Bed or Lap Scope Rings?

[Rob01]

Both have gone the way of the dodo when using quality gear. Haven't lapped a ring in decades.

 

[DShortt]

So essentially you spend your money and trust that it's all done correctly.

Nothing wrong with that. I trust, but I also verify.

 

[JEFFPPC]

Never bed and never lap.

I never have either. What I have done for many years is put 1 layer of 3m masking tape on the bottom ring and have never had a scope slip. I guess you do,what you belive in but if your using s good product altering its dimensions never made sense to me.

 

[Bill Norris]

I never have either. What I have done for many years is put 1 layer of 3m masking tape on the bottom ring and have never had a scope slip. I guess you do,what you belive in but if your using s good product altering its dimensions never made sense to me.

Agree.

 

[ronemus]

Someone needs to explain to me how the Burris rings with the inserts are superior to lapping.

There are tolerances in any machining operation, and all of the components in a rifle system are imperfect; worse, the tolerances of the components stack, often producing eye-popping misalignments. Burris Signature rings allow the rifle system to be trued and the point of impact adjusted to the shooter's requirements, without any machining operations. The polymer inserts also grip the scope better than metal-on-metal without high compressive forces.

 

[DShortt]

There are tolerances in any machining operation, and all of the components in a rifle system are imperfect; worse, the tolerances of the components stack, often producing eye-popping misalignments. Burris Signature rings allow the rifle system to be trued and the point of impact adjusted to the shooter's requirements, without any machining operations. The polymer inserts also grip the scope better than metal-on-metal without high compressive forces.

I understand that idea except I disagree with the suggestion that the polymer grip is superior to metal to metal contact if the alignment and diameters are matched.

How is that superior to bedding the base/bases and lapping the rings?

Seems to me it basically amounts to just a method for compensation for machining/alignment errors. The easy way out so to speak.

 

[Rob01]

So essentially you spend your money and trust that it's all done correctly.

Nothing wrong with that. I trust, but I also verify.

When you are mounting a scope you can see if it’s done right or if there is an issue. Bedding a base is different than putting something between the scope and ring or taking out material in a quality machined ring. Factory bases do need bedding as the receivers are not machines as perfectly as customs.

 

[ronemus]

I understand that idea.

How is that superior to bedding the base/bases and lapping the rings?

Seems to me it basically amounts to just a method for compensation for machining/alignment errors. The easy way out so to speak.

The Signature rings are the easy button - no mess and no bother. Lapping and/or bedding will address some of the same issues with more work. It's up to the user how problems are addressed (or ignored). It's the owner's choice as to what is done (or not). Many of us have been highly satisfied with Signature rings, and prefer it vs. modifying rings and/or mounts. You can do it your way and I can do it mine. I just spread the word regarding my preferences.

 

[DShortt]

I see no consistency in the ideas presented on this forum oftentimes.

Great care is taken to ensure the barrel is machined as closely as perfect as possible and mated to the action with the same level of care. Then the stock is also mated to the action with the same attention to detail.

Ammunition is loaded with emphasis on consistency and many attempts are made to correct for possible problems.

Yet when it comes time to mount a scope we'll just use a system based on a flexible substance and presume it'll take care of any issues?

Yes, anyone can choose any system they choose. But if there is going to be a superiority claim I fail to understand how Burris rings meet that standard.

 

[DShortt]

I would add that buying a custom action, stock, barrel, scope base, rings, scope or any other component and using it without any verification of quality is a leap of faith. We're all human and we're going to make a mistake occasionally. I trust, but I also verify.

 

[BoydAllen]

I see no consistency in the ideas presented on this forum oftentimes.

Great care is taken to ensure the barrel is machined as closely as perfect as possible and mated to the action with the same level of care. Then the stock is also mated to the action with the same attention to detail.

Ammunition is loaded with emphasis on consistency and many attempts are made to correct for possible problems.

Yet when it comes time to mount a scope we'll just use a system based on a flexible substance and presume it'll take care of any issues?

Yes, anyone can choose any system they choose. But if there is going to be a superiority claim I fail to understand how Burris rings meet that standard.

I believe that the current IBS 600 yard benchrest light gun five shot group record (.336) was shot with a scope mounted in Burris rings with the inserts.

 

[BoydAllen]

I agree with Boyd. Someone needs to explain to me how the Burris rings with the inserts are superior to lapping. If you truly need the polymer inserts then that means something is misaligned. Either the base holes aren't in the proper place, the base/bases themselves are off, the rings are off, the action is off, the scope tube itself is off or there's a combination of problems.

One interesting thing that I thought about last evening is that the lapping bar is whatever diameter it was finished to. So that's the set diameter your rings will be lapped to.

So far as I know, no one is checking their scope tube diameter with a micrometer to see what the finished diameter is and if that diameter is consistent. I doubt steel rings in particular would conform to a scope tube with a different diameter, or at least not very much.

I'm sure the scope manufacturers will be thrilled if this idea gets going and I've no idea what such checking might show. I know I never bothered with it in the past.

Actually, I did not say they were superior, but they do have some advantages. Using offset inserts you can mount a scope so that when it is zeroed it is near its optical center, or if additional elevation range needed so that there is more adjustment available for longer distance shooting.

I once had a Savage 110 that was so crooked that it took .020 offset inserts mounted with their parting lines vertical with their offsets in opposite directions to set up the scope so that it required minimal adjustment from its center settings to zero. That is one of the major reasons that Burris came out with the rings in the first place.

Back in the day, the most common scopes had 1" tubes and when mounting them on factory actions they would sometimes not have enough adjustment to allow sighting of the rifle, or be near the extremes of their adjustments.

I was at the Shot Show that they were introduced at, at that event put on by Burris, and had the good fortune to sit at the same table as Jim Carmichael, who impressed me as much in person as he always has on a page. That was a looong time ago.

 

[AlNyhus]

So far as I know, no one is checking their scope tube diameter with a micrometer to see what the finished diameter is and if that diameter is consistent.

Really? Hard to imagine I'm the only one that checks scope tubes???

The reasons you rarely see Signature rings on real SR Benchrest rigs are:
- Weight (they are heavy)
- Not made for 'Davidson' style bases

The insert concept is good, though. I have two sets of Kelbly 30mm rings (single and double screw) that have 30mm-to-1.00" Delrin reducers. With those, both tube diameters can be swapped as needed. The inserts have a flange on one side that acts as a 'recoil lug'. They never move, nor do the scopes.

Maximizing contact area between bases/reciever and rings/scope tubes always pays dividends. Even with actions with integral rails and quality rings, lapping and bedding can give improvements. Eliminating scope damage from the rings is another upside to bedding them.

Good shootin' -Al

 

[Fuj]

I have enough other anal issues to deal with, that I just don't
waste my time. I do use Zeiss rings on a picatinny mount and
dust the rings with rosin before tightening. I would bed the
bases to the actions but don't even bother with that anymore.

 

[JFrank]

@BoydAllen what do you say to the LRBR hall of fame guys that don’t lap and have never lapped ?

 

[BoydAllen]

@BoydAllen what do you say to the LRBR hall of fame guys that don’t lap and have never lapped ?

....congratulations on their success. Seriously, what I see on these threads is a lot of fellows who have little to no experience with lapping or bedding opining, which is their perfect right. Generally, the amount of stress one might impart when mounting, using a one piece base that seems to fit perfectly on a custom action, or an integral base on a custom action, with high quality rings is likely to be minimal, but there are a lot of scopes mounted on factory actions, and when I see statements that one does not need to lap high quality rings, I know that many who are reading are likely working with factory actions, as I have. I have both. The smith that I choose to emulate laps and then beds. Have you read the section in Boyer's book about how he mounts his scopes? The competition that I look to for guidence is short range group, and within that, there are those that do and those that don't. The only way that I know of to actually know about how rings are aligned or how cylindrical they are after being mounted is to take a few strokes with a lap. Generally I use aluminum rings and doing that takes so little effort that I go ahead and perform that check so that I will know rather than assume. One of the very good things about our hobbies is that we get to choose how we do them.

 

[JFrank]

....congratulations on their success. Seriously, what I see on these threads is a lot of fellows who have little to no experience with lapping or bedding opining, which is their perfect right. Generally, the amount of stress one might impart when mounting, using a one piece base that seems to fit perfectly on a custom action, or an integral base on a custom action, with high quality rings is likely to be minimal, but there are a lot of scopes mounted on factory actions, and when I see statements that one does not need to lap high quality rings, I know that many who are reading are likely working with factory actions, as I have. I have both. The smith that I choose to emulate laps and then beds. Have you read the section in Boyer's book about how he mounts his scopes? The competition that I look to for guidence is short range group, and within that, there are those that do and those that don't. The only way that I know of to actually know about how rings are aligned or how cylindrical they are after being mounted is to take a few strokes with a lap. Generally I use aluminum rings and doing that takes so little effort that I go ahead and perform that check so that I will know rather than assume. One of the very good things about our hobbies is that we get to choose how we do them.

Thanks for the reply, topics like this are always interesting, there’s a lot of good information out there but Tony’s book I have not read. I like testing so maybe one day I’ll shoot a side by side before and after deal just for myself.
Thanks again
Jim
And just to be clear, I’m not advocating one way or the other I just find it interesting that each person is so adamant about their path.

 

[Mulligan]

6 Dasher, Bat 3LL, Bat rings (lapped), March HM 10-60.
We use heavy scopes, these rings were NOT bedded, they were only lapped. Torqued to 25 in/lbs, the scoped moved! They will be re-lapped and bedded soon.
CW

 

[Rob01]

If your scope is moving on a Dasher then you way overlapped.

 

[Mulligan]

If your scope is moving on a Dasher then you way overlapped.

There is really a lot more to this than size of the cartridge.
Scope night above bore, weight of scope, free recoil or some combination of touch/pressure, actual amount of surface contact between tube and rings, to name a few.
Regards
CW