Who laps scope rings?

[jepp2]

I normally laps new scope rings for about 40% contact. With Warne rings I have not lapped. With the 30mm Leupold rings, I find I have the most contact at the top of the ring where the "L" is embossed in the ring, distorting the interior of the ring.

So, I am curious what your experience is? Do you lap all ring, no rings, what contact do your seek? I normally use 240 grit, but what do you use?

I'm trying to save time, and keep from creating ring marks on scopes. Yes, I do torque my base and ring screws (lubricant on the threads).

 

[Dgd6mm]

Hopefully someone that knows more then I will come along. I lap some rings and don't lap others, usually because I don't own the lapping kit, so I borrow from a friend. If I owned the kit I'd lap them all, including the one that says you don't need too. As far as contact goes, for some it is a personal preference but don't go too far, there is no putting metal back once taking off. I'm sure I will learn something from your thread. I put a drop of oil on each screw, then torque to spec, just the way I was taught. One thing I'm sure of, if done properly the scope will hold in the rings with no movement and when taking out of the rings no ring marks.


Don Dunlap

 

[BoydAllen]

For those situations where Burris Signature rings are not in the cards, I lap....primarily concentrating on the bottom halves of the rings, to at least 75% contact, with 100% in the center third of the ring. Because of this, I prefer aluminum rings. For the tops of the rings, I lap them by themselves figuring that they can tilt a little to fit the scope as long as they are cylindrical. Along with the lapping, I find that it is a good idea to slightly round the edges and corners that are in contact with the scope. The other issue is removing the lapping compound completely from the rings. For a first step, I find that a light gun oil works best, I work with this and paper towels until there is no more color showing on the towel. Then I wipe as much as I can off and switch to something that will evaporate after removing all of the oil residue. The oil does a better job of floating the lapping compound residue out of the texture that lapping created.

 

[Gary in MD]

Burris Signature rings -
No muss
No fuss
No ring marks
I haven't had any of a dozen or so scopes move when using them so far and no marks on the scopes when taken out of the rings.
I can't say the same for the rings that I used before the Signatures came out.
YMMV
Gary

 

[JRS]

Quality rings, properly installed, do not need to be lapped.

 

[BoydAllen]

Lapped a lot of quality rings have you? I have, and I disagree. Rings cannot make up for problems with how bases sit on the receiver. The only way that you know that a set of rings did not need lapping is to lightly lap them and look at the pattern in the rings that results. Anything else is just guessing and hoping.

 

[swd]

The best rings in the world can't fix a reciever that's not true or a base/rail that doesn't fit properly!

Quality rings, properly installed, do not need to be lapped.

 

[hogpatrol]

Lapping rings when there's another foolproof option out there? ARGGHHH! Bag phone anyone?

 

[BoydAllen]

Lapping rings when there's another foolproof option out there? ARGGHHH! Bag phone anyone?

Put a lot of Burris rings on Pandas have you? How about putting together a rifle where every ounce matters? Lapping is not all that difficult. If you want to read how a very serious shooter mounts scopes, you might want to buy a copy of Tony Boyer's book.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

I lap em all. Don't give a damn who makes them or how cheap/expensive they are. Burris Zee rings work well for straightening a scope on the rifle, but not to be trusted on high recoil hunting rifles or packing in the mountains where you could take a fall. They will not hold up on hard impact.

However, I also bed all my scope rings with JB weld so they make 100% contact no matter how imperfect they are. I have never had to adjust more than 1 MOA of windage on a scope after lapping and bedding. Then I can bore sight pre-bedding and calculate a shim for the rear to give me the proper elevation compensation I want.

If your receiver is crooked or warped, it would be very unwise to even mount a scope on it in the first place if it's a rifle that you want to be extremely accurate. Send it back to the manufacturer and get it replaced or use it for a plinking rifle. You can tell if there's a bad problem with your receiver as soon as you set the lapping bar in the rings and inspect the gaps with a light. You'll always have a little light shining through the gaps. It's up to you and your personal experience to know if the imperfections can be removed with a good lapping. 99% of the time you wont be able to fully lap out all of the imperfections for 100% contact and that's where the bedding comes into play.

 

[RustyMetal]

I check the rings for alignment, then lap the rings to about 75% with 220# (if needed), and once in a blue moon smooth that up 600#.

 

[hogpatrol]

Put a lot of Burris rings on Pandas have you? How about putting together a rifle where every ounce matters? Lapping is not all that difficult. If you want to read how a very serious shooter mounts scopes, you might want to buy a copy of Tony Boyer's book.

What's the date on that book? 2010? Some of us like to live in the past with old tech. I'm not one of them. We'll just have to disagree on this one. As they say, different strokes. YMMV.

Edit. As far as recoil, I use the Burris on a smokeless muzzleloader, 62 grains of H4198 pushing a 200 gr SST 2680 and this rifle has some serious recoil, similar to a 7RM and never had a problem with movement and this is shooting in a Lead Sled where there is little to no movement, a real pounding on scope and rings. Again, different strokes.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

For those situations where Burris Signature rings are not in the cards, I lap....primarily concentrating on the bottom halves of the rings, to at least 75% contact, with 100% in the center third of the ring. Because of this, I prefer aluminum rings. For the tops of the rings, I lap them by themselves figuring that they can tilt a little to fit the scope as long as they are cylindrical. Along with the lapping, I find that it is a good idea to slightly round the edges and corners that are in contact with the scope. The other issue is removing the lapping compound completely from the rings. For a first step, I find that a light gun oil works best, I work with this and paper towels until there is no more color showing on the towel. Then I wipe as much as I can off and switch to something that will evaporate after removing all of the oil residue. The oil does a better job of floating the lapping compound residue out of the texture that lapping created.

To remove the lapping compound residue, I've found that automotive air intake cleaner sprayed onto a shop towel works much better than any oils and it's a one step process. Cleans extremely well leaving absolutely nothing behind, evaporates quickly, and won't harm the finish on scope rings or scope bodies.

It also works the best for removing release agents like kiwi shoe polish after bedding scopes and actions. Most intake cleaners come with a nice long skinny straw if you wanna get it in tight spots. I also use it for cleaning gun parts like triggers and bolt bodies

 

[hogpatrol]

I lap em all. Don't give a damn who makes them or how cheap/expensive they are. Burris Zee rings work well for straightening a scope on the rifle, but not to be trusted on high recoil hunting rifles or packing in the mountains where you could take a fall. They will not hold up on hard impact.

However, I also bed all my scope rings with JB weld so they make 100% contact no matter how imperfect they are. I have never had to adjust more than 1 MOA of windage on a scope after lapping and bedding. Then I can bore sight pre-bedding and calculate a shim for the rear to give me the proper elevation compensation I want.

If your receiver is crooked or warped, it would be very unwise to even mount a scope on it in the first place if it's a rifle that you want to be extremely accurate. Send it back to the manufacturer and get it replaced or use it for a plinking rifle. You can tell if there's a bad problem with your receiver as soon as you set the lapping bar in the rings and inspect the gaps with a light. You'll always have a little light shining through the gaps. It's up to you and your personal experience to know if the imperfections can be removed with a good lapping. 99% of the time you wont be able to fully lap out all of the imperfections for 100% contact and that's where the bedding comes into play.

Ledd, you and I are on the same page about most things but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Here's an article on a Sako .338 Lapua using basically the same insert type rings as the Burris. As far as hard impact, I'm not sure any mount system would hold up to a good whack on the rocks while out hunting. And wouldn't the JB weld also crack if hit hard enough?

http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/gunweek069/

 

[BoydAllen]

What's the date on that book? 2010? Some of us like to live in the past with old tech. I'm not one of them. We'll just have to disagree on this one. As they say, different strokes. YMMV.

Who the heck are you to question Boyer's methods, based on what? Signature rings were introduced a long time before the book came out. Just what technology are you referring to that is newer than 2010? If you are going to discount the advice of someone, better to pick on someone who you shoot better than. Tony still shoots, and although he does not win as often as when he was younger, perhaps you might want to enlighten us about the matches in which you placed higher than he did.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Ledd, you and I are on the same page about most things but I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
Here's an article on a Sako .338 Lapua using basically the same insert type rings as the Burris. As far as hard impact, I'm not sure any mount system would hold up to a good whack on the rocks while out hunting. And wouldn't the JB weld also crack if hit hard enough?

http://www.accurateshooter.com/guns-of-week/gunweek069/

338 lapua with a suppressor or good muzzle brake recoils like a mild 270 winchester at best, maybe less. That's not heavy recoil. I have had much beefier 6 screw rings hold zero after hard impact a few times. I've used 2 screw rings in the past and I swear if you set your rifle down too hard they'll get knocked off. Lol. I've even seen twist in style leupold rings come apart under normal firing with medium recoil rifles a few different times (probably the worst rings ever made). Burris Zee rings are definitely a good ring but two screws isnt enough to make me warm and fuzzy while hiking. I will only use a good 4 screw ring at minimum

I've never seen JB weld crack on my rings. You would have to hit it so hard that you warp the rings and damage the scope body before the JB weld would crack.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Edit. As far as recoil, I use the Burris on a smokeless muzzleloader, 62 grains of H4198 pushing a 200 gr SST 2680 and this rifle has some serious recoil, similar to a 7RM and never had a problem with movement and this is shooting in a Lead Sled where there is little to no movement, a real pounding on scope and rings. Again, different strokes.

Im not trying to be a smart a** here. Just an honest question...

How is it that you feel the scope is under more stress of recoil when you are deadening all the recoil movement of the rifle with a Lead Sled?

 

[hogpatrol]

Im not trying to be a smart a** here. Just an honest question...

How is it that you feel the scope is under more stress of recoil when you are deadening all the recoil movement of the rifle with a Lead Sled?

None taken. My example was a rifle shot on a weighted down sled. It stops the rearward movement so basically the rifle is pounding the sled. This is with the sled weighted down with 50lbs plus of lead. I've seen two scopes fall apart on muzzleloaders when they were shot in a sled. The mounts held up though.

 

[hogpatrol]

Who the heck are you to question Boyer's methods, based on what? Signature rings were introduced a long time before the book came out. Just what technology are you referring to that is newer than 2010? If you are going to discount the advice of someone, better to pick on someone who you shoot better than. Tony still shoots, and although he does not win as often as when he was younger, perhaps you might want to enlighten us about the matches in which you placed higher than he did.

I can question anyone's methods I want. He's got his way, you got yours, I got mine. In my OPINION, lapping scope rings is old tech, and an anachronistic way of mounting a scope proffered when there was nothing else available. Does it work? Sure. Are there other options? Absolutely. Do they work just as well? Absolutely. Again, different strokes.

As far as name dropping, try this on for size. Gee, he used Burris Signature rings "with the inserts".

http://www.accurateshooter.com/competition/ohara-sets-1000-yard-ibs-agg-records/

 

[BoydAllen]

I can question anyone's methods I want. He's got his way, you got yours, I got mine. In my OPINION, lapping scope rings is old tech, and an anachronistic way of mounting a scope proffered when there was nothing else available. Does it work? Sure. Are there other options? Absolutely. Do they work just as well? Absolutely. Again, different strokes.

As far as name dropping, try this on for size. Gee, he used Burris Signature rings "with the inserts".

http://www.accurateshooter.com/competition/ohara-sets-1000-yard-ibs-agg-records/

Score (except for HBR) is shot with 13.5# rifles, group mostly with 10.5#. Added later: The weight limit for 1,000 yard light guns is 17#. The whole issue is weight. I do not think that you will find any truly competitive short range group shooter using Signature rings. My point was that you referred to Tony as if his methods are out of date, not that I believe that Signature rings are inferior. I use them where I can, and lap rings where I can't. If someone who did not know better, read your post he might think that Boyer's methods are out of date. They are not. Again, what is this new scope mounting technology that is newer that 2010? Top shooters generally do everything for a reason. Comparing what works well for 17# rifles to what is suitable for 10.5# rifles is a mistake. Insulting Boyer in the process compounded it.