Lapping Rings?

Originally Posted By: Smokin250I too am very curious on what high dollar rings would do this?

Pulled my XRS out of my seekins rings just this weekend and guess what?? Not so much as a mark on the rings.

To be brutally honest, I've had BO and NF leave ring marks before I lapped them, I can post pictures if you like, I can also show you how much more internal surface area is now touching the tube since I lapped them. I could give 2 poops about ring marks on my scope, that's the least of my worries and IMHO funny unless you plan on turning it over and the buyer is worried about it.

I personally like more surface area touching my scope, so that when 1/2 the year is spent outside beating the piss outta it, it has less chance of moving in the rings, OR maybe it's just for my piece of mind, and makes me think I can shoot better, so that I can actually shoot better??? That doesn't even make sense, kind of like me jumping over the foul line, never touching it during a game, or taking the exact same stride to first hurdle, it's just a preconceived notion that seems to work quite well for us.

I love being the mediator on subjects like this... If you like/want to lap your 150-250.00 rings DO IT, if you don't then DON'T. I don't get upset at those who don't do it, I do what I think is best for my application. Hey, I'm sure 90% of the PRS guys don't do any of the above, but I do, and 1000's of dead coyotes can't care either way.
 
Its good to hear experience from someone like you James. Up this point there has been no one saying they have seen a set of quality rings fail / have imperfections. I can totally understand your reasoning in lapping rings, and would fully imagine you setting your rigs up properly. I am confident in my set ups and am confident when I squeeze round off that if I miss its me. As I am sure you are.
 
Originally Posted By: sqrlgtrI don't recall the specific rings but they where a better name (luepold,tps,badger)something along that line.they are long gone now.in all fairness it could have been the bases.surely I'm not the only one that has seen scopes with marks on it caused by the rings?

Nope, you aren't wrong at all. I'd go as far as saying that most any ring you find off the shelf will do this. I usually leave my scopes on the gun I mount them so it doesn't bother me much, but you are correct SQRLGTR
 
It's really pretty simple: If you don't measure it, you can't manage it.

I don't inanely lap rings of any quality level, whether they were $25 or $250. I do check all of them against a spindle, however. If they don't show good enough contact, they get lapped. If they do have good contact and alignment, what would lapping do? (Hint: Nothing).

On a custom action with top end base & rings, I EXPECT TO NOT NEED TO LAP the rings or bed the mount. But I check them, just the same. Even custom builders are human, and manufacturing mistakes happen wherever manufacturing happens. If I were building a rifle where a guy wants a budget rifle and mounts, I'm not surprised to notice a $20 Leupold base needs bedding to a $300 Rem 700 ADL, and not surprised the $30 Leup standard rings need lapped. If a guy walks in with a Predator or Defiance with Seekins mounts and rings, I'd be making some warranty replacement phone calls before I bedded or lapped anything, because there's something wrong if they have a problem. But as mentioned above, the one guy might have spent as much on his MOUNTS AND RINGS as the other guy did on his entire rig. I also wouldn't expect the Predator to need a trigger job or need to be blocked and bedded in the stock either, nor the forend stiffened - I expect the owner already knew enough to get a proper trigger done and a proper stock already bedded or blocked & bedded long before I'd see it.

I wouldn't bed a scope into rings. I'll bed mounts to ensure I don't impart stress on the rings, scope, or receiver, but I'm not bedding a scope into rings. It's really no different, in theory, than the Burris Signature rings, but in principle, it just doesn't fly for me. I'll bed mounts and lap rings, but I'm not bedding rings.
 
Originally Posted By: Smokin250I am confident in my set ups and am confident when I squeeze round off that if I miss its me. As I am sure you are.

This is it... If you eliminate as many variables as you can, or know how to, then it's going to help your game immensely. Which is why a lot of guys reload, and pay attention to seating depth, neck tension, grains of powder, etc. etc. etc. It might be a different comparison but the concept is the same. If your factory rounds shoot good enough to make you 100% comfortable killing, they by all means! If me feeling the need to lap whatever rings I think I need to lap, then so be it. I'm not saying do it just to do it, obviously I feel there is a purpose behind it, and I personally think in most instances it's a good idea to look into, after all it's fun, and many of us enjoy the break down.
 
I couldn't agree with your point more James. My whole outlook on rifles has changed significantly in past few years, once I started shooting "Custom" Rifles if you will. If I spend the money for....a good barrel, trigger, smith time building, chassis, mags, and suppressor....then why the heck would I cheap out on potentially the 2 most important things you can spend money on? Optics/Optic set ups and ammo. I wouldn't go drop $xxxx into a rifle and optic....then grab a box of wolf steel case ammo and go on about my way. As I wouldn't throw an optic and rings on my rig that were sub par.

I rememember when I purchased my first rifle, I wanted to puke when I picked up a $275 Nikon for it. I had it in a set of weaver grand slam rings and weaver 2 piece base from walmart. I ran that set up for a loonnng time, and shot alright with it for my physical ability. Since then, things have changed. When I built my first match rifle I picked up an NXS for it and was stuck with what to do for rings and base. After talking to some knowledgeable guys around here I ordered a seekins 20MOA base and seekins rings. I remember thinking "$240 for rings and base....these sum bishes better mount them selves" Well when the whole thing showed up and I got to mount base rings and scope.....I quickly found why people use them. It was like the first time I touched a Boob....they were amazing. Fit and finish was beyond world class. And every time I have taken a scope out of a set of Seekins rings I am blown away of well the scope is set in them and how there isn't so much as mark on the scope. I have been able to try several different high end brands of rings since then and have been overwhelmingly happy with the quality of all of them. Never once have I felt a need to alter them in any way. That being said....I have always been happy and confident with my optic setups.

Once thing I have noticed, maybe it is just me, there is a HUGE divide when it comes to the level of "Good Enough" when it comes to this stuff. For years I worked at a gun shop, and dealt with all kinds of customers. They were your average shooters mostly, nothing like the match shooters I see now. They would pick up a nice rifle, and spend good money on it too boot. Then ask you about scopes and they chit bricks when you show them a $150 Nikon prostaff. Then you have the other end of spectrum where guys spend big dollars on guns and scopes and rings. SOmehwere in the middle there are others. I have never for the life of me understood why someone will spend big money on a gun and scope then throw a cheap set of rings and bases at it, and wonder why they have issues. If I spent $2000-$5000 on a rifle, and then $1000-$3000 on a scope and wouldn't spend the money for quality rings it would feel like whipping before I poop....it wouldn't make sense in my head. Then I hear how guys string together parts and pieces and have to Bed a scope rings my head starts to spin. That's fine, if you want to do that By all means have at it. The issue I have with all this is that you are giving awful info to people that do not know any better. I started out on this forum years ago, with very little knowledge (not much has changed). I asked a ton of questions and didn't know right from wrong. Along the way I have learned a lot of useful information, and tried a lot of silly things that were way off from the correct ways to do things. When you have people come on here and ask about lapping rings and get some of the off the wall answers that ive seen, you are teaching people the wrong way. I mean that's why the forum is here right??? To learn, and help people who want to learn. Sometimes its hard to wade through the BS and find knowledgeable people WILLING to give correct info and experience to help someone starting out, or unsure on a specific topic.

Anyway....that's my rant. Still boils down to this....JUNK in JUNK Out.
 
Obviously, this is a hot topic with strong opinions. I don't work on junk. I shoot benchrest competitively, and use the best of the best. I do my own smithing and have for a very long time, and build guns for others.

I guess what I don't understand, with all the money dumped into these rifles, why forgo such a simple step to ensure a good fit? Everyone beds their action to a stock for a perfect fit. Everyone wants to be sure their smith chambers a barrel to the best of his ability (which is another hotbed of discussion).

Even custom actions get a once over by smiths for competition. Seems crazy that you spend well over a grand for a custom action, but things still need to be checked, polished, tweaked, etc. In my view, the same attention should also be given to the mount/ring system.

To take this a step further, in regards to bedding rings, has anyone read Tony Boyer's book? He is the best benchrest shooter the world has seen. He has won more matches that anyone, nobody will beat his record. Most any scope manufacturers will tell you a scope functions best when the reticle adjustments are centered. To ensure his scopes are centered when mounted, he sets up his rifles in a rest, held on target, then removes the scope and centers the scope adjustments. The sets the scope back on and shims the scope to equal where the gun is, then beds the scope in the rings. This ensures the scope adjustments are centered to point of aim. Now granted, this is an extreme measure, and may or may not help him win, but it is one thing he takes out of the equation of his shooting. Bedding a scope in the rings is not as big a deal as you may think, but if the system doesn't line up, you gotta do what you gotta do.

To each his own guys. Just cause one opinion doesn't match yours, doesn't mean it's wrong.
 
Originally Posted By: StobBut then there are rings that are so bad, lapping wouldn't begin to fix them. Case in point was a pair of Ruger rings I once bought. The inside was still in a rough casting state, simply awful.


Originally Posted By: Stob I don't work on junk. I shoot benchrest competitively, and use the best of the best.
 
I had a real interesting discussion with Scott at Vortex optics about this subject and he said that a good majority of scopes that are sent back are fine when evaluated. He said the main reason these scopes will not track or operate as designed is either over torqueing or rings not being properly aligned causing the scope tube to be put into a bind and therefore affecting the scopes mechanicals. Food for thought.

I met a guy who said he sent his Leupold VX3 8.5-25X50 back to Leupold 3 times and every time it came back with the same problem. I offered him $300 dollars cash for it and he accepted it without flinching. I then proceeded to mount it on my 243 PD rifle, zero it and then ran a complete box test forward and backward testing 100%. Still going 100% today. We have crossed paths but have never talked about the scope.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top