I have never had experience using lapped rings and I'm wondering if this is done to prevent ring marks on the scope? How much accuracy improvement would you expect from lapped rings on 5 shot 400 yard groups, if any help at all?
Thanks

Maximum surface contact is the goal with lapped rings. I've never noticed a different when fielding the rifle, but when initially setting one up and getting it mounted, lapped rings let the scope move smoother than unlapped rings for sure. At least that's what I've experienced. I don't purposefully buy lapped rings, if they come to me lapped, fine. I won't lap them either. YMMV.

Not just that. Alignment of the holes through the rings a goal, so when the rings are tightened they do not bind the scope.

Max surface area, less likely to dent and mar the scope tube. Less chance of binding the scope up so that the internals work as they should. In my book, all are wins

I could never see the difference in accuracy, but I may not be able to shoot well enough.

At 400 yrds, conditions and you, will effect accuracy more than lapped/unlapped rings, IMO. But try it yourself to see.

I thought that's what alignment bars are for?

Use the Burris rings with the plastic bushings for best overall results. Edk

This is my go-to as well.

I've never lapped. I don't think it's necessary with quality rings.

Yup. Eliminates the need to lap while ensuring proper alignment and full contact.

Alignment bars are only used for checking alignment. Mathman is correct. Also, if you buy rings that have already been lapped, that can create issues with your set up because they were lapped on a different rifle that may have had alignment issues. Now your are introducing alignment issues into your set up. Not really a good idea to buy rings that have been lapped for a different rifle.

With the exception of the Burris swivel inserts, the best rings/bases made cannot compensate for a receiver that's out of spec from the mounts.

The same with alignment bars. They can help eliminate ring twist when mounting but can't correct a thing if one ring is canted away from the other. That's where lapping comes in.

Exactly. Some receivers are very bad. I've had very good luck in that regard. I'd also have to add that most guys shooting "long range" are using rails and good heavy rings. Generally those don't have to be lapped. Like Tyrone said, if you use good rings. This is the longrange forum, so again I'm pretty sure most guys are going to be running a good steel m1913 20 moa+ pic rail for this application. Back to the OP's question:
If the receiver is crap, where you should be lapping those rings, you will sometimes have issues with the scope not tracking properly. I've seen non lapped rings cause issues, on poor receivers, and thin tubed scopes (not going to mention Leup names). It stresses the scope tube enough to affect tracking. With a scope that does not properly track, it can indeed cause "accuracy" issues at any distance.

They help you find/optimize what degree of alignment is available, they don't "create alignment" so to say.

Sometimes the alignment problem of the rings isn't because of the rings.

It will always make the rifle as a system shoot better if you lap and or bed things together so there is not play which adds stress, and pressure that bends things a bit. Not to mention things like marking up rings with the edge of a ring… now if you lap you can also embed metal but you are less likely to crease a tube.

I gotcha. I guess I really haven't had to deal with it too much, I'm a one piece mount kinda guy.

If there are irregularities in the surface of the action any type of bases can cause problems with your ring alignment, even once piece mounts. Lapping eliminates the stresses on your scope if you do it correctly, but it can't account for misalignment of the bases on the action if something is off center when drilled/tapped...

Generally a receiver issue.

I sure do love me some Burris Signature Zee's so I don't have to go thru all this bovine excrement . . .

Burris Signature rings all you need

With 2 piece Weaver bases, using a boresighter, I shim and glass bed them so they are parallel with the bore and there is no bind on the rings.

With a scope adjusted so the crosshairs are in the center of the tube, the rifle starts out on the paper.

That's what benchrest shooters do with their rifles. Good point. It reduces angular offset in the scope to bore axis relationship. The least amount of angular offset you have, the better it is on your equipment. Mainly because you can keep the scope centered, which reduces stress. Less stress on everything is a good thing, thus the reason you also bed your bases and I'm sure you also properly glass bed your action in a stress free manner. All good things when considering shooting "long range". When you bed your bases for proper alignment, I bet you don't have to lap those rings. Something you left out of your post.

I almost never lap rings but I do usually glassbed the scope into the rings. As to how much it helps accuracy; it depends on where you started from. If initial alignment was really bad, the benefits are more likely to be apparent than if the alignment was decent to start with. GD

Everybody likely knows but I say it anyway, if you remove the scope/rings make sure to not mix up the direction the rings were facing and the correct orientation of the top ring half.

NAILED IT!!! 💯

Rings as a whole,are rather surprisingly straight. Receivers however,are NOT. Them who haven't seen a woe,simply haven't shot much of anything,or are "blessed" with crossed-eyes...the "lucky" kchunts. Hint.

'Horn rings very obviously have no equal,due their surface area and self aligning nature,with the ability to coax erector travel and mechanically center windage in copious Robustitude. Hint.

I also hear they can take a lick. Hint.





If only to the chagrin of the High Heel Haybale & Crockett crowd. Hint.

Fhuqking LAUGHING!.................

CLANG

Stray Dog: Virtually impossible to "quantify"!
But I lap all my new ring/mount/scope installations - so many mysterious "problems" have disappeared from my Rifle shooting hobby since I started doing so 30+ years ago!
Lapping rings - of course and for sure.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

binding the scope is the no 1 thing that what you do not want

Wouldn’t perfectly aligned rings have maximum contact? And not bind/flex the scope.
Lapping for the win!

The more I read this thread the more I have to wonder how many scope problems are from the binding & pinching of misaligned rings.

I don’t know.
But my most accurate rifle has the rings Lapped. It’s also the 2nd cheapest rifle I own.
Wish my buddy wouldn’t have moved away with his tool.

Not necessarily.

Max contact is not sufficient to imply alignment.

Alignment is not sufficient to imply max contact.

Lower ring halves have x amount of surface area. If both front & rear halves are in perfect alignment with one another the maximum amount of surface area offered by both rings is available. There is no more. Less would mean misalignment.

Is not using 100% of the available surface area of both rings ...maximum contact?

You're assuming the ring surfaces are even. Alignment doesn't mean perfect contact.

I know a very accomplished long range benchrest shooter that'll weigh and sort primers but doesn't lap rings.



If it makes ya feel good, have at it. If you buy a decent set of rings, it's probably not going to help anything.

Dang it mathman, a thorough & proper lapping job's purpose is to make those surfaces even. No assumption after a well executed job.

That's not precisely what you said before.😁

If he's a serious long range benchrest shooter it's very likely he's using a precisely machined custom action and similarly well made bases and rings. Can you see how this would lead to good alignment from the start?

A really good set of rings won't straighten out the dimensional problems with an off the rack factory action.

The subject was about lapping, assumed that was a given. If I left that out, my bad.

I owe ya a Bud Light.

And BTW, good call on the benchrest action &rings. Very likely to be ...there from the get go.

Later

About as much as a good spit!

Bet he uses a good action too. Not factory crap.

Everyone goes ape [bleep] over bedding and screw torque but why. Don’t want any bind in the action
Then y not lap the rings
Some rifles are horrible esp Ruger and rem
Seen many rem 700 they grind off too much of the rear and ever requires a shim
Custom actions in good rings are nice and lap right in
Old sako rifles are almost as true as the customs

Lapping, shimming bases, bedding, buying the expensive stuff -- all of those work. The general idea is to get rid of as many stressors and variables as you can, or WANT, or NEED to eliminate. A happy scope helps a happy firearm make its owner happy.

I lap all my rings. Everyone beds there rifle right
Now bolt a 1 in or 30 mm pipe on it and impart stress to the action and scope not goo for either
Now good quality rings help but still lap them
Worst I have seen is Ruger some rem rear will even need shimmed old sakos are pretty spot on
Custom actions are good to go but I still lap them
We are going for zero stress.

Harold Vaughn wrote a lot about this in "Rifle Accuracy Facts". Very informative read.

https://archive.org/details/RifleAccuracyFactsFullV1.0FirstFullScan/mode/2up

Burris signature zee rings and don’t worry about it .
Kenneth

Lap the turn in stuff, and talley lightweights. The new BACO M70s have the best actions in my opinion with the Sheridan Mark Vs being a close second. Scope should have zero stress.

If you are looking at rings as if they are a clamp you are not seeing what is really going on. Nightforce gives a good explanation of lapping and correct ring installation.

I have a set and so do few of my friends that run one piece DNZ game reaper.
Anyone ever try to lap DNZ and see how they do?

When I switched to more expensive scopes I started lapping. I was amazed at how much ring, even with expensive rings, don't touch the scope.

I’ve lapped DNZ game reapers. They aren’t too bad but I lap them anyway. Doesn’t take long to do

Ok thank you.

Do you do this without checking how alignment bars look?

If they are cnc machined lapping is not necessary

I was going to say, how much lapping helps depends on haw far out of alignment the rings were before they were lapped.


If they're aligned well, lapping doesn't help much.

Just because they are CNC machined does not make them perfect. What about the rail and receiver, if they are not perfect what does that do to make the ring height perfect?
Lapping only washes out any mismatch of the receiver, base and rings before it gets to the scope.

This ^^^

Lapping is not a machining process it is a polishing process. Very minor imperfections in ring finishing and machine marks can be smoothed or removed .Imperfection in receiver alignment or bases is not going to be affected much by what a polishing process does. If imperfection in receiver or base are small enough to be eliminated by lapping, they would be of no consequence to start with.
Lapping produces very little change in dimension. Lapping is more about creating a smoother uniform surface for the scope tube to be seated in.
It seems like some folks have lapping bars and ring alignment bars confused.
My 3 cents worth.

Pay attention to pullit. He brings reality to to situation.

foogle,

Someone here taught me most folks use the wrong end of the bars. One should use the square ends to really see what's going on. And yes, I realize I telling you all what to do.

I lap all my rings just so i get more contact on the scope.