Got to admit I've never done it. Not sayin' I've never needed to do it, mebbe I have and didn't recognize the need.

Never had the tools and haven't much thought about it, but as I continually progress upwards in this Rifle Loonydom I ponder such things. Should I try this or that..or shouldn't I?

My scope mounting ways so far have been mounting bases, always Leupy or Redfield, crazy tight. Securing front ring and aligning with rear. Applying rubber cement to rings interiors and securing front ring around scope crazy tight.

Leaving rear ring a tad loose from the base I secure rear ring around scope also crazy tight then tighten down ring to base.

So far this has produced good 'nuff accuracy that I've been able to live with and the scopes I've removed don't have any bad ring marks, so I'm thinking very little scope stress. Or is there?

However I'm left wondering, if I'm to eek out every available advantage in a rifle, should I be lapping the rings? And just how much will it gain over what I've been doing so far?

Also, is the store bought tool the only way or are there other ways for the DIY'er?

Thanks in advance.........

I just use Burris Signature rings and forget about it.

Should add the Ruger Ring Thing....

Been guilty of owning a couple three Rugers on occasion.....

I always check the rings with a lapping tool and give a light skim with valve grinding paste. It is almost impossible to see a set of rings that are both square and aligned and I cannot count the scores of rings I have set and checked over the decades.

The fact is that no matter how precise the rings are made, they are still being tightened to a mass produced action that has minute individual variation in finishing, to another sample.

This in itself, is enough to fix a perfect ring out of alignment even if only slightly. By running a lapping tool across the bottom rings, any burrs on the edges or imperfections in the squareness of the recesses is immediately identified and you can skim to the degree necessary to permit the scope tube to slide smoothly and effortlessly in the rings which will ensure there is no binding and tension created when the scope is locked down.

Stress free lock up is important because there are several layers of potential stress that can flex an action and cause flyers in a group.

1. The floorplate is screwed against the stock.
2. The action is compressed into the stock.
3. The bases are screwed against the action
4. The bottom rings are screwed or friction bound into the bases.
5. The scope is compressed against the bottom rings.
6. The top ring is compressed against the scope tube.

These 6 layers can, even if minute, compound to a stress level that causes shots to go wild and that does not take into consideration the fact that if scope rings are not lapped, square and parallel, the scope tube can be bent or flexed in the process.

Not lapping scope rings is a choice. I choose to check and lapp as necessary.

Also, another fact, Ruger rings are designed to fit onto an integral groove that also has a circular cutout/recess in the action sides to accomodate the tightening screw.

If you have a mis alignment with a particualr set of rings that contact the base of the recess before the ring is tightened, it caused the ring to rise up in the recess and lock under stress that cannot be alieviated by lapping. The rings must be changed for a set that fits the action, providing the degree of gap necessary around the lock screw to provide a stress free lock up.

Even after this is done and it all looks good, I still check the rings with a lapping tool.

My experience with Ruger rings is that they are usually very good and align better than most brands.

A cheap alternative in anticipation of all I have stated, is the newly designed rings from Sako for the model 75 rifles that include a plastic insert inside the rings that float to fit the scope tube and compress into position, when the top ring is tightened.

Tacky as this looks, it is very effective and works very well in my experience.

AGW

+1 Aussiegunwriter

Well said. Rick Smith convinced me to lap rings several years ago. It is now part of the regimen.

Thanks Aussie.

Very well written.....

I lap all my rings Roy.I saw your turret post good deal.Leupold has some pretty good service for sure.

I'm familiar with the Burris Signature rings with the inserts , but have not seen the Sako style yet. Are the Sako rings available for other than Sako rifles?

Roy,

I think that lapping rings is the sort of thing that 2% of folks do, whether they need to or not. Sort of like deburring the primer holes punched in brass, some folks think that it is worth doing, if for no other reason then to eliminated an issue of potential impact, while other folks think that it is a waste of time.

I use the Clymer ring alignment reamer, part # 184-002-000 from Brownells, and finish it up with the Wheeler tool. Does it work? Maybe, but it doesn't do any harm and it is just 1 more thing that you don't have to worry about once its been done.

Jeff

It depends on the rings and the bases. Badger, TPS and a few other makers recommend you do not lap their rings. These are typically within 0.002 or roundness, and lapping will only serve to take the rings out of round. With cheap rings, you probably won't do any harm and it may help.

AGW,

Great post! Personally I have never lapped rings. I have made it thus far and been satisfied with all. Work up my loads, shoot, get an accurate load, happiness. NOW! NOW I got one more blasted thing to tinker with and do or to blame and "fix" when a rifle refuses to cooperate! Thanks a lot!

This information provided to you is not correct because as I stated above, it does not matter how precise the rings are manufactuered, they are still being fitted to a mass produced action that will vary from action to action, through the finishing processes.

A perfect set of mounts can be made to misalign when fitted to an imprecise action ( which they all are to some degree) and lapping will prove the misalignment. It is no slander upon the ring manufacturer, it is just reality.

The point of lapping is to ensure that at least that aspect of accurizing is performed and can be forgotten about. It may be technically a waste of time if you do it on its own, but I always bed new rifles in Devcon Steel, float the barrels, lighten the trigger and in conjunction with the lapping, all these things contribute to determining the potential accuracy of the barrel. This also means being open minded to the fact that some scopes need to be changed if they influence inconsistent accuracy.

It is a package that is all you can do, but it works. If this routine is performed on a rifle, the handloads will generally have more uniform group shapes and make it a lot easier to tune for loads and group sizes, or to identify components that are not suited to your rifle set up.


AGW

Most of my rings are cheap Buehler, Conetrol, Leupold, Redfield, and Warne, so I ream/polish them all.

Jeff

AGW,

If you mount the bases correctly it's not an issue. If you screw them down to a distorted reciver, you'll distort the base. If you use a tool like the BaseBed and bedding compount on your base, alignment will be correct.

We looked at alignment issue with rings and bases, and more often than not lapping causes as many problems as it cures. It is impossible to maintain roundness in rings if you lap. If you are lapping split rings, it won't matter because they aren't round to begin with. But rings like TPS are manufacture with near perfect roundness, and iff you lap, you will actually take them out of round.


There are better ways to compensate for out of spec receivers.

http://www.tpsproducts.com/proddetail.php?prod=60100

I lapped a set of Ruger rings on a Target Gray 22-250 that were not even close to lining up. I sold the gun shortly after so I don't know if it helped or not. I checked several other sets with the lapping tool. Some needed it, but most didn't. The marks on the scopes and reading about torque on the scope causing problems got me to try it. The rings were easier to tighten and tightened evenly after lapping them.

The worst mounts I have ever seen during product reviews were always the rifles with integral bases with rings attached.

I have even had to give up and remove the scope snd shoot open sighted which does nothing for an accuracy assessment.

TOD:

The product you promote proves the case made for lapping, because it is a substitute for lapping and appears to base its concept and value to the shooter on the technical imperfection outlined above.

You can easily see the true value of any after market product to accuracy by simply looking around the bench rest fraternity. How many of them use gimmicks when they can lapp or bed the rings?

None that I have seen.

AGW

The rings need to be in perfect alignment to get the most out of the rifle. Lapping is one way to get there, correcting the issue with the receiver that causes the misalignment is another.

I don't worry too much about rings being ever so slightly out of round, since most scope tubes are as well.

IMO, the best possible scenario is to have a receiver that is true, then lightly lap properly installed rings to remove any sharp edges. Even the best rings (Badger, etc.) can have some irregularities due to the finish applied after machining.

I have a scope that on two different rifles, with three mounting systems including ones with inserts was going to be sent back. for $400 i was not pleased. i decided to get the ring reamer from Brownells and ring lapping tool from Sinclair. mounted on my .308 this combo shoots .2 groups. i definitely lap all of my mounts now.

Here's my post from when I lapped my first rings....I'll be doing more. When I ran the bar over them the first time I was maybe getting 15% contact, when I was done it was 90%+. It was enlightening and I got my rod and compound from Haydens for less than $20. I'd like a set of the pointy alignment bars for squaring dovetails prior to lapping, but they are not needed for Talleys.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...&topic=0&Search=true#Post1348706

J

If I recall correctly, Sako Optilock bases are available in Weaver/Picatinny, 11mm dovetail, 17mm dovetail and Sako configurations.

Link to Sako website

Lap a few rings and you will be amazed how far some of them are out!The worst one I did recently was a Ruger 243 for my daughter. Also, you won't be getting ring marks in your scope anymore.

Will lapping serve to lessen the amount the scope "wanders" when you tighten the rings down? On some scope set ups I'll get the crosshair on vertical, then, as I tighten the scope it will rotate left or right, canting the crosshairs. Don

STOP!
If everyone laps their rings the supply of good scopes being sold cheep just because of light ring marks will come to an end!
I would much rather buy a good used scope with light ring marks than a new cheep scope.

I posted earlier about the ring reamer and didnt mention that i used it mainly because the rings needed some serious alignment help. I would have to lap a LONG time to straighten out some of my mounts. Using this process eliminated the stress on my scopes so that the POI didnt wander. I am just glad I didnt damage the scope before on the other rifles. My rings all get lapped because I dont want to wonder about whether my equipment is causing my poor shooting or the nut behind the butt.

I must be doing something wrong..... I have a whole bunch of rifles that shoot sub-one half moa, I don't have ring marks when I switch scopes around, and I NEVER lap rings..... Of course, I use Badger, NF and Warne rings and I always use a torque wrench to tighten them. Blue Loctite on every threaded connection means that they never, ever, come loose either, until I want them to.

IMHO, perhaps the biggest offender in ring/scope mating is the use of rings that require an end user to align them to the bore and each other. The worst ring/base combinations for this are the windage adjustable ones, including dovetail front ones. Even the dual dovetail ones when assembled with alignment tools are suspect.
A slight misalignment (angular, lateral or both) from one ring to the next will make it look like you have next to no contact, because you don't. Miss-aligned rings will almost always leave marks. I wonder if most conventional wisdom about ring lapping originated in the day of Leupold and Redfield mounts, screwed onto gunsmith tapped receivers?????
Rings that clamp to integral features on the receiver require incredible care to get them to seat properly (look closely), I am thinking Ruger here... The Ruger rings are pretty horrible with respect to surface finish. But, at the correct torque, don't do much harm to a scope.
I personally believe that barring a mfg defect like a burr or a sharp edge, that the next biggest problem, after alignment, causing ring marks is ring design coupled with excessive torque. Tightening the screws excessively does two things, it rotates the "flanges" of the ring where the screws go, causing the ends of the ring to press into the scope (that would be the longitudinal lines you see when there are ring marks). Rings that are too thin in the hoop that surrounds the scope create a flange that is insufficiently "built in" to resist that rotation. Additionally, tightening torque causes the entire ring (which even with a thin Steel ring is much stiffer than the Aluminum scope body) to compress the scope tube to a smaller diameter. This results in both elastic and, if excessive torque is used, plastic deformation of the scope body. The ring mark forms at the junction between the compressed smaller diameter and the larger, free diameter.
If one does not have a torque wrench, holding the Allen/Torx wrench by the short end will typically produce plenty of torque.
15 to 25 in-lbs, depending on ring design, number of fasteners, etc. is the range I use.

I probably sound like one of the unwashed to the benchrest crowd...... and as always, your mileage may vary......

Of the rings I have used I have noticed that the leupolds are the worst at leaving ring marks. After mounting dozens of scopes in warnes I have never had a ring mark when I removed the scope.

Always remember that when you lapp rings, you are really just checking them. If they are ok then it is fine to lock up the scope but lapping is a sure fire way to "know" what you are dealing with. It doesn't mean that you are always grinding metal from the mount.

AGW

Ring lapping assumes that all scope tubes are concentric. Are they...?

Warne rings are awesome.

Lapping assumes nothing. It is a corrective action tool that enables you to validate conformance in manufacturing and validate conformance in alignment to a foreign action that was generically guestimated during design as a matching component.

AGW

For the people who dont think that lapping rings is necessary thats fine, but you wont be able to cinvince anyone who has done it that it isnt needed. I use the reamer because the lap takes too long, but i lap them after that. Its not a slam on anyones rings but most of them dont line up very well even when you usean alignment tool to set them up. I use Leupold Dual Dovetail mounts and rings on my M70 in .243 and they are rock solid now. When the screws were tightened they got tight just like the action screws will do on a good pillar bedding job.

I think so too! As I can afford to I am changing out all of my leupolds to warnes.
I never could figure out the facination with leupold rings especially the standard ones with the windage adj. I guess is was availability. The only others I will use are conetrol and talley but for my money it is warnes.

If the rings were the correct basic diameter, with some gap left for applying load to the scope to begin with, when you ream and lap away metal, do you still have gaps between the rings to allow you to drive load into the scope tube, or are you coming up solid on the lower ring?
The more missalignment you have to start with the more the clamping forces are localized on corners, and therefore, the more deflection you will have of the scope tube. This will probally result in additional screw travel.....
I prefer to correct the root cause rather than the symptom.

miket 81, I concur. The windage adjustable ones are dramatically weaker and ensure alignment problems.

Ya I get a kick out of people that use them and bore sight and say "oh man, I am 3 feet left! Glad I have these adjustable windage rings!"
They don't realize that is why they are off in the first place since it is almost impossible to get the rear perfectly centered and I think it is a weak system.

Exactly.
20 pages (about) of rings and bases in the Midsouth catalog and you can throw out 18 of them and never miss a thing (pun intended).

Many rings will mar a scope even if they are lapped. In particular Talley steel rings do this. I bend each ring open just a little and then they don't damage the scope. The screws bring the rings back together.

I might lap rings very lightly, if you overdo it and some do, all you do is get a loose ring of sorts.

We got by for years without lapping rings, so I almost consider it a gimmick for someone to make money off as are most things. However if done properly it won't hurt a thing and may make you feel better.

I use only Talley Rings and bases, My bases are machined to fit the receiver that normally has been surfact ground, I do this for more accurate return to zero of the scope. I have not lapped any of these rings.

Bottom line is I am not sure it works all that well, but it can't hurt unless you over do it.

Ring lapping is of about the same value as barrel lapping...little to none, IMO. It is more of a gimmik to sell product and services. If done, only do it lightly, as you could well get sloppy rings that need to be replaced. ($$). I've had a lot of scoped rifles, and have never had a problem that ring lapping cured.

Also, does anyone use silicone seal in the rings...a little dab'll do ya'.

FWIW....

I made a lapping bar and aquired some lapping compound.

Three rifles going through a scope swap the first two being my son's 700 .243 and my Ruger #1 25-06.

I bedded the bases and lapped the Leupy (windage adjustable) rings on the boys rifle and mounted up a 2-7 Nikon. The lapping showed about 10% contact at first which I lapped to 95% or so. Per the mounting of the scope....it "seemed" be easier to keep the scope level during screw torque and it "seemed" to tighten up a lot..."easier", for the lack of a better word.

Shooting/sighting in the .234...bringing to zero @ 100 yards was a cake walk. After peeking through the tube to do a half ass bore sight, It hit about 6 inches low and 3 inches right with the first shot. Walked the cross hairs from the bull to the bullet hole and the second shot hit dead nuts. Four more shots went into a nice little factory ammo cluster the likes of which this rifle hasn't done before, IOW, no flyers. Looking forward to tuning up some X's now.....

Same/same with the #1. Scope is a turreted M8 6X. The Ruger rings showed a little better contact at the beginning of the lapping, about 30%. Lapped them out to 90 or 95% also. Noted that the front ring recieved a near 100% lap and the rear ring showed a slight lack when I finished...on the front edge of it. As asserted by the "same/same" above, mounting this scope also "seemed" easier. Zeroing this scope was as expected and 100 yards groups were what they have always been with 115 grain ballistic tips....tiny. With the exception being noticed that instead of a tiny little "line" of holes, I now have round clusters. I'll know more about any real differences when I take this rifle out to 200 yards and beyond.

Upon observing what I could in a short amount of time and at a short distance I did notice that things seemed better than they were, for both rifles.

The third rifle is my 3006 which is recieving a turreted 3x9 Leupy. I just recieved a set of talley LW lows from Rick which I need to get color matched to the rifle via Cerekote. For the time being I'll lap the existing Leupy rings and mount up my old Weaver 4-12 for some load development with 168 X's. Mebbe will get that ready this weekend......

I'm beginning to believe that lapping rings is a benefit.......

All one has to do is do it once and you'll immediately see the benefit.

Hey, here's a quick and dirty for yah, works for Weaver type mounting systems.
You can get a STRAIGHT hunk of 1 inch bar stock (or 30 mm) from a good metal supply house, or turn your own in your trusty lathe. A foot or so should be enough.
Go buy a pack of KS brass shim stock and some JB Weld or other decent stiff epoxy.
Get some mold-release compound, which you already have for bedding your custom rifles.
Have a good straightedge handy.
Securely mount your rifle in a vise or work stand, sunny side up.
Install your bases. If they are Weavers or Picatinny type, check your alignment. If you see daylight, you can slip the brass shim stock under the bases in the right spots, to get close.
Attach the ring bottoms.
Set your bar in the ring bottoms. Take the shim stock and see if you can poke it in any gaps at the sides or bottom. Take note of there the gaps are, and how big. If you found gaps, then cut yourself little hunks of the .005 brass, about the size of your pinky nail, slip those under the bar. This will raise the bar a bit. Put some shim material, an amount about equal to the gap you found, where the gaps were. You want to just fill that gap for positioning purposes for the next step.
Take note of where your shims/gaps are. Set them where they are handy.
Liberally coat your bar with mold release, let dry.
Mix up enough epoxy to cover the mating surfaces of the ring bottoms.
Spray some release agent on your finger and swipe the mating surface in the rings. This way, it won't slip later but can still be chipped out. Or if you want to be permanent, forget the release agent in the rings.
But you dang sure better put it on the bar.
Put a thin coat of JB in the rings, then put the hunks of brass where they belong, add enough JB around them so you think it will fill or mostly fill around the shims. Try to have it so the brass will "skin" with very little epoxy on top.
Lay in the bar, carefully, well-centered lengthwise. Work it only enough that it seats well, let gravity do the rest. Carefully wipe off any excess, especially above the centerline that might lock the bar in place. AND DON'T SLOP ANY EPOXY IN THE CLAMPING SCREW HOLES. THAT IS A BAD THING TO DO.
Let the JB cure, then pull the bar, trim off any brass sticking above the top line of the lower ring halves, slap in the scope, and go shoot.
I've done this several times, once to get a big scope above the highest rings I could get. I had to get longer clamping screws, but that gun shoots like a champ. Ugly but fast and effective.
I've also done this to try out a different scope or rings setup without going through the lapping rigmarole. Again, as long as you use good mold release and common sense, it works just fine, and you can always chip the JB out and lap the rings for real.

I've lapped in rings one time, and it worked very well, but I haven't seen anyone mention the way I did it. To put a set of dual-dovetail rings on a 700 I lined them up best I could with a set of pointy bars. Then I put the lapping rod and compound in and gave about three strokes and took them out and cleaned the rings. This bit of lapping showed a slight miss alignment that I corrected by turning the lower ring. I repeated this lapping and cleaning process two more times till no miss alignment showed, and then installed the scope. After two shots at 25yds, and a three shot group at 100 it was sighted in.

I always wonder if the $20 tool is staright enough to give accurate information about the action/rings . . . . .

BMT

After you lapp, the scope tube should slide through the lower rings. That proves there is no binding. What is noticeable, is how smooth the slide is compared to trying that without lapping.

AGW

Thinkin' here that gaining maximum good alignment of rings before any lapping is done, is a given...

Kinda along the same lines as getting the screws tight first also.........