Lapping "High end" scope rings?

[SDHNTR]

But, does it matter to the end result?

If I can drop my scope and rifle 9 times (3 on each turret) from 3 feet without a zero shift, what would lapping add? For me it sounds like chasing dust, or pole vaulting mouse turds. If someone can show me direct evidence that it makes a meaningful difference in shotting when applied to scopes I can drop, I'll consider it.


Yeah, that makes lapping a hard no for me. That is a massive down side.

A pinched or twisted scope tube and a resulting bound up erector due to a mis aligned receiver hole is something totally different from a drop tested scope.

 

[SDHNTR]

I moved scopes from one rifle to another just last week, it took less than 5 minutes because the scopes remained in the rings and all I needed was a torque wrench and I don't have to go drop the rifles again to check that the rings don't slip. Lapping removes functionality for me.


This misses the entire point; but, I've had no issues using Sportsmatch or SWFA rings without lapping, so I'm not sure the cost of the rings matters to if lapping is needed when a properly built scope is used. Isn't the whole argument of this thread that lapping is needed regardless of ring cost anyway?


Do Vortex scopes routinely hold zero with being dropped from 3 feet 9 times? I've had no issues with crushed tubs on NF x1, S&B x1, Weaver x1, and SWFA x2 using rings ranging in cost from $30 dollars to $170 mounted on a Kimber, a Sako, various pic rails, and Tikka rails.

I get the theory, I see no outcomes driven data that the theory holds up at the point the metal meets the meat.

Again, lapping rings has little to do with the rings themselves.

 

[RockAndSage]

A pinched or twisted scope tube and a resulting bound up erector due to a mid aligned receiver hole is something totally different from a drop tested scope.

Bound up erector, along with parallax distortion, tracking inconsistencies, and internal erector wear and diminished lifespan from unintended stresses, amongst other problems people "never have a problem with".

 

[Marbles]

Again, lapping rings has little to do with the rings themselves.

This has become jousting with windmills, and I suspect you did not really read what I wrote; but for you and @RockAndSage as he liked the quoted post, I will try to lay it out very simply.

I only mount rings on rails (pic or integrated dovetail).
--> I like to move scopes between rifles
--> Lapping means the rings must stay with the rail/action
--> This means to swap scopes between rifles I must pull the scope from the rings, then remount it in new rings.
--> Mounting a scope in rings is more time consuming than simply pulling the rings from the rail.
--> Ergo I prefer rings to stay with a scope and not with a given rail/action

 

[SDHNTR]

This has become jousting with windmills, and I suspect you did not really read what I wrote; but for you and @RockAndSage as he liked the quoted post, I will try to lay it out very simply.

I only mount rings on rails (pic or integrated dovetail).
--> I like to move scopes between rifles
--> Lapping means the rings must stay with the rail/action
--> This means to swap scopes between rifles I must pull the scope from the rings, then remount it in new rings.
--> Mounting a scope in rings is more time consuming than simply pulling the rings from the rail.
--> Ergo I prefer rings to stay with a scope and not with a given rail/action

I get it. You aren’t wrong. I prefer the ability to do that too, but only when everything sets up true. If I have to lap rings to make true, that scope just got married to that gun.

 

[Marbles]

A pinched or twisted scope tube and a resulting bound up erector due to a mis aligned receiver hole is something totally different from a drop tested scope.

Here is my answer (quoting to show that I'm not making the concept up)

As a general rule, the lighter or cheaper the scope, the more this issue of ring alignment matters. It didn't matter as much, decades ago, when scopes were made of steel or had thicker walls.

Scopes that survive drops tend to have thicker tubes. A common complaint is the weight of those scopes.

Show me were S&B, NF, or SWFA talk about crushed tubes being a common issue and I will reconsider. The last set of NF ultralight 4 screw rings I had specifically said do not lap ("alter") the rings and that the caps could be torqued to 25 in-lbs.

I don't save packaging, but here is a picture taken from this listing https://www.sportoptics.com/nightforce-x-treme-duty-ultralite-30mm-ring-set-a678.html

 

[SDHNTR]

Again, you aren’t wrong. A thick walled tube is definitely better and more resistant to induced stress from misalignment. But that same thick walled scope tube with no stress is even more gooder, imo. And on the margins, yeah, we’re probably splitting hairs. But then there’s that one receiver that’s way out of whack. Sounds like you haven’t seen that yet. I have. Off memory, I’ve seen multiple Remingtons screwy, a Winny, a Howa, and two Savages out off whack, one so bad it had to have the factory holes brazed over and re d/t’d.

And FWIW, I’m pretty sure all scope ring manufacturers these days have a similar warning not to lap. If it’s needed, I ignore it. Heck, even Talleys, which are never round, say not to lap. I do it anyway.

 

[RockAndSage]

Here is my answer (quoting to show that I'm not making the concept up)


Scopes that survive drops tend to have thicker tubes. A common complaint is the weight of those scopes.

Show me were S&B, NF, or SWFA talk about crushed tubes being a common issue and I will reconsider. The last set of NF ultralight 4 screw rings I had specifically said do not lap ("alter") the rings and that the caps could be torqued to 25 in-lbs.

I don't save packaging, but here is a picture taken from this listing https://www.sportoptics.com/nightforce-x-treme-duty-ultralite-30mm-ring-set-a678.html
View attachment 729993

Have you ever even lapped a set of rings?

More importantly, have you ever mounted enough sets and lapped them, to the point where you actually found a set that turned out not to need lapping, based off of the results of you just not seeing any high spots or out-of-true angles?

Did you miss multiple posts here of guys saying their bases were out of true, automatically making the rings not true too?

I mean, congratulations, you have established you buy expensive, smart stuff - that doesn't mean you're immune to any of the problems discussed here. Just less likely to experience serious problems. That's all it means. Less. Not immune. And certainly not immune enough to be arguing with several people who have mounted and lapped multiple sets of expensive rings and bases and keep telling you the more sets they do, the more they just rarely or never find a set that didn't need to be lapped.

 

[Marbles]

Have you ever even lapped a set of rings?

Have you ever welded a scope in the rings? It works great, and if you have not, well you cannot tell me it is a bad idea.

More importantly, have you ever mounted enough sets and lapped them, to the point where you actually found a set that turned out not to need lapping, based off of the results of you just not seeing any high spots or out-of-true angles?

Did you miss multiple posts here of guys saying their bases were out of true, automatically making the rings not true too?

I have asked for evidence that it changes the outcome in question (field shooting accurately). You have provided none. Lots of theory, lots of finding rings out of true, but not objective data to show that correcting that "out of true" state made a verifiable difference.

I absolutely believe that people who check will find rings "out of true," I suspect that any such out of true on a rail is meaningless in all ways, except between the ears.

I mean, congratulations, you have established you buy expensive, smart stuff - that doesn't mean you're immune to any of the problems discussed here. Just less likely to experience serious problems. That's all it means. Less. Not immune. And certainly not immune enough to be arguing with several people who have mounted and lapped multiple sets of expensive rings and bases and keep telling you the more sets they do, the more they just rarely or never find a set that didn't need to be lapped.

You are missing the point completely, so I will say it again. I absolutely believe that if I bought a Wheeler kit, pulled my scopes and checked the rings they would show as out of true (both the cheap ones and the expensive ones because contrary to what you say above, I buy cheap stuff when I can). What I do not believe is that it matters. Once again, I'm not asking for the intermediary of finding the condition, I'm asking for objective, outcomes driven data to show that correcting the intermediary effects the outcomes I'm concerned with.

Theory must always bow to reality; reality never bows to theory. The OP demonstrates this nicely, he did not have problems with shooting when he did not check, but now that he checked he believes he needs to lap. That is a decision based on an intermediary, not the desired outcome.

If I tell you the valve stem caps on your tires must be tightened down fully to prevent air leaking, then you find loose valve stem caps and swear you will now check them before every drive, have you actually proven that they need to be tightened down fully?

 

[Marbles]

Again, you aren’t wrong. A thick walled tube is definitely better and more resistant to induced stress from misalignment. But that same thick walled scope tube with no stress is even more gooder, imo. And on the margins, yeah, we’re probably splitting hairs. But then there’s that one receiver that’s way out of whack. Sounds like you haven’t seen that yet. I have. Off memory, I’ve seen multiple Remingtons screwy, a Winny, a Howa, and two Savages out off whack, one so bad it had to have the factory holes brazed over and re d/t’d.

And FWIW, I’m pretty sure all scope ring manufacturers these days have a similar warning not to lap. If it’s needed, I ignore it. Heck, even Talleys, which are never round, say not to lap. I do it anyway.

I make no argument that there are times when lapping is needed. My threshold for needed is probably much higher than yours, but some of those examples you have seen sound like I would consider it needed (or some other fix).

 

[SDHNTR]

For those who think lapping is unnecessary…

 

[JGRaider]

Could be, one good reason why some scopes don't track or hold zero properly especially on mass produced rifles.

 

[Marshfly]

For those who think lapping is unnecessary…

I lap.

But those need to go in the trash.

 

[SDHNTR]

I lap.

But those need to go in the trash.

Again, it’s not about the rings. It rarely is!

 

[Marbles]

For those who think lapping is unnecessary…

Those pictures are a great example of poor mechanics. The ring screws are clearly loose and the heads are sitting above the ring cap. At least snug down the cap screws, I can see the gap created by the torque in the picture and effectively nothing is being checked in that image as this is like measuring a length of wood, but just throwing the tape down rather than hooking it on the end.

Lap the rings, then recheck them in the exact same way (loose caps and all).

Question, do you lap until the indicator bars align? Or do you just throw the indicators on, if off lap, then mount the scope and assume all is good?

 

[BULLBLASTER]

Guessing the bottom clamps are also loose as you can see the rings (both) tilted to the left at the top, likely making them look worse.

Also i thought this thread was about “high end” rings?

 

[Marbles]

Wheeler at least agrees with my off the cuff mechanical assessment, if the details matter, at least follow the instructions so you are doing what you think you are.

 

[SDHNTR]

You guys are seeing stuff that’s not there. The top caps in the before pic were just resting there. No screw torque at all. The bottom halves are torqued to spec. Just gravity holding the bars in place. The one piece lapping bar snapped into the lower halves before with obvious stress.

As for following directions, I pretty much am, with the exceptions of using shims. If I can fix the issue with some minor lapping, why on earth would I introduce another part and possible point of failure?

 

[SDHNTR]

For those that still want to argue…. This is after.

 

[SDHNTR]

You can see the wear pattern mid way through the process. When I first started, there was very little contact. Maybe 10-15%.