enough to withstand recoil for a life time (for those scopes with life time warranty).
As far as I can see, we only need these characters from rifle scope rings:
1. that it is strong.
2. that it is light.
3. that it is made with precision.
It would seem to me that Steel offers no advantage whatsoever. For two sets of rings offering the same strength, the steel rings will be 40% heavier, and also 60% smaller which means reduced scope contact surface area, which means less friction and that the rings need to be tightened more and more likely to lead to ring marks or crushing the ring.
Therefore, I am not sure why steel is used for scope rings.
Can the steel ring proponents shed some light into this?
Bookmarks