Lapping Scope Rings - Neccesary?

stanley_white · Jun 30, 2022

For me, I suspect there are many things negatively effecting my accuracy potential that need to be addressed before lapping the scope rings.

I suspect many are in my same situation.

-Stan

Varminterror · Jun 30, 2022

stanley_white said:
For me, I suspect there are many things negatively effecting my accuracy potential that need to be addressed before lapping the scope rings.

This perspective isn’t really logical - Lapping rings rarely has anything to do with accuracy, and even then, it’s rather a matter of damage moreso than accuracy or truth in tracking.

cdb1 · Jul 5, 2022

Varminterror said:
I haven’t found the solid top (cross lock and Grand Slam) rings to be terribly true bored.

The cheapest “no lap, no bed, no worries” rings I trust are Burris Signature Zee rings with pos-align inserts. Seekins Precision Matched rings, and the Vortex rebranded version of the Seekins rings are the cheapest “metal on metal” rings that I trust.

How do you feel about Warne?

Varminterror · Jul 5, 2022

cdb1 said:
How do you feel about Warne?

Warne makes a ton of mounts and rings, in several different designs and different price points, so I kinda can’t say all good or all bad - but I do think what they make is good for their respective price points.

I use Warne one piece mounts preferentially for my AR’s (really liked the “x-skel” mounts). I’ve used their QD rings quite a bit too. I don’t like vertical split rings, don’t like thin ring caps, don’t like 2 screw (one per side) ring caps, don’t like rings which aren’t 50/50 so they have to snap over the tube… I would use their 4 screw rings, either with the 1/2” nut or 2 screw clamp, but typically they’re more expensive than the Seekins/Vortex Precision Matched Rings. Without that promo pricing, I’d probably use more Warne rings.

herrwalther · Jul 5, 2022

Varminterror said:
I’ve been told many times in my life by the Joe Igottarifle types that “the ring caps will bend around the scope tube when they tighten…” because it seems to

I have heard that enough times that it makes me cringe reading it. Any time I consider or am paid to do lap work, I put on alignment bars first.

cdb1 · Jul 5, 2022

Varminterror said:
Warne makes a ton of mounts and rings, in several different designs and different price points, so I kinda can’t say all good or all bad - but I do think what they make is good for their respective price points.

I use Warne one piece mounts preferentially for my AR’s (really liked the “x-skel” mounts). I’ve used their QD rings quite a bit too. I don’t like vertical split rings, don’t like thin ring caps, don’t like 2 screw (one per side) ring caps, don’t like rings which aren’t 50/50 so they have to snap over the tube… I would use their 4 screw rings, either with the 1/2” nut or 2 screw clamp, but typically they’re more expensive than the Seekins/Vortex Precision Matched Rings. Without that promo pricing, I’d probably use more Warne rings.

I use Maxima permanent and QD rings, Maxima 2 piece bases and one piece picatinny bases. I like them just fine but know there are other brands that work well.

ExtremeSquared · Jul 8, 2022

Varminterror said:
30 & 30 is the listed spec for the Signature Zee rings, but not correct for any other Burris product, and most scope manufacturers will frown on such high cap screw torque.

30 on the ring caps is too much. 20, tops for most scope manufacturer recommendations.

30 on the clamp screws might be “right” for aluminum rings, but is too loose by most steel ring standards, 40-55in.lbs. is more typical.

This is the kind of stuff which makes me NOT a fan of Burris - that info is as basic as it gets, so for them to be giving generic info which is so far off is frustrating - albeit common for them, in my experience.

One caveat:
Cross bolt on steel rings can be a smaller diameter screw without stripping the threads in the ring. A smaller diameter screw has a higher clamp force for a given torque and thread pitch.
I think the Burris rings do in fact have a smaller diameter screw, but I may be wrong.

Bcwitt · Aug 9, 2022

I just fasten & loosen the scope & base rings alternately. Several sequences aliviate any misalignment.

hdbiker · Aug 10, 2022

I bought a used rifle with scope from a workmate, and down the road I wanted to upgrade the scope. After removing the old scope I see tube damage. I reinstalled the bases, lapped the rings to 75% contact, mounted up the new scope, HAPPY CAMPER

earlthegoat2 · Aug 14, 2022

Had to lap some rings today.

The action is a more recent Savage with Accutrigger. The rings are Leupold’s version of Talleys. Aluminum with the integral base.

I decided to bed the base/ring to the action.

Here are my alignment bars.

Here are the lapping marks about half way 3/4 of the way there.

Don’t know if it was the receiver holes or the rings themselves and it doesn’t matter because I have a lapping kit.

Varminterror · Aug 14, 2022

Bcwitt said:
I just fasten & loosen the scope & base rings alternately. Several sequences aliviate any misalignment.

This is only and can only be true if all of the components are perfectly machined but have somehow been assembled improperly to promote misalignment. More often than not, in my experience, this is NOT the case.

For example, on this R700 with Leupold 1 piece base, no amount of loosening and retightening would have self-aligned rings mounted in this base - the front end screws were snug, and there was a visible gap between the base and receiver. Snugging those down together would have bent the base and caused misalignment of the rings - misalignment for which lapping might have helped, but would not have been the appropriate independent solution.

Bcwitt · Aug 14, 2022

Varminterror said:
This is only and can only be true if all of the components are perfectly machined but have somehow been assembled improperly to promote misalignment. More often than not, in my experience, this is NOT the case.

For example, on this R700 with Leupold 1 piece base, no amount of loosening and retightening would have self-aligned rings mounted in this base - the front end screws were snug, and there was a visible gap between the base and receiver. Snugging those down together would have bent the base and caused misalignment of the rings - misalignment for which lapping might have helped, but would not have been the appropriate independent solution.

View attachment 1096417

You are wrong as usual. That is a defective part. The correct fix is return the bad part. Only an inethical theif would charge someone to correct a defective factory part that could have been returned. There is generally plenty of clearance in the bolt hloes. Mabey you should contact a vocational school so you can learn these things.

JFrank · Aug 14, 2022

earlthegoat2 said:
Had to lap some rings today.

The action is a more recent Savage with Accutrigger. The rings are Leupold’s version of Talleys. Aluminum with the integral base.

I decided to bed the base/ring to the action.

Here are my alignment bars.

View attachment 1096346

Here are the lapping marks about half way 3/4 of the way there.

View attachment 1096347

Don’t know if it was the receiver holes or the rings themselves and it doesn’t matter because I have a lapping kit.

As an overview the amount needed to correct the misalignment seems excessive, I wonder if a picatinny wouldn’t be a alternative place to start confirming the receiver holes?

Varminterror · Aug 15, 2022

Bcwitt said:
You are wrong as usual. That is a defective part. The correct fix is return the bad part. Only an inethical theif would charge someone to correct a defective factory part that could have been returned. There is generally plenty of clearance in the bolt hloes. Mabey you should contact a vocational school so you can learn these things.

Pretty difficult to return a Remington receiver these days, if you’ve been paying any attention. Maybe at your vocational school they neglected to teach you how to troubleshoot which part within a machine is actually defective.

Bcwitt · Aug 15, 2022

Varminterror said:
Pretty difficult to return a Remington receiver these days, if you’ve been paying any attention. Maybe at your vocational school they neglected to teach you how to troubleshoot which part within a machine is actually defective.

Are you saying the reciever is crooked?? Thats impossible. You would not be able to close the bolt. It is obvious to anyone with an IQ above 60 that it was a defective base.

earlthegoat2 · Aug 15, 2022

South Prairie Jim said:
As an overview the amount needed to correct the misalignment seems excessive, I wonder if a picatinny wouldn’t be a alternative place to start confirming the receiver holes?

You may be correct and I too questioned how badly it was off.

The Leupold rings have ample meat however and were made of aluminum so lapping was easy enough and there was still plenty of material to hold the scope.

There was definitely some thing wrong with the rings or the receiver. This is why lapping is still relevant.

Lapping Scope Rings - Neccesary?

stanley_white

Member

Varminterror

Member

cdb1

Member

Varminterror

Member

herrwalther

Member

cdb1

Member

ExtremeSquared

Member

Bcwitt

Member

hdbiker

Member

earlthegoat2

Member

Varminterror

Member

Bcwitt

Member

JFrank

Member

Varminterror

Member

Bcwitt

Member

earlthegoat2

Member

Similar threads