Discussion in 'Long Gun Accessories and Optics' started by CodeSection, Jun 22, 2022.
I suspect many are in my same situation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Separate names with a comma.