Do you lap your scope rings?

[Rule 303]

My one-piece bases are semi-rail. Any Weaver style claw ring will attach. The bases are machined from one straight piece of metal. Really pretty much impossible that rings of same make will not line up perfectly. Same rings front and back sit on a single continuous piece of metal. How could they not be in perfect alignment? Maybe not "classic" looking but it works flawlessly.

Lapping is not only to align rings but mainly to smooth them out so no damage to the scope. Most rings will not be totally smooth, this can reduce the friction surface area. Scope might not move but some points of the scope are then under greater pressure from the rings.
I have had scopes marked by rings on a several occasions.

Re Leupold, I have had to lap a few of their rings for a more consistent grip. If the rings have been lapped and the scope can move, use a little araldite/super glue. Have seen this done and it works. Not sure about taking the scope out of the rings though.

 

[Hogpatrol]

If you use Burris Signature with inserts, no lapping necessary.

 

[gbflyer]

My one-piece bases are semi-rail. Any Weaver style claw ring will attach. The bases are machined from one straight piece of metal. Really pretty much impossible that rings of same make will not line up perfectly. Same rings front and back sit on a single continuous piece of metal. How could they not be in perfect alignment? Maybe not "classic" looking but it works flawlessly.

There is no one piece mount in the world, that is man portable anyway, that will resist the force of its fasteners bending it to fit the action, or make up for misaligned holes.

 

[gbflyer]

If you use Burris Signature with inserts, no lapping necessary.

I like those a lot too.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

There is no one piece mount in the world, that is man portable anyway, that will resist the force of its fasteners bending it to fit the action, or make up for misaligned holes.

That is why, if you look, you can see that the screws are not snuggly fit in the holes in the bases. Allows for some lack of precision of holes drilled in receiver. Actually, both rails for both my guns had some issues with that. Forward holes in the Springfield were placed poorly when the gun was sporterized. I'm not sure there is even a prescribed location for forward 2-piece base and its screw holes (rear base is attached with one screw through center of military rear sight dovetail behind the loading/ejection port). I was compelled to drill a new hole in the 1-piece semi-rail to avoid drilling two new holes in receiver. One screw forward and one screw aft holding a steel rail is certainly strong enough to keep a scope stable on 30-06. The two screw holes forward on the 404 Mauser receiver were not a perfect match to the Weaver 1-piece base. I used a fine carbide Dremel bit to reshape the one base hole ever so slightly. Just checked both mounted bases with a straitedge top and sides. If there's any twist, it is microscopic. They are both straight and true.

 

[dogcat1]

Not anymore. Want to buy my Wheeler lapping stuff???

 

[gbflyer]

That is why, if you look, you can see that the screws are not snuggly fit in the holes in the bases. Allows for some lack of precision of holes drilled in receiver. Actually, both rails for both my guns had some issues with that. Forward holes in the Springfield were placed poorly when the gun was sporterized. I'm not sure there is even a prescribed location for forward 2-piece base and its screw holes (rear base is attached with one screw through center of military rear sight dovetail behind the loading/ejection port). I was compelled to drill a new hole in the 1-piece semi-rail to avoid drilling two new holes in receiver. One screw forward and one screw aft holding a steel rail is certainly strong enough to keep a scope stable on 30-06. The two screw holes forward on the 404 Mauser receiver were not a perfect match to the Weaver 1-piece base. I used a fine carbide Dremel bit to reshape the one base hole ever so slightly. Just checked both mounted bases with a straitedge top and sides. If there's any twist, it is microscopic. They are both straight and true.

Good work, you did what you had to do there.

Heres what I generally do to one that doesn’t have serious mount to receiver fit up issues:

Use an appropriate diameter W1 drill rod about 12” long or so when mounting a scope, and pretend it’s the scope. Mount and torque. Remove top caps. If it hangs up or “snaps” when I remove it, it’s stressed. Lap to 75% contact, and mount scope. This also eliminates those “slight ring marks” on those used scopes we see in the classifieds. lol.

Like I said before, folks can lap rings or not, it’s their scope not mine. When I put a scope on a rifle I’m going to be installing as stress free as I can.

 

[Stompbox]

.


I have friends who work for three different US optics companies and they all say that one of the biggest reasons that scopes get return for issues all comes down to how the scope is attached to the firearm. Rings that are either out of line or are grossly over torqued cause the majority of the issues they have to deal with. All of them stress the importance of having the rings lined up so that they're not putting any undue pressure on the optic.

Anytime I use a two piece base setup such as the Leupold standard or Redfield style I will always lap the rings in or I feel a better option is to purchase the Burris signature rings that have the inserts in them that self align everything without lapping, plus they keep your scope from getting marred up.

I have lapped a lot of rings over the years and have come to the point that I will never mount a scope on a Ruger #1 or 77 without lapping the Ruger rings. The Ruger rings are just cast and they are so out of line it's not even funny. One of my best friends worked at Ruger in the repair department for years and said that their nickname for the Ruger rings were the "Ruger scope wreckers". They had special fixtures made so that they could machine them properly when customers sent them back, which is something they probably should have done before they packaged them to ship them out. I have found if I use the Leupold Ruger rings, they lap much easier than the Ruger rings do.

I have a two year degree in tool and die making and a two year degree in gunsmithing and I know how much manufacturing tolerances and error there can be in different receivers and bases and rings. If you end up going through enough guns, as some of us do, you will run into plenty of instances where you need to lap to keep everything true and to minimize the chance of damaging your optics.

I think this is one of those things that the majority of shooters and hunters don't really understand and much like most car owners, can't change their own oil.