Lapping Scope Rings - Neccesary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CodeSection

CodeSection

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
251
I've narrowed down my new scope choices and now I am focusing on the scope rings. My current 33-year-old scope setup uses Weaver rings and base plates.

Thus, I thought it would be a lot easier to just purchase new Weaver rings that had Weaver's original cross-lock ring design like these....https://www.weaveroptics.com/rings/30mm-rings/four-hole-skeleton-rings-30mm/PG2662996.html. I spoke with a Weaver CS representative about the scope I intend to purchase and it was determined I needed their 30mm High rings.

I've called five gunsmiths in my area about lapping the scope rings and installing the scope. They all said they do not lap the rings and they just install the scope in the rings and bore sight it. Frankly, I can do that.....

After further research, I found a Wheeler Scope Mounting Kit (https://smile.amazon.com/Wheeler-Sc...mzn1.fos.08f69ac3-fd3d-4b88-bca2-8997e41410bb) that I could use. I do not mind the expense, but to use it for just one scope installation seems maybe not worth the effort. Or is it?

Is lapping scope rings that beneficial? If so, why do gunsmiths in my area not perform this service when installing a new scope? Is lapping really necessary?
 
Lapping is only pertinent if the rings do not have uniform contact with the scope tube. Bedding rings is a better process. Most quality rings will not need lapping, and frankly, a lot of guys lap rings - after seeing limited and uneven contact - when they really should have bedded their rail. Even quality rings and bases won’t make up for incorrect machining and alignment and poor fitment between the base(s) and receiver. Stress-free bedding of the bases is pretty critical, and will often correct what was apparent misalignment in the rings which would have created mis-aligned rings if lapped doesn’t contact.

I do lap a lot of rings each year, largely because I put together rifles for a lot of folks which - despite my advice - buy cheap rings. I do bed more rings now than lap, and life is good.
 
There are a ton of ways to better true up the scope system.

That system includes:

Shape and uniformity of the top of the receiver
Alignment and precision of base mounting threaded holes
Alignment and precision of screw holes in the base
Alignment and precision of where the ring meets the base
Alignment and precision of the actual cylindrical holes that define the ring
Alignment and precision of the ring clamping screws
Alignment and precision of the scope tube vs the optical alignment.

All of these things will vary slightly. Lapping the rings brings the second and third to last things on the above list into a very closely aligned system. That is all. If a base is does not contour to the shape of the receiver correctly then it can throw the lapped rings out of alignment.

It’s just like using your body to do work. The power comes from your legs. Your legs are the base and how they interact with the ground will make or break that work. Imagine throwing a discus on sand vs on concrete.
 
Varminterror said:
Lapping is only pertinent if the rings do not have uniform contact with the scope tube. Bedding rings is a better process. Most quality rings will not need lapping, and frankly, a lot of guys lap rings - after seeing limited and uneven contact - when they really should have bedded their rail. Even quality rings and bases won’t make up for incorrect machining and alignment and poor fitment between the base(s) and receiver. Stress-free bedding of the bases is pretty critical, and will often correct what was apparent misalignment in the rings which would have created mis-aligned rings if lapped doesn’t contact.

I do lap a lot of rings each year, largely because I put together rifles for a lot of folks which - despite my advice - buy cheap rings. I do bed more rings now than lap, and life is good.
Click to expand...
BINGO we have a winner
 
Thank you for all the responses!

I was hoping not to touch the Weaver bases as they appear to be solidly attached with no gaps. I never considered bedding and have since watched a few YouTube videos on it.....so that may be a possibility f needed.

Several of you posted about buying quality rings. Frankly, I do not know what is a "quality ring" and what is not. Could someone elaborate and possibly include a link to a Weaver's original cross-lock ring design quality ring?
 
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.
 
I have lapped every set of rings that I have used in the last 25 years or so. Most didn't need it. I'll put the lapping compound on the bottom ring and hit it for a dozen strokes and check it. If I have 75% contact I call it good. And I usually do have 75% contact. This is with Leupold and Redfield standard rings and Leupold MKIV and Badger rings. I've never used Weaver rings and bases.
 
Thanks for the additional posts and further clarification!

It sounds like the Burris Signature Zee Rings (Weaver Style) is the way to go with fewer hassles and less combined overall expense (cost of extra tools).

Burris shows scope ring 420587 30mm High at an "exact height" of .93 inch (https://www.burrisoptics.com/signature-rings). Is Burris' height measured dead center of the objective lens? Weaver and some others give heights based on saddle height and objective size (https://www.weaveroptics.com/tactical-style-ring-height-guide.html).

I was hoping this would help me to determine whether to buy the "High" or X-High" (https://shootingmystery.com/scope-ring-height/) but without knowing Burris' measurement point, I have no idea. I'm guessing on the "high" 30mm. Unfortunately, Burris closed early today....

Does anyone know what the Burris scope ring height is measured to?
 
Every time I use 2 separate rings, or 2 bases and rings I lap. Never found a need with cantilever mounts. Some line up great and need a small amount of lapping, some need a lot.
 
Lapping used to be much more required before precision machining was able to make quality ring sets. It is still a good idea to know how and have the tools to do it. Just in case you run across some rings that need the work. My last lapping job was on a set of Vortex rings about a year ago.

I have the same Wheeler lapping kit. The FAT wrench inside is useful for jobs other than scope installs. So the whole thing is worth getting.
 
I used medium rings on my bergara hmr with 50mm ziess.
My scope guy said 50/50 chance that combination would work. I can barely get a credit card between the scope and the barrel.
Buy mediums and if it don't work, return them.
I used to think and wanted to believe lapping scope rings was voodoo.
 
CodeSection said:
I've narrowed down my new scope choices and ....
Click to expand...

Totally depends on the rifle and scope ring combo. Older benefitted. Newer does not need it.

All benefit from installation with an alignment tool so the lowers can be better aligned. Don't get me going on vertical split rings, a solution in search of nothing.

An alignment tool is all you need. Many just install to the scope tube and I did before I got an alignment tool. The very best mounts tend to be problem free. Ruger mounts and most high quality steel mounts. Just my personal experience. YMMV.
 
It's said 3/4 contact between rings and scope is needed, I've found few that give you that out of the box without lapping.
 
I went through a phase where I always lapped. I'm over it now. I'm pretty sure the only real benefit is that it allows serial scope changers like me to do less damage to the scope finish.
 
Precision machining is all well and good in some instances and not so much in others.

Myself, I am not so worried about the quality of the bases and rings as I am about how properly the base mounting holes have been drilled and tapped. Remington/Marlin couldn’t even get sights to line up straight and Ruger still has that problem.

Are you really going to trust those tapped holes?
 
Spoke with Alex at Burris yesterday regarding their Burris Signature Zee Rings and sizing. Basically, their "exact height" sizing measurement is from the bottom of the base to dead center of the optic. He did mention I should also consider the thickness of the caps I buy when deciding on the ring size.

Alex said the torque on the rings should be Cap 30 in lbs and Cross-Bolt 30 in lbs (30/30). Does that seem high? I've read other manufacturers' Cap torque is 15 in lbs.

When I Googled Burris Signature Zee Rings torque, I found this https://burris.supportsync.com/articles/view/torque-specs. I interpret that document the Cap or top rings should be torqued to 20 in lbs.

@Varminterror, what torque specs do you use on the Burris Signature Zee Rings?
 
CodeSection said:
Alex said the torque on the rings should be Cap 30 in lbs and Cross-Bolt 30 in lbs (30/30). Does that seem high?
Click to expand...

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.
 
I have always used Weaver Detachable Top Mount Rings and Bases , the mfg. model is # 49050 ...
These do not require lapping and they have never slipped or come loose even when a truck rolled over my rifle damaging the scope ... the rings never let go . They may not be fancy or pretty but they work and do not need any lapping ... 50 years a user of the Weaver Detachable #49050 .
These are the original Weaver Quick Detachable Top Mounts ... if you have never tried them and have a hard recoiling rifle or handgun ... do yourself a favor and try them .
Gary
 
I never lapped rings in the first 40 or so years of my shooting career. I'd seen an alarming percentage of used scopes (not my scopes) that had bad ring marks, some with crushed tubes, that indicated out-of-round rings had been ahold of 'em, but I assumed it was because someone clamped the rings way too tight and caused the damage. Then a few years ago I bought a lapping kit and lapped my first set of rings, which happened to be Leupold brand. When I saw how much out of round that set was, I lapped another and another until I'd done all of them. The lapping revealed that almost all of them needed lapping, IMO. Some of them needed it badly. In some cases the need for truing up may be in the base instead of the rings, but lapping the rings is very easy and takes care of it. I pretty much can't bring myself to install a scope nowadays without lapping the rings (unless the rings are the Burris with the inserts).
 
Last edited:
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 make sense to them that a thicker, stiffer piece of metal, especially steel, used in the ring caps will flex before will the thin metal used in the scope tube, especially aluminum…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Scope Ring Lapping
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Lloyd Smale
L
ACES&8S
  • Locked
How do I know what size mounts & rings to get for 50mm scope & stay low to barrel
2
Replies
25
Views
33K
greyling22
greyling22
B
  • Locked
Scope ring lapping 101
Replies
11
Views
2K
db_tanker
D
MCMXI
  • Locked
Lapping Leupold aluminum rings on an AR15.
Replies
10
Views
1K
skinewmexico
S
CoalCrackerAl
  • Locked
  • Poll
Lyman lathe trimmer or RCBS?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
JimKirk
JimKirk
Back
Top