Lapping Scope rings - I see mostly No but some Yes

E_T_G · Oct 26, 2024

Hi.
I am old school (an also old :-( ) I have always lapped rings and dusted with rosin before tightening. Never had anything move on the 50s. I am mounting a NF ACACR 7-35 FFP using NF Extreme Ultralight 6 screw rings on a Styer factory rail. I lapped the last set of Vortex 6 screw rings and it took quite a bit of lapping to get to 90% contact. This is on a suppressed Styer SSG 04 in 300 Win Mag so really not the same force as a fifty. This is the most expensive scope I have bought and do not want to leave ring marks on the scope but at the same time I do not want to wast my time lapping if it isn't going to be needed. I read on one post where it was not necessary with NF rings. The last set I used on a SSG 08 in 308 didn't have much at all to lap. That was for a NF NX8 so about half the price of this scope.
Thanks for any recommendations.
E_T_G

iceng · Oct 26, 2024

Most brand name rings do not require lapping anymore. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, have at it, but really nor required as the machining quality has come a long way in 10 years, let alone 25+.

Rob01 · Oct 26, 2024

Well you ruined those Vortex rings so might as well ruin some NF rings too. Lol There is no need to lap rings.

TheOE800 · Oct 26, 2024

Just get Area 419 rings and save your time they’re already raw on the inside.

FuhQ · Oct 26, 2024

E_T_G said:
Hi.
I am old school (an also old :-( ) I have always lapped rings and dusted with rosin before tightening. Never had anything move on the 50s. I am mounting a NF ACACR 7-35 FFP using NF Extreme Ultralight 6 screw rings on a Styer factory rail. I lapped the last set of Vortex 6 screw rings and it took quite a bit of lapping to get to 90% contact. This is on a suppressed Styer SSG 04 in 300 Win Mag so really not the same force as a fifty. This is the most expensive scope I have bought and do not want to leave ring marks on the scope but at the same time I do not want to wast my time lapping if it isn't going to be needed. I read on one post where it was not necessary with NF rings. The last set I used on a SSG 08 in 308 didn't have much at all to lap. That was for a NF NX8 so about half the price of this scope.
Thanks for any recommendations.
E_T_G

It’s 2024… Buy a quality 1-piece base and rings, and you won’t need to lap anything. My recommendation is an EGW HD base, and the ARC M-Brace rings.

Baron23 · Oct 26, 2024

E_T_G said:
Hi.
I am old school (an also old :-( ) I have always lapped rings and dusted with rosin before tightening. Never had anything move on the 50s. I am mounting a NF ACACR 7-35 FFP using NF Extreme Ultralight 6 screw rings on a Styer factory rail. I lapped the last set of Vortex 6 screw rings and it took quite a bit of lapping to get to 90% contact. This is on a suppressed Styer SSG 04 in 300 Win Mag so really not the same force as a fifty. This is the most expensive scope I have bought and do not want to leave ring marks on the scope but at the same time I do not want to wast my time lapping if it isn't going to be needed. I read on one post where it was not necessary with NF rings. The last set I used on a SSG 08 in 308 didn't have much at all to lap. That was for a NF NX8 so about half the price of this scope.
Thanks for any recommendations.
E_T_G

I’m shocked you felt you needed to lap the Vortex rings as their better rings are made by Seekins and they know how to do modern precision machining.

How did you determine they needed lapping and how did you determine 90% contact, please?

Rust · Oct 26, 2024

Depends on the receiver. The last rifle I had to lap rings for was a 700P that the scope mount screw holes were so far off line a one piece mount could not be used. Going to a two piece mount system left the rings out of alignment horizontally and vertically. Tightening up a scope in such a situation could lead to binding of and potential failure of the erector assembly. Yes, it took a lot of lapping to align the rings and mount the scope. Not the first Remington that has had this problem which is one reason I started building rifles with aftermarket actions. Never had this problem with factory pre-64s or CZs or old Browning/Sako made High Powers.

The blanket statement that no modern quality rings would ever need lapping is false.

JMGlasgow · Oct 26, 2024

Then the correct remedy is to have the scope base screw holes re-centered and tapped to 8-32. Lapping rings is stupid.

DM1975 · Oct 26, 2024

I haven’t lapped a set of rings for 18 years now. Never had a problem.

E_T_G · Oct 26, 2024

Baron23 said:
I’m shocked you felt you needed to lap the Vortex rings as their better rings are made by Seekins and they know how to do modern precision machining.

How did you determine they needed lapping and how did you determine 90% contact, please?

It's called machinist blue. When not even half of the inside of the rings show any sign of contact and the parts that do are on opposite side edges of the rings (and yes I did try the tops on the other direction) I know it will leave ring marks on the scope. I was just mounting a Viper PST but I still didn't want to bugger up the tube. The rings were like $60 or so - I doubt they were precision rings.

E_T_G · Oct 26, 2024

Rob01 said:
Well you ruined those Vortex rings so might as well ruin some NF rings too. Lol There is no need to lap rings.

Why did I ruin the rings?

Rob01 · Oct 27, 2024

E_T_G said:
Why did I ruin the rings?

Because you removed the hard anodizing and altered the rings so they are of no use except for one rifle that is out of spec. A smarter move would have been to fix the rifle.

jabonra · Oct 27, 2024

What about the rosin, is it worth a dash or also completely unnecessary with the precision of modern machining?

Alabusa · Oct 27, 2024

Never had the need. However, I only use Burris XTR Signature rings. Never had a single issue and have rifles that have maintained zero for over 12 years.

Mulepackhunter · Oct 27, 2024

Some rings need it and can be made better by it. I always check reguardless even on high end units. Theres always tolorence and shops use it. People are involved as well and they are flawed. If they need more contact I lap with custom ground carbide mandrels to get full contact. Not every customer has 400-600 bones for scope mounts and ill never shame a guy who doesnt. Work with what you have.

roostercogburn98 · Oct 27, 2024

JMGlasgow said:
Then the correct remedy is to have the scope base screw holes re-centered and tapped to 8-32. Lapping rings is stupid.

I’d probably just go 8-40 instead is some weird size

LRShooter101 · Oct 27, 2024

Lapping was the old solution to poor production/quality parts, and largely due to separate scope rings being mounted on separate surfaces. With modern manufacturing, single piece scope mounts, and single piece rail mounting options, there is really no longer a need for it.
If you need to lap a set to rings today, the mounting surface(s) on the rifle are out of spec, and/or they are cheap or old rings that are out of spec. You could lap them, or you could solve the root cause of problem, and there will be no need to lap them.
Also, scope tube design has changed and improved. You can take a 34mm Vortex Razor or Nightforce ATACR (and others) and drive a framing nail into a 2x4 with no damage to the internals. The tubes are both much more precise and stronger.
If you buy high quality components, just mount them properly!

hlee · Oct 27, 2024

I would not ever buy any rings that needed to be lapped.

But, lapping rings does insure they fit the lapping bar precisely.

oldrifleman · Oct 27, 2024

hlee said:
I would not ever buy any rings that needed to be lapped.

But, lapping rings does insure they fit the lapping bar precisely.

But not necessarily the scope. As you mentioned, it now matches the lapping rod. There are still variations in scope diameters and a well made set of rings tightened to the correct number will accommodate and secure the scope.

JMGlasgow · Oct 27, 2024

roostercogburn98 said:
I’d probably just go 8-40 instead is some weird size

You are correct. That's what I meant.

roostercogburn98 · Oct 27, 2024

JMGlasgow said:
You are correct. That's what I meant.

Just bustin balls

Rodney65 · Oct 27, 2024

jabonra said:
What about the rosin, is it worth a dash or also completely unnecessary with the precision of modern machining?

I'm also curious.

Rust · Oct 27, 2024

JMGlasgow said:
Then the correct remedy is to have the scope base screw holes re-centered and tapped to 8-32. Lapping rings is stupid.

As I mentioned the receiver was off both with the bore alignment of the mounting holes AND the receiver heights were incorrect. Install the screws in the front of the one piece mount and there was a large gap between the rear of the mount and the receiver. Install the screws in the rear of the mount and the front of the mount was not horizontal but cocked up at an angle against the front of the receiver. Going to 8-32s would not solve that issue and shimming is less than perfect and something I don't do. Not like the mounts and rings are ever coming of that rifle.

I suppose that I could have used Burris insert rings but when they didn't hold a scope against recoil on a lightweight .300 RUM elk rifle I never went that route again even though the 700 is a .308.

So basically the most solid solution was two piece mounts and lapping. And if it solved both problems how stupid is it?

Rob01 · Oct 28, 2024

Rust said:
As I mentioned the receiver was off both with the bore alignment of the mounting holes AND the receiver heights were incorrect. Install the screws in the front of the one piece mount and there was a large gap between the rear of the mount and the receiver. Install the screws in the rear of the mount and the front of the mount was not horizontal but cocked up at an angle against the front of the receiver. Going to 8-32s would not solve that issue and shimming is less than perfect and something I don't do. Not like the mounts and rings are ever coming of that rifle.

I suppose that I could have used Burris insert rings but when they didn't hold a scope against recoil on a lightweight .300 RUM elk rifle I never went that route again even though the 700 is a .308.

So basically the most solid solution was two piece mounts and lapping. And if it solved both problems how stupid is it?

Sounds like the most screwed up receiver ever! Definitely the far exception to the rule and something that truing/opening the scope mount holes and bedding the base to the receiver would have fixed and then not having to worry about lapping ever again. But if it's a screw together and leave then do what you like but it's not the norm at all.

carbonbased · Oct 28, 2024

In principle, I’m not against lapping scope rings (although I’ve never done it).

But the thing I’ve done in the case of a R700 and an old Browning that I was worried about is to use Burris Signature rings. In both cases the bases were separate and not one-piece.

Signature ring’s plastic insert adjusts the MOA and also deals with any misalignment. They make beefy XTR rings and lighter types too.

The Zee Signature are a pretty good and lighter pic rail ring but I don’t see them on their site anymore? I see them for sale elsewhere.

Word of warning
You have to be cautious when tightening. Once you hear the torque wrench click, don’t keep going back over and over and over to the screws to retighten. It seems that this ring style just keeps slowly tightening.

I click twice on each screw, pretty much just like I do it on regular rings. I just ignore the slight movement on Signature rings after the second go round.

Rust · Oct 31, 2024

Rob01 said:
Sounds like the most screwed up receiver ever! Definitely the far exception to the rule and something that truing/opening the scope mount holes and bedding the base to the receiver would have fixed and then not having to worry about lapping ever again. But if it's a screw together and leave then do what you like but it's not the norm at all.

It's sure the most screwed up Remington I've ever had.

As stated above, it was far enough off going to 8-32 would have been real close but not dead nuts on. The gap at the rear receiver bridge was large enough that I wouldn't have wanted to bed anyhow. So mounted and glued two piece mounts and lapped in 20 minute rings. Shoots pretty well and I don't plan on doing anything else with it.

What I did is pretty old school but it works, and it's bomb proof.

JWG · Nov 1, 2024

When you tighten rings, they compress the tube 0.006-0.012". If something is slightly, ever so slightly off, it literally won't matter, given how minutely off it actually could be, in a modern 1 piece mount. I've used multiple Reptilia, Badger, and nightforce mounts. No scopes I've ever pulled out of those rings made me question lapping as something I should have done.

Mulepackhunter · Nov 2, 2024

Rodney65 said:
I'm also curious.

As far as rosin if you know how it works its not a good solution. rosin needs friction to stick. So it will slip, create heat, and begin to lock up so not great for extra hold on scope. Ive never seen any need for it. I do use it on tight barrels ocasionally. It slips and pops then grabs and usually barrel pops loose. ive actually had better luck cleaning all surfaces well with alcohol before assembly and that sticks just as well.

Rob01 · Nov 2, 2024

Yup I wipe the inside of rings with alcohol also to get out anything that might be slick. Works fine.

Rodney65 · Nov 2, 2024

Mulepackhunter said:
As far as rosin if you know how it works its not a good solution. rosin needs friction to stick. So it will slip, create heat, and begin to lock up so not great for extra hold on scope. Ive never seen any need for it. I do use it on tight barrels ocasionally. It slips and pops then grabs and usually barrel pops loose. ive actually had better luck cleaning all surfaces well with alcohol before assembly and that sticks just as well.

Good to know, thanks. I have only ever used it for removing barrels and some online tutorials advise sprinkling it everywhere when doing so.

MarkyMark007 · Nov 5, 2024

nobody laps the rings the right way. so that the surfaces will be parallel with each other: bottom and top.
everybody laps surfaces in the way that they become oval / round. this is because you have ring screws which must be loosen to be even able to move lapping tool. this is even worse in 1-screw rings.

so in reality with lapping you shrink contact surfaces into the middle part of the rings. if you have mounts which are not parallel and they will make torque on scope body, this is fine. if your contact surfaces have burrs, this is fine.
but if you have good mounts which are parallel, this is the way to ruin good mounts.

Having trouble using the site?

Lapping Scope rings - I see mostly No but some Yes

Private

Non-Privates

Moderator

Argumentative

Unreconstructed

Check 6

Couldn't think of anything clever

Old Salt

The Poors

Private

Private

Moderator

Tactical conspicuous consumption

Learning

Private

Fudd gun collector extraordinaire

Sergeant

Sergeant

Sergeant

Old Salt

Fudd gun collector extraordinaire

Private

Couldn't think of anything clever

Moderator

💥💥💥💥

Couldn't think of anything clever

Private

Private

Moderator

Private

Gunny Sergeant

Similar threads