- Thread starter JOrisman
- Start date
D
Deleted member 113831
Guest
It depends. If you are using two piece bases, then absolutely. If you are using a straight pic rail on a straight action, and your rings are either line bored pairs or a one piece mount, then maybe not.
Kinda agree with Skookum. I hate ring marks on my scopes, so most times I will lightly lap the bottom rings even if they are going on a pic rail. I will lightly run a fine file around the edges of the top portion of the rings, again, just to keep from scratching the scope body. For a two piece base, I'd say "yes" - for quality rings going on a 1 piece rail - maybe not so much.
There have been a lot of prior threads about this. Consensus is coming around to saying "no". I'm an old timer and come from the days of Leupold MK IV seperate rings and two piece bases. In those days, you lapped and it was generally necessary (because of sitting on R700 actions).
Nowdays, with modern CNC machining repeatability and one piece bases, it really doesn't seem to be necessary. I purchased a QD one piece mount from a very reputable manufacturer a couple of years ago. Popular opinion was that no, I didn't need to lap. I thought, OK, all the arguements against lapping seem credible, but I'm going to go ahead and lap, just to see what the fitment really is. After a short time lapping, I looked at the fitment and concluded that no, it really hadn't been necessary. But, I did it to satisfy my curiousity. I would be hard pressed to think about lapping the rings in a one piece mount. Individual rings and bases are a different matter though. What many people seem to lose track of is the possibility of mis-alingment (of two piece bases/rings) because of the action. Within reason, the only way to compensate for the mis-alignment is by lapping. I have standardized on Spuhr 4006 one piece mounts, have never lapped any of them and never will. The repeatability and consistency of modern CNC machining has gotten to the point where I just don't think it's necessary anymore (but, I had to prove it to myself)
Nowdays, with modern CNC machining repeatability and one piece bases, it really doesn't seem to be necessary. I purchased a QD one piece mount from a very reputable manufacturer a couple of years ago. Popular opinion was that no, I didn't need to lap. I thought, OK, all the arguements against lapping seem credible, but I'm going to go ahead and lap, just to see what the fitment really is. After a short time lapping, I looked at the fitment and concluded that no, it really hadn't been necessary. But, I did it to satisfy my curiousity. I would be hard pressed to think about lapping the rings in a one piece mount. Individual rings and bases are a different matter though. What many people seem to lose track of is the possibility of mis-alingment (of two piece bases/rings) because of the action. Within reason, the only way to compensate for the mis-alignment is by lapping. I have standardized on Spuhr 4006 one piece mounts, have never lapped any of them and never will. The repeatability and consistency of modern CNC machining has gotten to the point where I just don't think it's necessary anymore (but, I had to prove it to myself)
If you feel like you need to lap your rings, get rid of them and buy better rings.
It's more trouble than it's worth.
It's more trouble than it's worth.
Awesome man! Much appreciated
buy quality rings and stop wasting time . get out and shoot more rather then stroking alloy.
The whole Lapping mentality for me comes from the Benchrest / Fclass Crowd ,
Buy Spuhr , ARC, Nightforce , Seekins, Era-tac , Badger Etc and you wont have an issue .
The whole Lapping mentality for me comes from the Benchrest / Fclass Crowd ,
Buy Spuhr , ARC, Nightforce , Seekins, Era-tac , Badger Etc and you wont have an issue .
Lapping Talley Hunting rings makes sense but to lap NF or Badger rings is a bit OCD. Too each their own though.
Always have ran Larue without issues...lots of guys here don't seem to like them tho. Buy higher end rings, have no problems and never look back.
for what you are going to spend on a lapping kit.....you could have just bought better rings to begin with.....
in general......if you are spending $100 on rings....they dont need to be lapped.
mount good rings to a good rail and youll be all set.
i had a set of badgers that i lapped......only did enough to remove the finish, saw i was getting 90% contact......havent lapped a set of rings since.
in general......if you are spending $100 on rings....they dont need to be lapped.
mount good rings to a good rail and youll be all set.
i had a set of badgers that i lapped......only did enough to remove the finish, saw i was getting 90% contact......havent lapped a set of rings since.
Doesn’t matter how perfectly machined your rings are if they’re being bolted to pic rail that is being distorted by imperfect factory receiver scope mount threading. Four #6 screws can most definitely distort even a HD steel pic rail. There is a reason nearly every builder will blueprint a production receiver before they build on them.
Obviously if you’re properly bedding your rail, or working with a custom action, the above may not apply. But I would never generically say there’s no need to lap rings without considering the whole system.
Obviously if you’re properly bedding your rail, or working with a custom action, the above may not apply. But I would never generically say there’s no need to lap rings without considering the whole system.
If that's the problem then spend the money and get your receiver trued up. Don't take a set of concentrically machines rings and lap them out of whack to match a poorly drilled receiver.
This is 2018 and lapping rings is retarded.
Precision rifles and gear need no lapping.
If I have a cheap hunting rifle, I am starting to bed rings, because junk is gonna be out of square and out of true. Lapping is such a pain.
I have never lapped my rings. I have never sunk so much money into a scope that a small mark might cause me trepidation. IMHO, wear marks show character.
Greg
Greg
How would you know if your receiver is a few thousands off? The potential issues rest in the unknowns, not the knowns.
If the rail is integral to the receiver then it should be good to go but if you are installing a rail on a 700 receiver trued or not it will never match perfectly.
not needed with quality rings.
The solution to the rail on the 700 (or any other receiver whose absolutely precise dimensions you may doubt) is to bed the rail to the receiver. It's not hard and it goes a long way toward taming mechanical distortion in the mounting system.
Also, with a little ingenuity, one can actually use the bedding process to customize the rail slope, providing optimal elevation and windage to keep the image at the midrange of scope adjustment.
Greg
Also, with a little ingenuity, one can actually use the bedding process to customize the rail slope, providing optimal elevation and windage to keep the image at the midrange of scope adjustment.
Greg
I've been buying USO, Loopy MkIV, and Nightforce rings and parking them on top of everything from CZ452's, up to Tactical Operations Tangos and Deltas. I've always bolted them down at the same time with a precision alignment bar, as well as very lightly lapped them. My reasoning behind putting in this extra effort has nothing to do with marks on a scope, but I've never had a scope get marked up while these methods. I've removed scopes and sold them with the buyer asking if it was ever mounted to a rifle at all.
Whether it's needed or not on high-end rings parked on a precise base is subjective and ultimately up to the end user. I do it, and will continue to do so even though I understand that fastener torque and the correct securement of the scope to the receiver is more important than a perfect alignment of the base. Eliminating a few tiny, tiny errors will result in no accumulation of error.
Whether it's needed or not on high-end rings parked on a precise base is subjective and ultimately up to the end user. I do it, and will continue to do so even though I understand that fastener torque and the correct securement of the scope to the receiver is more important than a perfect alignment of the base. Eliminating a few tiny, tiny errors will result in no accumulation of error.
I do this as well.
