Quality rings. To lap or not to lap? That is the question

[Mako]

OK. So I know I will likely get flamed for this question as it has been asked many times, but I'm pretty new at this and I figure new posts are what keep a forum going, so what the heck?

I mounted and sighted in my first scope several months ago. It was a Leupold scope, and I used Leupold rings. I didn't lap the rings mainly because I've read that with modern technology and machining processes it's not necessary and blah, blah, blah... I haven't had issues with that rifle and scope and am ringing steel out to 400 yards, so maybe I got lucky and got perfectly, or near perfectly concentric rings. I also watched a video on YT by GunBlue490, whom I have a lot of respect for, and he advised against it as well saying it's not necessary if you use quality rings. After learning more about rings and bases and reviewing his video again, it looks like he was using Warne and Badger Ordnance rings. From what I've read, they (Warne and Badger) specifically advise against lapping. What about Leupold rings, are they considered good quality? What are some other manufacturers besides Warne, Badger, and Seekins that offer good quality rings that don't require lapping, and what are your experiences with them?

I'm not opposed to lapping. As a former mechanic I'm very handy with tools and am always eager to use my tools and try new things as I'm sure most everyone on this forum is. Who doesn't jump at the chance to play with their tools and guns? It's just that I have only two rifles and don't want to end up with a scope lapping and mounting kit that I will only use once and then put on a shelf to collect dust, or sell at a loss. I would gladly pay extra for rings that are precision machined in the first place.

What say all of you?

 

[noharleyyet]

Precise rings can be mitigated by imprecise receiver taps...I use the wheeler alignment points and proceed accordingly.

 

[Bigjay73]

I'll agree unless they're vertically split rings, which I've never personally used anyways. I'll lap all horizontal rings

 

[fachries]

I'll agree unless they're vertically split rings, which I've never personally used anyways. I'll lap all horizontal rings

+1

 

[WapitiBob]

A .0001 ring bore tolerance doesn't mean much once those rings are cut and individually mounted to a base, which is screwed down to a receiver. The reason you lap after mounting is to regain bore concentricity. There's no way to maintain that bore concentricity between both rings when you have multiple parts being screwed together. For a 1 piece ring set, "most" are concentric out of the pkg but bolting down to a factory receiver that's seen the scotch brite wheel can tweak the rings out of alignment. For two piece ring sets with individual bases, you can keep them concentric by lightly snugging them around a lapping bar (or your scope tube), mounting that assy to the bases, then bedding that base/ring assembly to the gun.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

I agree with the above advice, if you put alignment points in and they indicate misalignment, lap them.

 

[Mako]

A .0001 ring bore tolerance doesn't mean much once those rings are cut and individually mounted to a base, which is screwed down to a receiver. The reason you lap after mounting is to regain bore concentricity. There's no way to maintain that bore concentricity between both rings when you have multiple parts being screwed together. For a 1 piece ring set, "most" are concentric out of the pkg but bolting down to a factory receiver that's seen the scotch brite wheel can tweak the rings out of alignment. For two piece ring sets with individual bases, you can keep them concentric by lightly snugging them around a lapping bar (or your scope tube), mounting that assy to the bases, then bedding that base/ring assembly to the gun.

I agree with the above advice, if you put alignment points in and they indicate misalignment, lap them.

I think I'm going to just get a mounting kit and lap them. I had purchased the Leupold QR base and ring set for both rifles, so I'm already invested. At this point it would be far less expensive to buy the lapping/mounting kit for ~$40 than to spend another ~$300 for new rings and bases for each rifle from Warne or one of the other "high end" ring manufacturers. Not to mention selling the Leupold's at a loss, and that's if I'm even able to sell them. I originally bought the Leupold set-up, not just for the QR feature, but because I really liked their single screw rings; they have a clean, simple, classic look to them that I really like.

You guys have experience with the Wheeler kit? I'm reading mixed reviews on them. How about the Sinclair or Weaver kits? Seems they are more pricey, but also seems they are higher quality. Maybe I can score a used one on Ebay for a decent price.

 

[HiMtnHntr]

I have a wheeler kit. The levels it comes with are marginally useful, but it's the only kit I've ever used and I don't use it very often. It will tell you whether or not your rings are aligned and the lapping tools seem of good quality. The torque wrench works well.

 

[Tjay]

I have been mounting scopes on rifle since 1965. I have never had a problem or lapped any rings. If you feel the need go for it.

 

[rmagnus]

My expierence has been like Tjay but not quite as long (lol). For me in 1965 not many 9 year olds were out hunting with centerfire rifles. Never lapped rings but have always used quality steel rings. You can also use Game Repaer one piece rings for your Tikka. If it’s a 30mm tube the part number you want is 28550. One piece reduces alignment errors.

I’ve read Leupold new rings the ones with ridges inside the ring doesn’t need lapping. Personally I’ve used Warren or Weaver two piece rings w/o issues but there are many good ring choices.

I’m not a bench rest shooter just use rifles for hunting and my distances are usually 200 yards or less. My archery hunting has reduced my rifle distances.

 

[antelopedundee]

I've been told that using a Picatinny rail obviates the need to lap your rings.

 

[1_pointer]

I've been told that using a Picatinny rail obviates the need to lap your rings.

Why would that be different than for any other style of base?

To the OP, I've never lapped rings and I've not had any slip enough to cause problems nor am I bother by some ring marks.

 

[antelopedundee]

Why would that be different than for any other style of base?

To the OP, I've never lapped rings and I've not had any slip enough to cause problems nor am I bother by some ring marks.

Because the rings won't be out of alignment and that would be true even if the holes in the receiver are out of alignment. With a 2 piece base setup there is always a chance of mis-aligned rings. As far as ring marks I sort of agree, but when you go to sell one you'll find that some folks are a lot more persnickety about them than are other folks.

 

[Mako]

Why would that be different than for any other style of base?

To the OP, I've never lapped rings and I've not had any slip enough to cause problems nor am I bother by some ring marks.

I'm going to hold off on ordering a lapping kit for now. I actually called Leupold and they told me that it has been several years now that they have been advising against lapping, due to precision machining processes etc. I guess I will find out later this week (hopefully tonight if I have time). I'm going to remove my VX-R scope from my my 6.5 and install it on my .270. If I see any kind of dents/creases or finish wear in the ring areas, I guess I will know for sure.

 

[44hunter45]

Minute alignment issues magnify over longer ranges. I can see a 1000-yd benchrest shooter is going to lap everything and a northwoods hunter might not lap his Marlin 336.
The more money you spent on the scope and rifle, the cost of the lapping/reaming kit goes down in proportion. I have not lapped in my trusty VX-1, but have lapped in my VX-3s and Zeiss scopes.

 

[1_pointer]

Because the rings won't be out of alignment and that would be true even if the holes in the receiver are out of alignment. With a 2 piece base setup there is always a chance of mis-aligned rings. As far as ring marks I sort of agree, but when you go to sell one you'll find that some folks are a lot more persnickety about them than are other folks.

I can't imagine tightening a rail down tight enough to hold on a rifle on a receiver that is misaligned won't tweak it enough for the rings to be out of allignment.

 

[antelopedundee]

I can't imagine tightening a rail down tight enough to hold on a rifle on a receiver that is misaligned won't tweak it enough for the rings to be out of allignment.

You'd probably twist the screw heads off before you could tighten it enough to bend a Pic rail. At least that would confirm the situation. Whether it's worth the cost to remedy it after that, who knows. Frankly it would bother me that it wasn't right. OMMV.

 

[oxn939]

I'm going to hold off on ordering a lapping kit for now. I actually called Leupold and they told me that it has been several years now that they have been advising against lapping, due to precision machining processes etc. I guess I will find out later this week (hopefully tonight if I have time). I'm going to remove my VX-R scope from my my 6.5 and install it on my .270. If I see any kind of dents/creases or finish wear in the ring areas, I guess I will know for sure.

Especially if you have a mechanical background, a full scope mounting kit, including lapping hardware, is really almost essential. If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere between 40 and 50% of riflescopes are mounted with some substantive amount of misalignment- any time ring marks are more obvious on one side is an indication of this, and if you look for it, you'll start to see this more. Lapping really only corrects minor variations in alignment, but it does increase the amount of surface area contact between the rings and the scope body, which encourages longrange accuracy. I lap all the rings on all rifles I want to be more than 200 yard guns.

 

[antelopedundee]

I'm going to hold off on ordering a lapping kit for now. I actually called Leupold and they told me that it has been several years now that they have been advising against lapping, due to precision machining processes etc. I guess I will find out later this week (hopefully tonight if I have time). I'm going to remove my VX-R scope from my my 6.5 and install it on my .270. If I see any kind of dents/creases or finish wear in the ring areas, I guess I will know for sure.

That may be true with their rings and their base/s, but maybe not true with their rings someone else's base/s. Also they didn't drill and tap the rifle receiver.

 

[Mako]

That may be true with their rings and their base/s, but maybe not true with their rings someone else's base/s. Also they didn't drill and tap the rifle receiver.

My set ups for both my hunting rifles are all Leupold; Leupold two piece QR bases and rings. I leveled the rifle with a square with a bubble level across both bases after installing and individually with one of my Wheeler bubble levels. Everything looks square and lined up. I'm kind of surprised. This particular rifle is 50+ years old, so it was manufactured long before CNC processes for drilling/tapping for scope mounts. Installed the scope the other night and lined up the reticle, everything is nice and level, so hopefully all is well. No apparent damage to the scope after removing it from the rings for inspection. Guess I will find out when this Coronacrap is over and I can get it to the range to sight it in.