Who can lap my scope rings

[42769vette]

I assumed based on Alan's response that was a thing of the past, and given modern manufacturing of higher quality rings, etc that may not be necessary.

So which is it? With quality components is there improvement to be made by lapping rings, etc.

I see Nate says but is doing no harm mean actually doing any good?

Its opinion so there is no "which is it"

In my experience with lapping, if its done correctly then the best case scenario is you do no harm, and no good. I see no point taking risk for no benefit.

That said, it depends on the components you use. There are still rings/bases on the market that do benefit from lapping. I just see no point in buying those rings and bases.

 

[WebSnyper]

Its opinion so there is no "which is it"

In my experience with lapping, if its done correctly then the best case scenario is you do no harm, and no good. I see no point taking risk for no benefit.

That said, it depends on the components you use. There are still rings/bases on the market that do benefit from lapping. I just see no point in buying those rings and bases.

Makes sense and kind of where I was at (buying quality components in the beginning) which should reduce, if not eliminate, the need to "smooth out the high spots" if you will.

I also get the matter of opinion as well.

 

[natdscott]

It should be made abundantly clear that Alan and I have no irreconcilable differences.

My preference towards lapping, bedding, etc. is twofold. First, I want as much contact as I can practically achieve between my optic and the ring, and I want that union to be stress-free. SECOND, I want my scopes NOT to have ring marks when I take them out of the rings.

The first portion can be made true by close machining, but my opinion is that until you are at a level like Kelbly, on a Kelbly rail, on a benchrest receiver...tolerance stacking does not often allow for a stress-free alignment. The only exception to that has been when I epoxy bed a known-good base to a questionable receiver. The stress there is taken up by the epoxy. Works well.

The second portion of my preferences above can really only be achieved by either epoxy bedding, or by using Burris signature rings. The epoxy approach is pretty damned effective, and having used numerous pairs of the Burris rings, I can affirm that they are as well.

Mr. phylodog, I sincerely appreciate the confidence. As we've discussed before, it's well and truly a matter of personal pride.

-Nate

 

[42769vette]

It should be made abundantly clear that Alan and I have no irreconcilable differences.


-Nate

Absolutely not. Agree to disagree, and move on down to the important things like Glock vs MP, and 9mm vs 40 vs 45

 

[WebSnyper]

It should be made abundantly clear that Alan and I have no irreconcilable differences.

My preference towards lapping, bedding, etc. is twofold. First, I want as much contact as I can practically achieve between my optic and the ring, and I want that union to be stress-free. SECOND, I want my scopes NOT to have ring marks when I take them out of the rings.

The first portion can be made true by close machining, but my opinion is that until you are at a level like Kelbly, on a Kelbly rail, on a benchrest receiver...tolerance stacking does not often allow for a stress-free alignment. The only exception to that has been when I epoxy bed a known-good base to a questionable receiver. The stress there is taken up by the epoxy. Works well.

The second portion of my preferences above can really only be achieved by either epoxy bedding, or by using Burris signature rings. The epoxy approach is pretty damned effective, and having used numerous pairs of the Burris rings, I can affirm that they are as well.

Mr. phylodog, I sincerely appreciate the confidence. As we've discussed before, it's well and truly a matter of personal pride.

-Nate

Understood as well, and wasn't trying to create any friction. Just interested in getting more info on the differing opinions and you guys supplied that. Apologies if it came out that way initially.

I sold off my bolt gun a few years ago and haven't been in the bench gun/seeking super tight groups area of the hobby for a while, and was interested in how things/opinions had changed in this area, so this thread grabbed my attention.

Thanks guys

 

[42769vette]

Understood as well, and wasn't trying to create any friction.

You absolutely caused no friction what so ever bud.

 

[ckyoursix]

Have a set of scopes rings I would like to use. They have a velvet like tape on the inside. What is the reason for this. Is it to mask any imperfections from the machining process.

 

[leftyM4]

You might look into dnz products. I use them on all my hunting rifles they are drilled and milled from 1 pc of aluminum. look them up and read about them These do not require lapping. I put my lapping tool on them to double check and they are near if not perfect. I think they would be a bigger better known brand but maybe lack that bend over backward customer service that some guys get spoiled by with other companies like getting hit with a restocking fee for accidently buying the wrong size. But they do make great products.

 

[Dead Duck]

Who can lap my scope rings

 

[Sigblitz]

I followed this thread and at the time I didn't have an opinion either way. Now I'm in favor of lapping in some cases.
If I had an expensive scope and wanted to keep it nice, I would want to lap the rings to be sure there's no burrs. If I removed a scope and it's evident there wasn't a lot of contact, I would lap. If I'm mounting a scope and the tips of the ring alignment bars weren't touching, I would lap. It gives the rings more contact on the scope, ensures the rings are aligned to each other, and protects the finish on the scope.
If I had good rings and the ring alignment checked out, I would skip it.

 

[Twangbanger]

I followed this thread and at the time I didn't have an opinion either way. Now I'm in favor of lapping in some cases.
If I had an expensive scope and wanted to keep it nice, I would want to lap the rings to be sure there's no burrs. If I removed a scope and it's evident there wasn't a lot of contact, I would lap. If I'm mounting a scope and the tips of the ring alignment bars weren't touching, I would lap. It gives the rings more contact on the scope, ensures the rings are aligned to each other, and protects the finish on the scope.
If I had good rings and the ring alignment checked out, I would skip it.

This sounds like an intelligent approach.

Newbies just need to understand what lapping does, and what it doesn't. Leveling rings is not for fixing alignment problems to the gun bore itself, gaining back adjustment range on your scope, etc. If you lap rings that are misaligned to the bore, you would probably still have a misaligned scope resting in a really nice flat bed. It would be like trying to align your car with the driveway by sanding some bondo off one side. If you're using a "free running" hand tool, you're not really fixing axis alignment.

Of course if you had a way to mount the rifle _and_ rings in a machine, indicate off the bore axis, then lap the rings based on that, you could in theory correct ring alignment to the bore and all would be good. But that's not what the hand-lapping tool you're going to buy from Brownell's is going to do. You might reduce binding and marring of the scope, but the actual alignment to bore may or may not change - and could even get worse, depending which way lapping moves the centerline.