Scope mounting question

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Put me in the dislike vertical ring camp here---will never buy another---Warne rings in particular

 

[MCMXI]

I think some here need to take a class in tolerance stacking. Firearms industry machining tolerances might suprise you. Throw in typical straightness and runout standards for rifle receivers after heat treat and true position for scope base holes and things aren't looking that good. I've lapped many, many sets of rings over the years but then again I mount every scope from the bottom up and don't mount the rings to the scope, then mount the scope to the rifle, that's moronic. I like and use vertical split rings (Talley, Warne) , like and use horizontal split rings (Nightforce, Seekins), like and use one piece mounts (AI, LaRue, ADM, GG&G) and some others. If the scope slides freely in the rings before the ring screws are torqued I don't need to lap. If the scope binds a little or a lot I use alignment bars to check and go from there. Much of the alignment issue is luck with tolerances stacking up in the right or wrong direction. As for vertical split rings, Talley QD stainless steel vertical rings are the only ones I use on my hunting rifles, and they typically need lapping.

 

[cdb1]

Put me in the dislike vertical ring camp here---will never buy another---Warne rings in particular

I'm hurt.

 

[entropy]

Never had to lap rings- I did have to fit the front one on my last scope to the bell....

 

[Bart B.]

Don't forget, fellas, that most scope tubes are aluminum. They'll bend from abuse long before aluminum rings get out of whack.

So will a steel tube scope.

 

[FTG-05]

I've lapped all my rings. Until you lap them, you won't see how uneven they are.

Here are the last ones I did for my RA Predator rifle.

I don't have a good pic of the uppers, but they are about the same. Everyone I've done, has looked like this when I started - Weaver, Warne, Leupold etc.

I use 1" SS bar that I got from a military surplus store years ago and use Brownells 400 or 500 grit non-embeding lapping compound. I use the 1" to line up the lower rings before tightening them to the bases to ensure they're perfectly in line. I usually lap to about the 75%-85% "shine", then call it good. The only ones I don't lap are the ones that come with self-aligning rings.

Hope this helps.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, aluminum is fine for bases but I prefer steel for rings. They tend to strip eventually strip out, except for the more robust designs.

I have never been able to get vertically split rings to keep perfect horizontal positioning of a scope as they are tightened up. They always seem to roll the scope ever so slightly one way or another. I think they are a gimmick and not based on a need. In the past I always found it a challenge to get a scope perfectly level and square in the rings. I got a Leupold Zero Point and have not had a problem since. I only use steel rings and any time it is possible I go to a one piece base.

I've never had that problem with the two dozen sets of Warne rings I've had over the years. It's all I ever use. I've never had vertically split rings crimp a scope tube either. Not a gimmick at all.

 

[slowr1der]

I also think the Burris Signature Zee rings with the inserts are the best way to go. No lapping is necessary and you insure that no ring marks will be left on the scope.

That said even with most other rings, I don't lap them and I've not had any problems. Then again I usually buy quality rings.

 

[CraigC]

My only issue with the Zee rings, and I've used a bunch of them, is that they have to slide onto the rail. That usually results in a gouged/scratched rail and precludes them from the "quick detachable" category.

 

[entropy]

Yeah, I like Zee rings with bases, but with rails, not so much.