Lapping your scope...

[SilentStalker]

is lapping your scope with the rings absolutely necessary? I am fixing to get a scope and I do not have any lapping material. If its a necessity then I will just take it to someone and have them install the scope and sight it in for $25. What do you all think? I am pretty sure I have just popped them in there in the past but I want it to be right.

 

[esheato]

Are you buying quality rings, bases, etc?

 

[SilentStalker]

its a Burris PEPR base and rings. It is to mount my free Nikon M223 2-8x32 on. I looked at the Nikon base and while I liked it, it had too many negative reviews. I also looked at a Leupold base but the PEPR had even better reviews and was cheaper. The only thing I wish I had got was a quick detach but once it is on and sighted in, I doubt it will come off.

 

[esheato]

With that combo, I wouldn't worry about it. If it slips, unlikely with a 223, then you can do something about it. The AR stuff is nearly impossible to screw up....

EDIT: Never have I had to lap rings..and I've used Weaver, Leupold, Talley, Nightforce, Badger, Kelbly and Larue. Personally, I think that the lapping process was warranted (or at least required a close review prior to mounting) years ago, but with modern machining tolerances, I can't see the need for it.

 

[Welding Rod]

I never lapped rings until I cracked a lens in a brand new Burris Signature scope. Now the only rings I don't lap are ones that are either integral/machined with a mount or that are going on a Picatinny rail. Or in the case of Warne mounts and rings, that I have first gone through a lengthy routine to make right using a round steel bar and then verifying with two alignment rods before actually installing a scope.

The ones that almost always need work in my experience are Ruger's rings. The rings and mounts I was using when I broke the lens were Conetrol.

 

[mshootnit]

Here is what I know about it> I had a couple sets of two piece bases where I thought alignment was a problem and lapping would be needed. Instead of doing all that I decided logically that if precision rings sat on a one piece precision base then everything should be lined up. You know what, it works. I use a great one piece railed base by Warne. Then I use Leupold steel PRW rings and my scopes are lined up perfect. Very solid mount. You can set the scope tube down in the rings and easily slide it back and forth. Perfectly straight with no binding. The scope sits in the rings perfect. FWIW I think the Warne bases (made in Oregon) are some of the best buys in one piece rail bases, especially when you consider the prices of some of the others. And the Warne is not heavy or overly thick.

 

[SilentStalker]

Thanks for the help guys. I just realized that this is a one piece mount so I am not sure that lapping is really needed for this kind of thing since the rings along with the mount are milled as one piece.

Now my next question is how important is the torque specs? I mean can I ^^^do it hand tight and be ok or should I invest in a torque wrench? I actually have a couple already but they are for bigger stuff and for foot pounds. Hmmmm...

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I go with hand tightening and then just snug. Far more ring screws are over tightened than under tightened.

 

[Ludasmith]

Snug on my 223 in a LaRue mount has worked fine.

 

[YankeeFlyr]

Never even heard of it, and I know some boys with very expensive Nightforce (I think that's the name) scopes on very expensive sniper rifles.

 

[madcratebuilder]

Quality rings well seldom need to be lapped. I always check when I mount a scope. Only thing I have needed to lap are old 50's and 60's retro stuff and old military stuff, and then it's very minor.

Find a machine shop and buy a 8" section of 1" drill rod from them, it well lap and align. Drill and tap the side on one end for a 3/16X2" handle made from drill rod.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

I lap them all and dont see any reason not to. Ive found in about every case theres material to remove. It may not be nessisary but it sure doesnt hurt

 

[MCMXI]

Quality rings well seldom need to be lapped.

I only use quality rings, but the problem is that the rings have to mount to a rail or base, which in turn are mounted to the receiver. Some rings have integral bases but even with Talley style one-piece rings/bases, if the mounting holes in the receiver are not aligned properly, then the rings will not be aligned. I check alignment by trying to slide the scope forwards and backwards in the rings AFTER the screws securing the rings to the bases, rail or receiver have been torqued to spec. If the scope slides easily I know that I won't need to do much lapping. Regardless, I then use alignment bars to see how well the rings are aligned. I almost always need to lap the rings after checking the alignment. I want as much contact as possible between the scope and the rings to prevent movement under recoil AND to distribute the stress on the scope as evenly as possible. I also want the rings to be as far apart as practically possible to reduce the moment about the rings which in turn reduces flexing of the scope under recoil.

 

[Walkalong]

It is simply amazing how badly aligned some rings are. I recently threw a set for a Marlin out they were so bad. OMGoodness bad. Just tossed em in the trash. Name brand stuff too.

 

[kcshooter]

I've done alignment and lapping a lot, and have very, very seldom seen a set where it would have been truely needed. But those times when it was needed, it was worth it.

Scopes are expensive, mounting and lapping kits are cheap. My Wheeler combo kit was about $50 a few years ago.

Now my next question is how important is the torque specs?

As important as (really, more important than) lapping and alignment.

Never even heard of it, and I know some boys with very expensive Nightforce (I think that's the name) scopes on very expensive sniper rifles.

I've lapped in mostly $200-$400 scopes. To not align and lap a scope over a grand is just plain dumb. Did these boys even torque the rings properly? I'm betting not.

 

[MCMXI]

I've noticed that many don't even know how to position a scope properly on a rifle let alone bother with lapping. The bottom line is if the scope won't "easily" slide forwards and backwards in the rings with the rings securely mounted (torqued to spec) to the bases, rail or receiver, then the rings should be lapped. You can argue all day about whether or not it's necessary to lap rings, but there is a right way and a wrong way. Maximizing the contact area between the scope tube and rings is the right way. Maximizing the distance between the rings is the right way. Mounting a scope with the proper amount of eye relief is the right way. Mounting a scope so that you have to adjust your body out of a natural shooting position in order to use the scope on your rifle is the wrong way.

 

[esheato]

I pulled a NF off of one of my Coopers today (mounted in NF ultralight rings). No lapping was done initially and not a mark on the tube. Buying quality goes a long way.

 

[chrome_austex]

The OP is asking about an AR15, and a specific one-piece mount at that.

He isn't installing separate rings on a bolt gun.

In this case, experience with that Burris PEPR mount would be particularly helpful.

In short though, no, lapping isn't always necessary, and I'd imagine that's the case here.

 

[MCMXI]

The OP is asking about an AR15, and a specific one-piece mount at that.

The first post was phrased as a generic question, kind of backwards, but a generic question nonetheless i.e. "is lapping your scope with the rings absolutely necessary?"

and I'd imagine that's the case here.

You're probably right. I didn't need to lap any of the LaRue or GG&G mounts that I use.

 

[MCMXI]

I pulled a NF off of one of my Coopers today (mounted in NF ultralight rings). No lapping was done initially and not a mark on the tube. Buying quality goes a long way.

I would expect a Cooper rifle to be built with a great deal of attention to detail which would include making sure that the holes on top of the receiver are properly aligned.

 

[stsimons]

Buy a quality one piece base and Burris Signature Z rings with the inserts. No lapping will ever be necessary.

 

[HankB]

I lap rings - most need very little attention; the only ones that were a serious problem were some Ruger rings which had flaws on the interior surfaces.

I also coat the interior surfaces of the rings with a little rosin, dissolved in alcohol. The alcohol evaporates leaving a microscopic layer of rosin, which has great resistance to slipping.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I have one shimmed with electrical tape. It's on a vintage scope mount with oddball sized screws that are as scarces as hen's teeth. I was afraid to put too much torque on the screw heads. Even at "snug", I found the scope moved forward after about a dozen rounds. I put electrical tape with the sticky side towards the rings in for shims and trimmed it to fit. The scope still fit in the rings good. I have put many rounds thru it since and not had it move.