Scope mounting question
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
1stmarine
Member
Not always necessary. Another question is how you determine that.
Coltdriver
Member
I have never lapped a ring ever. But I do have a piece of steel 1 inch round stock. I mount the round stock to align the rings where any alignment is possible. I hate vertically split rings and do not use them. I have often wondered if lapping rings was not something that was done many years ago when perhaps the rings or mounting bases were not as precise as they could be. I have never dented a scope nor have I ever had one slip.
Most folks don't lap rings, and some rings are horrible (Toss in the trash bad). The better rings you buy, the better chance they don't need lapping, and the better chance they do no damage even if they could use a bit. They make tools for lining rings up better than eyeballing them.
https://www.google.com/search?q=scope+ring+alignment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=scope+ring+alignment&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
1stmarine
Member
Everything starts with a quality base that is true, ideally made of steel and might need non-stress bedding.
Same thing for the rings. Otherwise when you start to torque things down and they are not true that translates to the scope tube.
First get things from the bottom up that are true and good quality. Still you can lap but want to leave that to a minimum.
Same thing for the rings. Otherwise when you start to torque things down and they are not true that translates to the scope tube.
First get things from the bottom up that are true and good quality. Still you can lap but want to leave that to a minimum.
lobo9er
Member
I have never lapped rings. I use Warne QD or permanent rings now. Never had problem when I used cheap'os but its nice to have piece of mind and they aren't much more than economy rings really. Like 1st marine said its best to start with a quality base
cdb1
Member
I prefer vertically split rings even though they are a little more hassle to mount. Warne specifically states not to lap their rings. I know someone who did and it ruined them.
Vertically split rings need lapping far less than horizontally split rings. I don't lap. If rings need lapping I consider them defective and return them for another set.
If you buy a kit that has the two alignment bars don't use them with the points facing towards each other. Turn them around to where they are facing away from each other. The two round ends facing each other will give you a much better alignment picture.
Vertically split rings need lapping far less than horizontally split rings. I don't lap. If rings need lapping I consider them defective and return them for another set.
If you buy a kit that has the two alignment bars don't use them with the points facing towards each other. Turn them around to where they are facing away from each other. The two round ends facing each other will give you a much better alignment picture.
1stmarine
Member
Warne actually makes some well priced decent steel rings.
Again, the key is to make sure the bases/base is true. the best way to go is with a steel base bedded with the non-stress method.
If that is not good then everything might be out of wack no matter how good the rings are.
To bed two piece bases is a bit more tricky but it can be done to be true to the one axis.
I stay away from aluminum bases and specially two piece sets.
For heavy calibers consider one steel bases that provide a recoil lug and might even bore and tap for a larger base threads.
This is a best practice with many magnums and African rifles.
Of course if you have an integral base milled in the action you don't need to do this but it doesn't hurt to make sure it is true.
They normally are as they come with high end actions that are finished cutting after heat treating.
Again, the key is to make sure the bases/base is true. the best way to go is with a steel base bedded with the non-stress method.
If that is not good then everything might be out of wack no matter how good the rings are.
To bed two piece bases is a bit more tricky but it can be done to be true to the one axis.
I stay away from aluminum bases and specially two piece sets.
For heavy calibers consider one steel bases that provide a recoil lug and might even bore and tap for a larger base threads.
This is a best practice with many magnums and African rifles.
Of course if you have an integral base milled in the action you don't need to do this but it doesn't hurt to make sure it is true.
They normally are as they come with high end actions that are finished cutting after heat treating.
imashooter
Member
A tad off subject. Don't know if you're new to optics. When installing the optics, always defer to the optics manufacturer's ring torque value for their particular optic. The settings for most rings are generic and can impact, in a negative manner, your new scope. If you don't use torque values, please disregard.
Grumulkin
Member
I had a ring lapping kit for awhile and never used it so sold it to someone who thought they needed it.
Of course, I've always gone with good rings from Warne, Blaser, etc.
Of course, I've always gone with good rings from Warne, Blaser, etc.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I have yet had to do that. Maybe if I had poorly cut rings or high recoil guns, I'd do it.
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
I've never lapped either but I can see where it would be beneficial with some brands of rings. Particularly factory Ruger rings. I typically prefer Warne quick release and have no issues.
1stmarine
Member
If one buys parts that are true there is no need for lapping.
Another thing is how do you guys determine if you need lapping?
A scope alignment set might help but there are other methods w/o spending an eye.
If you torque the scope before you know it might be too late or might never know and still get decent results in average conditions.
But once you determine lapping is needed and perhaps the reason for it why not fix
the problem that created the need for the lapping instead of lapping? Fix the root of the problem vs. moving on with missaligned stuff.
I am not messing with you guys. I guess it also depends on how bad it is. I am just trying to say that there is a reason for taking
your time to put things together from the bottom up the way they should be put together.
Once you properly plum a scope and zero a rifle you want that rifle and glass to stay put under any conditions.
It is a substantial investment in time and attention to detail to assure repeatable accuracy so you don't want to be doing this more times than needed.
Another thing is how do you guys determine if you need lapping?
A scope alignment set might help but there are other methods w/o spending an eye.
If you torque the scope before you know it might be too late or might never know and still get decent results in average conditions.
But once you determine lapping is needed and perhaps the reason for it why not fix
the problem that created the need for the lapping instead of lapping? Fix the root of the problem vs. moving on with missaligned stuff.
I am not messing with you guys. I guess it also depends on how bad it is. I am just trying to say that there is a reason for taking
your time to put things together from the bottom up the way they should be put together.
Once you properly plum a scope and zero a rifle you want that rifle and glass to stay put under any conditions.
It is a substantial investment in time and attention to detail to assure repeatable accuracy so you don't want to be doing this more times than needed.
Last edited:
Agree on that. I do have some of those rings but I won't be buying more of them!
CraigC
Sixgun Nut
What's the problem folks have with vertically split rings?
Big7
Member
eggzackly..
I do the same thing and use a length pf TGP do line everything up.
I have never lapped one. Never had to. If they need that, toss them.
Coltdriver
Member
I have never been able to get vertically split rings to keep perfect horizontal positioning of a scope as they are tightened up. They always seem to roll the scope ever so slightly one way or another. I think they are a gimmick and not based on a need. In the past I always found it a challenge to get a scope perfectly level and square in the rings. I got a Leupold Zero Point and have not had a problem since. I only use steel rings and any time it is possible I go to a one piece base.
chicharrones
needs more ammo
I like vertically split rings in some applications. They can be designed to use less hardware and can be kept narrow.
They obviously aren't meant for quick detach and reattach needs, though.
They obviously aren't meant for quick detach and reattach needs, though.
cdb1
Member
I use Warne and have never had that issue. The worst rings by far in my experience are Weavers - for rotating when tightening the screws.
Coltdriver
Member
Steel is preferable to me. I am sure there are some fine aluminum rings out there. There is an aluminum scope mount maker called DNZ that makes a one piece milled aluminum base and horizontally split rings and I had tried that set up on a Howa a long time ago. But I use either Leupold or Warne or Ruger and if the rifle is not milled to take a ring directly then I use steel bases. Just my preference. Once you go to all that trouble to get a rifle and a scope and get it mounted and dialed in at the range the last thing you want is to have to mess with the set up in the field.
Nothing wrong with quality aluminum rings if they are up to the task. (Recoil). My Benchrest rig, and 99% of those around me, had aluminum rings.
Are you going to be physically rough on the gun? Do you need the strength of steel for your application?
Are you going to be physically rough on the gun? Do you need the strength of steel for your application?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
