Lapping "High end" scope rings?

[CampSmith]

Ok hate to beat a dead horse but I think what I found could be useful to others here. This topic has been argued over on here in numerous posts. Some guys for but most guys against lapping scope rings. Most on here, me included, will say it's definitely not necessary if you buy high end rings. Well Iets just say I agreed with that for years until yesterday. I've never lapped a set of rings. I've mounted more scopes over the years than I can remember. My own, family, friends etc. I've always either used or recommended high end rings and explained the benefits of using them as opposed to using crap. Well I recently purchased a Seekins Precision Havak Element and went with a Leica Amplus 6 3-18x44i 4w to top it off with. I also picked up a set of Seekins 30 mm rings. Before mounting the scope I borrowed my buddies lapping kit for shits and giggles lol. Just to check my "high end rings" I mounted the bottom have of the rings on the rail and torqued them to spec. I then put one of the 30 mm alignment bars on each ring. Guess what? They didn't align perfectly like I thought they would and one of the alignment bars didn't sit flat in the rear ring. I could rock it slightly back and forth. I then chalked the lapping bar put it in the rings installed the caps and tightened them. When I removed the bar that rear ring had only about 30% contact. More contact in the front ring but still less than I ever would've thought. So after all these years I learned something new. I'll never install any set of rings without first checking ever again.

 

[TaperPin]

I agree! I’ve been questioned for years for always lapping - my experience has been the same as yours. Many manufacturers probably recommend not lapping so you don’t see the machining marks.

Every machined surface has a +/- manufacturing tolerance on every surface - stack the rifle receiver, under and upper side of the base, bottom of ring and finally round mating surface for the scope and someone is lucky if there isn’t enough of a mismatch to dent the scope.

Bedding the base eliminates the bending forces of a mismatch there, but doesn’t eliminate the upper surface tolerance, or straighten a slightly less than straight one piece base - and that’s before the rings.

In high-end tool machining, cutting metal with a CNC is considered less accurate than precision grinding, and that is less accurate than lapping. There is not a shortcut to simply machine things well. Lol

There is a misconception that lapping has to remove a lot of material - just enough to show an imprint takes off the worst of the highpoints.

 

[CampSmith]

I agree! I’ve been questioned for years for always lapping - my experience has been the same as yours. Many manufacturers probably recommend not lapping so you don’t see the machining marks.

Every machined surface has a +/- manufacturing tolerance on every surface - stack the rifle receiver, under and upper side of the base, bottom of ring and finally round mating surface for the scope and someone is lucky if there isn’t enough of a mismatch to dent the scope.

Bedding the base eliminates the bending forces of a mismatch there, but doesn’t eliminate the upper surface tolerance, or straighten a slightly less than straight one piece base - and that’s before the rings.

In high-end tool machining, cutting metal with a CNC is considered less accurate than precision grinding, and that is less accurate than lapping. There is not a shortcut to simply machine things well. Lol

There is a misconception that lapping has to remove a lot of material - just enough to show an imprint takes off the worst of the highpoints.

I couldn't agree more. You know what really gets me pissed is when a newbie asks a question about lapping , because he wants to learn. Then all of the "experts" start bashing him and others in the post. I never would bash anyone I would just say it's not really necessary if you used good rings. But I guess anyone who gives that advice without actually finding out for themselves is dead wrong.

 

[RockAndSage]

Every machined surface has a +/- manufacturing tolerance on every surface - stack the rifle receiver, under and upper side of the base, bottom of ring and finally round mating surface for the scope and someone is lucky if there isn’t enough of a mismatch to dent the scope.

^^ This. @TaperPin's whole comment is right on the money, but "tolerance stacking" is a very real thing that more people need to be aware of. It magnifies problems in a non-linear way. And as he noted, every single surface has its own tolerances, its own inconsistencies.

The fewer the surfaces, the fewer points of magnification in tolerance stacking you need to worry about. This is why one-piece mounts are typically more precise than two-piece, and why receivers with machined-in bases/pic rails are more precise than those you need to mount to the receiver. But any time you have two machined surfaces mating up, you'll have tolerance issues. Even the torquing of a base's screws onto the receiver can alter the precision of the other mating surfaces of the base or rings.

 

[gbflyer]

I check every time. Borden receivers have been good. I’ve had to clean up just about everything else including Tikka. Generally it’s a receiver issue not a mount issue, except most Talley lightweights which are slightly out of round. Older Remington 700’s and all Savages are the worst. I think they did final finish on the outside with a belt sander. This is also why machined stock bedding blocks don’t fit.

 

[Mojave]

I only use high end rings; Spuhr, Tier One, Blaser, Contessa and EAW among others.

Back in the old days when I thought Talleys, Redfields and Leupolds were good rings, I used to lap rings.

For rail mount users, lapping rings is probably stupid. For traditional Redfield style dovetail, Weaver (non 1913 rail) mounts, or Talleys it might be worth it. I have never had Talley traditional veritical split rings I liked or that held a scope. The ultra light Talleys are ok if they don't break.

Everyone is going to come on here and bitch about me hating on Talley. I think they are ok rings, and they are very pretty. I don't like the looks of the vertical rings, but I love the way the ultra lights look. I just don't trust them.

Huge fan of 1913 rails.

 

[c1steve]

Older Remington 700’s and all Savages are the worst. I think they did final finish on the outside with a belt sander. This is also why machined stock bedding blocks don’t fit.

I watched a video years ago when the M700 action at the factory was finished off on top with using a fixed belt sander. I believe the lower 700 actions were sanded off with a minimum amount of time and care, but the higher end rifles Remington spent more time and the alignment for scope rings was much better.

 

[Article 4]

I agree! I’ve been questioned for years for always lapping - my experience has been the same as yours. Many manufacturers probably recommend not lapping so you don’t see the machining marks.

Every machined surface has a +/- manufacturing tolerance on every surface - stack the rifle receiver, under and upper side of the base, bottom of ring and finally round mating surface for the scope and someone is lucky if there isn’t enough of a mismatch to dent the scope.

Bedding the base eliminates the bending forces of a mismatch there, but doesn’t eliminate the upper surface tolerance, or straighten a slightly less than straight one piece base - and that’s before the rings.

In high-end tool machining, cutting metal with a CNC is considered less accurate than precision grinding, and that is less accurate than lapping. There is not a shortcut to simply machine things well. Lol

There is a misconception that lapping has to remove a lot of material - just enough to show an imprint takes off the worst of the highpoints.

Agree - and I often go by the rule "if done correctly and it causes no harm, the benefits outweigh any negatives"

 

[bradb]

I do a very light lap/check and bed all of my scope rings, top and bottom. Base also if not integral

 

[doverpack12]

I’ve never understood those who are so against lapping. Once you check alignment and see the issue it’s awful hard to ignore.
I like to use the method Jim See explains in an article posted on Long Range Hunting. Lap the bottom half for clearance and bed the scope with JB weld Quik. 100% gasket like fit on the bottom doing that.
Since using this method I never get a gritty binding feeling when leveling the scope to a plumb bob while clamped in a vice, before it always felt bound up or gritty.
I don’t lap the top half of rings because it they are loose enough to move the lapping bar I find they develop a little rock as the bar moves.
I can understand the argument that your bar may not match a scope or the bar can wear, which are all valid, but with bedding that is addressed in a far superior way.

 

[CampSmith]

I think alot of guys are under the assumption that lapping can also ruin rings. You have to really go crazy to ruin a set of rings while lapping. You normally only have to remove very little material to true up the ring surface. I'll never assume again that any ring is good to go no matter the price or brand. Tolerance stacking increases the chance something will be off and in my case the rail is integral with the receiver. So the problem was mostly with the rings.

 

[rayporter]

burris signature rings are the only rings that will not need checked.

 

[gbflyer]

I only use high end rings; Spuhr, Tier One, Blaser, Contessa and EAW among others.

Back in the old days when I thought Talleys, Redfields and Leupolds were good rings, I used to lap rings.

For rail mount users, lapping rings is probably stupid. For traditional Redfield style dovetail, Weaver (non 1913 rail) mounts, or Talleys it might be worth it. I have never had Talley traditional veritical split rings I liked or that held a scope. The ultra light Talleys are ok if they don't break.

Everyone is going to come on here and bitch about me hating on Talley. I think they are ok rings, and they are very pretty. I don't like the looks of the vertical rings, but I love the way the ultra lights look. I just don't trust them.

Huge fan of 1913 rails.

When tightened, the fasteners will easily bend any 1 piece rail I’ve ever used to match the reciever. Proper bedding will solve this however.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[c1steve]

That is what I do, bed the rail to the action using blue locktite. When that cures, tighten the mounting screws to the final torque. I made sure no locktite was attached to the screws during the bedding, but for the final torque I added locktite.

 

[bigmike23]

Lapping assumes a false premise. It presumes that either your action or rings are incorrectly machined from the factory, which just isn't the case 99% of the time. I've never seen a circumstance which requires rings to be lapped. It's just an extra way someone has found that departes you from your money

 

[RockAndSage]

Lapping assumes a false premise. It presumes that either your action or rings are incorrectly machined from the factory, which just isn't the case 99% of the time. I've never seen a circumstance which requires rings to be lapped. It's just an extra way someone has found that departes you from your money

Sorry man, but this is just flat wrong. When you get multiple surfaces, even "precision" - genuine precision - has variances and tolerances that stack, resulting in rings that are not aligned properly. It's almost impossible for it not to happen.

So, here's a challenge - go out and buy any set of rings and a base for any rifle you'd like, mount them up on it, and then show us photos with a ring-alignment tool that you didn't need to lap it.

 

[bigmike23]

Sorry man, but this is just flat wrong. When you get multiple surfaces, even "precision" - genuine precision - has variances and tolerances that stack, resulting in rings that are not aligned properly. It's almost impossible for it not to happen.

So, here's a challenge - go out and buy any set of rings and a base for any rifle you'd like, mount them up on it, and then show us photos with a ring-alignment tool that you didn't need to lap it.

Sorry lad, you've been had by the industry. I've mounted Talley rings, Weaver, Burris, Leupold, and a few others in my time. Which was the best? None of them. They all mounted scopes for me, friends, and family members without fail. Watch this first then respond to me.

 

[gbflyer]

Get yourself a piece of 1” W1 drill rod that’s 14” long or so, pretend it’s a scope and mount it up using the method in the YouTube above. Then take the caps off and see if the rod pulls out cleanly without a “pop”. Repeat on several different receivers and report back.

 

[Shortschaf]

Sorry lad, you've been had by the industry. I've mounted Talley rings, Weaver, Burris, Leupold, and a few others in my time. Which was the best? None of them. They all mounted scopes for me, friends, and family members without fail. Watch this first then respond to me.

Yes, it's fairly unproven whether or not lapping actually improves anything of measure 99% of the time.

But that is not the topic of conversation. The topic is that even high end rings get increased contact surface with the scope via lapping.

The point that lapping increases surface contact between scope and rings is not a false premise

 

[CampSmith]

Yes, it's fairly unproven whether or not lapping actually improves anything of measure 99% of the time.

But that is not the topic of conversation. The topic is that even high end rings get increased contact surface with the scope via lapping.

The point that lapping increases surface contact between scope and rings is not a false premise

Yes it absolutely increases contact surface between the scope and rings. But also removes stress that misaligned rings can put on the scope tube and receiver.