Changed my rings from Seekins to Badgers. I needed the higher rings due to the AICS stock. The badger rings put some marks on the scope, the Seekins did not leave any marks on the scope. I currently am using a SS10x42 will be upgrading soon. Prefer not to mark up the new scope. Badger claims no need to lap the rings, would lapping the rings minimize the ring marks? Should I just get over the fact the scope is going to have ring marks?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rifle Scopes Lap Badger rings?
- Thread starter KevinU
- Start date
Re: Lap Badger rings?
didn't lap mine. Why did you go high, I run BO USMC 1 inchers, and do just fine. I have a fat face too.
didn't lap mine. Why did you go high, I run BO USMC 1 inchers, and do just fine. I have a fat face too.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
don't lap my Badger, just make sure they are clean inside before mounting them.
don't lap my Badger, just make sure they are clean inside before mounting them.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: netranger6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did you go high, I run BO USMC 1 inchers, and do just fine. I have a fat face too. </div></div>
I have high cheekbones. I cut a business card into 1/2 strips, kept stacking the strips between the scope and the bottom ring until I got a nice sight picture. 1.125 works for me.
I cleaned them thoroughly before installing.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: netranger6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did you go high, I run BO USMC 1 inchers, and do just fine. I have a fat face too. </div></div>
I have high cheekbones. I cut a business card into 1/2 strips, kept stacking the strips between the scope and the bottom ring until I got a nice sight picture. 1.125 works for me.
I cleaned them thoroughly before installing.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I have had to lap all 4 sets of my badger rings both steel and alloy if you want to have full contact with your scope body and with no miss alinment you have to lap them alot of people say no but if they would lap them they would see how much they are realy out of alainment .
I have had to lap all 4 sets of my badger rings both steel and alloy if you want to have full contact with your scope body and with no miss alinment you have to lap them alot of people say no but if they would lap them they would see how much they are realy out of alainment .
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinU</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Changed my rings from Seekins to Badgers. I needed the higher rings due to the AICS stock. The badger rings put some marks on the scope, the Seekins did not leave any marks on the scope. I currently am using a SS10x42 will be upgrading soon. Prefer not to mark up the new scope. Badger claims no need to lap the rings, would lapping the rings minimize the ring marks? Should I just get over the fact the scope is going to have ring marks? </div></div>
I am exactly like you. With the costs of todays scopes, and the precision by which manufacturers can make rings, there is no excuse to put ring marks on scopes.
I bought my first set of Badgers just a couple of weeks ago, and they will be the last set I ever buy. Previously I have always used USO rings. Basically I bought a pair of USOs just to try them a few years back, before I even had a USO scope, and they were fantastic. There was absolutely no reason to lap them and they have not left a single ring mark on any scope that I've put them in. They have held NFs, a SS, and now 5 different USOs. I must have had 7 different sets of USOs over the years. None have ever left a ring mark on any scope. While there are some people that will argue there is no escape from ring marks, I disagree.
Well, I recently acquired a Cooper 22 in 308, installed a USO base, USO rings and a new USO TPAL on it. Even with the USO lows, my scope objective was .382 inches off the barrel, so I wanted to lower it. USO Lows, which I had, are .990. The super lows are .880, which meant my scope would still have been .272 off the barrel, which is too high for my tastes and how low the cheek piece of the stock is. Being that Badgers are the lowest I could find at .823, I bought them. The scope would still be .215 off the barrel, which, IMO is still too much, but it was the lowest I could get-that I know off.
So I ordered the Badgers, they came, I degreased them, put the lowers on the USO base, and went to set the scope in the lower ring halves. I could not believe how poor the fit was for a set of 165 dollar rings. The fit was so poor that I feared I would damage the scope finish if I attempted to rotate it in the rings-even without the tops on. They came off, and I'm dealing with the extra height of the USOs.
I know there are a lot of Badger fans here, but I am not one, and will whole heartedly accept the flames of those who are. Maybe I got a bad set, I don't know. What I know, is they fit worse than a set of Burris Extremes I have on a beater Rem 700 in 204 Ruger. The Badgers I had would need a LOT of lapping to get to the point that I consider satisfactory. And I don't mind lapping a set of rings, but this particular set of Badgers would require a lot of work.
They are so bad that I don't even know what to do with them other than return them to Brownells, which I cant really do. I ordered them through my local shop, who ordered them from Brownells, so I don't even know if I can return them. I think that selling them to someone here in the classifieds would be nothing short of wrong. I'd hate to have someone ruin their scope with a set of new rings that I sold them, brand new or not.
So, if you are going to use Badgers, from my point of view, I would HIGHLY suggest you have them lapped, and lapped well. My suggestion: get rid of the Badgers and get a set of USOs or go back to the Seekins.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinU</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Changed my rings from Seekins to Badgers. I needed the higher rings due to the AICS stock. The badger rings put some marks on the scope, the Seekins did not leave any marks on the scope. I currently am using a SS10x42 will be upgrading soon. Prefer not to mark up the new scope. Badger claims no need to lap the rings, would lapping the rings minimize the ring marks? Should I just get over the fact the scope is going to have ring marks? </div></div>
I am exactly like you. With the costs of todays scopes, and the precision by which manufacturers can make rings, there is no excuse to put ring marks on scopes.
I bought my first set of Badgers just a couple of weeks ago, and they will be the last set I ever buy. Previously I have always used USO rings. Basically I bought a pair of USOs just to try them a few years back, before I even had a USO scope, and they were fantastic. There was absolutely no reason to lap them and they have not left a single ring mark on any scope that I've put them in. They have held NFs, a SS, and now 5 different USOs. I must have had 7 different sets of USOs over the years. None have ever left a ring mark on any scope. While there are some people that will argue there is no escape from ring marks, I disagree.
Well, I recently acquired a Cooper 22 in 308, installed a USO base, USO rings and a new USO TPAL on it. Even with the USO lows, my scope objective was .382 inches off the barrel, so I wanted to lower it. USO Lows, which I had, are .990. The super lows are .880, which meant my scope would still have been .272 off the barrel, which is too high for my tastes and how low the cheek piece of the stock is. Being that Badgers are the lowest I could find at .823, I bought them. The scope would still be .215 off the barrel, which, IMO is still too much, but it was the lowest I could get-that I know off.
So I ordered the Badgers, they came, I degreased them, put the lowers on the USO base, and went to set the scope in the lower ring halves. I could not believe how poor the fit was for a set of 165 dollar rings. The fit was so poor that I feared I would damage the scope finish if I attempted to rotate it in the rings-even without the tops on. They came off, and I'm dealing with the extra height of the USOs.
I know there are a lot of Badger fans here, but I am not one, and will whole heartedly accept the flames of those who are. Maybe I got a bad set, I don't know. What I know, is they fit worse than a set of Burris Extremes I have on a beater Rem 700 in 204 Ruger. The Badgers I had would need a LOT of lapping to get to the point that I consider satisfactory. And I don't mind lapping a set of rings, but this particular set of Badgers would require a lot of work.
They are so bad that I don't even know what to do with them other than return them to Brownells, which I cant really do. I ordered them through my local shop, who ordered them from Brownells, so I don't even know if I can return them. I think that selling them to someone here in the classifieds would be nothing short of wrong. I'd hate to have someone ruin their scope with a set of new rings that I sold them, brand new or not.
So, if you are going to use Badgers, from my point of view, I would HIGHLY suggest you have them lapped, and lapped well. My suggestion: get rid of the Badgers and get a set of USOs or go back to the Seekins.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I have a 30MM lapping bar so I do all of my own .<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinU</div><div class="ubbcode-body">single shot, did you lap yours yourself? If not, where did you have them done?
Thanks </div></div>
I have a 30MM lapping bar so I do all of my own .<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinU</div><div class="ubbcode-body">single shot, did you lap yours yourself? If not, where did you have them done?
Thanks </div></div>
Re: Lap Badger rings?
brand692,
You should have contacted Marty (owner of Badger) about your rings.
#1 - He will exchange your "bad" rings for a new set
#2 - He'll want to see your "bad" rings to evaluate exactly what happened & why they went out with a flaw
Badger makes high quality stuff & very rarely do you hear about a bad set of rings. I have used several sets & have never lapped them nor had a problem. Give Marty a call - he'll make it right!!
brand692,
You should have contacted Marty (owner of Badger) about your rings.
#1 - He will exchange your "bad" rings for a new set
#2 - He'll want to see your "bad" rings to evaluate exactly what happened & why they went out with a flaw
Badger makes high quality stuff & very rarely do you hear about a bad set of rings. I have used several sets & have never lapped them nor had a problem. Give Marty a call - he'll make it right!!
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Check out Farrell rings- they are beautifully machined, with a relieved contact area where the scope contacts the base. I have taken off several NF Benchrest scopes (kinda med gloss-shows scratches) from these rings and you could see NO marks-like new. Big honking torx screws. Same $...
Check out Farrell rings- they are beautifully machined, with a relieved contact area where the scope contacts the base. I have taken off several NF Benchrest scopes (kinda med gloss-shows scratches) from these rings and you could see NO marks-like new. Big honking torx screws. Same $...
Re: Lap Badger rings?
If it makes you feel better about it then lap them but they dont need to be
I have mounted a bunch scopes from tactical to hunting from $100 to $3000 scopes using just about any kind of ring you can think of. Ring marks happen I have tried lapping rings to prevent marks and still get them. So I don't lap rings anymore unless asked
If it makes you feel better about it then lap them but they dont need to be
I have mounted a bunch scopes from tactical to hunting from $100 to $3000 scopes using just about any kind of ring you can think of. Ring marks happen I have tried lapping rings to prevent marks and still get them. So I don't lap rings anymore unless asked
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I bet his rings were fine.....but that the base weas tweaked by mounting to a receiver that was less than perfect.
Rings are almost never suspect......but the best base made can be tweaked out of true by the action....causing ring misalignment.
Bedding the base is the best way to fix this....but lapping will work.
I bet his rings were fine.....but that the base weas tweaked by mounting to a receiver that was less than perfect.
Rings are almost never suspect......but the best base made can be tweaked out of true by the action....causing ring misalignment.
Bedding the base is the best way to fix this....but lapping will work.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Buckey, I haven't contacted Marty. I've been in and out of the hospital for the last four weeks. I may give them a call tomorrow now that I'm home.
Rafael, you have more experience than me, 10 fold probably, so to test the tweaked base theory, I just tried the Badgers out on my Stiller. Same results. The rings appear to "pinch" the scope from the sides.
Trust me, I get it. Man makes machines that make parts for more machines. Sometimes stuff fails. I've been on the receiving end of that very deal. Unfortunately, my first set of Badgers appear to have fallen into that very small percentage of Badger products. Not saying they are all bad rings, but the ones I have would need to have a lot of lapping done to keep from damaging a scopes finish. Generally, just from this forum, from their service on military rifles, and the number of competition rifles that have won trophies with Badger Rings, I would say Badger Rings have had great success. I got a bad set on my first go around. I see no reason to buy any more when I have not had a single problem with half a dozen sets of USOs. I'll stick with what works for now.
Buckey, I haven't contacted Marty. I've been in and out of the hospital for the last four weeks. I may give them a call tomorrow now that I'm home.
Rafael, you have more experience than me, 10 fold probably, so to test the tweaked base theory, I just tried the Badgers out on my Stiller. Same results. The rings appear to "pinch" the scope from the sides.
Trust me, I get it. Man makes machines that make parts for more machines. Sometimes stuff fails. I've been on the receiving end of that very deal. Unfortunately, my first set of Badgers appear to have fallen into that very small percentage of Badger products. Not saying they are all bad rings, but the ones I have would need to have a lot of lapping done to keep from damaging a scopes finish. Generally, just from this forum, from their service on military rifles, and the number of competition rifles that have won trophies with Badger Rings, I would say Badger Rings have had great success. I got a bad set on my first go around. I see no reason to buy any more when I have not had a single problem with half a dozen sets of USOs. I'll stick with what works for now.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I've used Badgers for years. I've never lapped them. No Badger ring of mine has ever come loose or pinched a tube, perhaps because I torque the ring cap screws to Marty's specifications.
However, I don't worry about ring marks. If a ring mark was the worst thing which ever happened to one of my scopes, it would be living a charmed life. I shoot my rifles under field conditions, not off a bench.
I've used Badgers for years. I've never lapped them. No Badger ring of mine has ever come loose or pinched a tube, perhaps because I torque the ring cap screws to Marty's specifications.
However, I don't worry about ring marks. If a ring mark was the worst thing which ever happened to one of my scopes, it would be living a charmed life. I shoot my rifles under field conditions, not off a bench.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Lindy, you, like Rafael, have probably forgotton more about shooting than I've learned. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, but I learn stuff nearly every time I read your posts.
But I have to say that the OP had a problem with his Badgers, the same issue I had, except I caught it before I scratched up a brand new TPAL. They would have left excessive ring marks (well into and possibly through the finish) that the others don't, regardless of Marty's torque specifications. In my case, I didn't even install or torque a cap down because the scope didn't fit in bottom half of the rings correctly. There are a thousand worse things that could happen to a scope than the run of the mill ring marks, but there is no reason, whether shooting field conditions or on a bench, to knowingly put excessive ring marks in a scope which is what the set I have would have done.
Lindy, you, like Rafael, have probably forgotton more about shooting than I've learned. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, but I learn stuff nearly every time I read your posts.
But I have to say that the OP had a problem with his Badgers, the same issue I had, except I caught it before I scratched up a brand new TPAL. They would have left excessive ring marks (well into and possibly through the finish) that the others don't, regardless of Marty's torque specifications. In my case, I didn't even install or torque a cap down because the scope didn't fit in bottom half of the rings correctly. There are a thousand worse things that could happen to a scope than the run of the mill ring marks, but there is no reason, whether shooting field conditions or on a bench, to knowingly put excessive ring marks in a scope which is what the set I have would have done.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Thats why I hit all of my rings with a lapping bar just to be sure. If it doesnt need it, it shows very fast and I stop without taking off a whole lot of metal, but I can honestly say that the only rings that I have hit with a lapping bar that showed that it didnt need it was Seekins.
Thats why I hit all of my rings with a lapping bar just to be sure. If it doesnt need it, it shows very fast and I stop without taking off a whole lot of metal, but I can honestly say that the only rings that I have hit with a lapping bar that showed that it didnt need it was Seekins.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
fwiw,
Been mounting high end glass for a good while and I've never lapped a Badger. Don't know of a scope that I've ring marked or damaged either. That said barrels ruined with a cleaning rod and rings ruined with lapping kits keep the machinery humming...imho
Regards, Matt.
fwiw,
Been mounting high end glass for a good while and I've never lapped a Badger. Don't know of a scope that I've ring marked or damaged either. That said barrels ruined with a cleaning rod and rings ruined with lapping kits keep the machinery humming...imho
Regards, Matt.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
just a thought...btw im from the dont lap badgers camp as well, havent had to on 3 savages(newer round backs), an ar30, and remmy. couple are buddys rifles. but..
im building a 338 rum on an older flat back savage action, and the only steel 20 moa base i could find was a Warne. this base doesnt fit well. theres almost .010 gap at the rear when the front of the base is snug. so, either the reciever isnt perfect( a known issue w older savages) or the base isnt true. eithers possible, i dont really care which is at fault, i can tell ya the base will be fitted carefully for full contact before installation. wouldnt matter whos rings i put on this, they will probably need lapping. mixing different folks rings and bases, not perfectly true recievers, etc could lead to times when anyones rings may need lapping. btw, neither badger or seekins will make a base for the old flattop LA savages...hehe i wonder why?
lear
just a thought...btw im from the dont lap badgers camp as well, havent had to on 3 savages(newer round backs), an ar30, and remmy. couple are buddys rifles. but..
im building a 338 rum on an older flat back savage action, and the only steel 20 moa base i could find was a Warne. this base doesnt fit well. theres almost .010 gap at the rear when the front of the base is snug. so, either the reciever isnt perfect( a known issue w older savages) or the base isnt true. eithers possible, i dont really care which is at fault, i can tell ya the base will be fitted carefully for full contact before installation. wouldnt matter whos rings i put on this, they will probably need lapping. mixing different folks rings and bases, not perfectly true recievers, etc could lead to times when anyones rings may need lapping. btw, neither badger or seekins will make a base for the old flattop LA savages...hehe i wonder why?
lear
Re: Lap Badger rings?
brand692;
I did not mean that as an insult towards you.
To be honest....I had not even read your post when I replied.....I certainly should have. I will certainly take you at your word that you had a problems set of rings.
I do think this is a rare thing with Badger and with most ring manufacturers. I have been impressed with the quality of the few Badger products I own.
Yours is not a good example of the point I was wanting to promote......that too often it is the action causing problems with ring misalignment. I think many good rings have gotten a bad rap because of piss-poor action QC.
Many factory actions are cast, then just cleaned up on a sanding belt....or whatever they prefer these days.....with only a few surfaces cleaned up with precision machinery.
Little regard is given to the base mounting surfaces.
Bases and rings are machined from stock.......it's just plain easier to make all of them the same.
The need to lap, or not, has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the rings or base......but alot to do with the action manufacturer in most cases. Of course the user could fix this misalignment in other ways such as bedding the base to the receiver.
brand692;
I did not mean that as an insult towards you.
To be honest....I had not even read your post when I replied.....I certainly should have. I will certainly take you at your word that you had a problems set of rings.
I do think this is a rare thing with Badger and with most ring manufacturers. I have been impressed with the quality of the few Badger products I own.
Yours is not a good example of the point I was wanting to promote......that too often it is the action causing problems with ring misalignment. I think many good rings have gotten a bad rap because of piss-poor action QC.
Many factory actions are cast, then just cleaned up on a sanding belt....or whatever they prefer these days.....with only a few surfaces cleaned up with precision machinery.
Little regard is given to the base mounting surfaces.
Bases and rings are machined from stock.......it's just plain easier to make all of them the same.
The need to lap, or not, has nothing to do with the manufacturer of the rings or base......but alot to do with the action manufacturer in most cases. Of course the user could fix this misalignment in other ways such as bedding the base to the receiver.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Hi....are we on planet earth still ! I never thought of a scope as a "Ming Vase".
Does anybody get worried if their hammer gets a mark on the head from driving a nail.
I did see a bird with a "Ring Mark" on its neck one time...it tasted good !!!
That said:
If they are not cylndrical and on axis with each other to the eye..there is a problem. Im sure one could check them after installation with a CMM and every ring/base made would be out to some degree( including the one piece units). IMO lapping after install would yeild the best fit availible with common tools.
I dont own a ring lap....LOL
Hi....are we on planet earth still ! I never thought of a scope as a "Ming Vase".
Does anybody get worried if their hammer gets a mark on the head from driving a nail.
I did see a bird with a "Ring Mark" on its neck one time...it tasted good !!!
That said:
If they are not cylndrical and on axis with each other to the eye..there is a problem. Im sure one could check them after installation with a CMM and every ring/base made would be out to some degree( including the one piece units). IMO lapping after install would yeild the best fit availible with common tools.
I dont own a ring lap....LOL
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindy, you, like Rafael, have probably forgotton more about shooting than I've learned. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, but I learn stuff nearly every time I read your posts. </div></div>
I am pretty forgetful......and I am still a novice compared to a great many on this board.
I will agree with you that Lindy carries a ton of knowledge and experience. I gain alot form his shared wisdom, and that of many others here.
I agree though....rings marks don't bother me....I just like making sure things fit well...as you do.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: brand692</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lindy, you, like Rafael, have probably forgotton more about shooting than I've learned. I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass, but I learn stuff nearly every time I read your posts. </div></div>
I am pretty forgetful......and I am still a novice compared to a great many on this board.
I will agree with you that Lindy carries a ton of knowledge and experience. I gain alot form his shared wisdom, and that of many others here.
I agree though....rings marks don't bother me....I just like making sure things fit well...as you do.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
However, I don't worry about ring marks. If a ring mark was the worst thing which ever happened to one of my scopes, it would be living a charmed life. I shoot my rifles under field conditions, not off a bench.
</div></div>
Amen. Plus I hit them with a coat of Krylon
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
However, I don't worry about ring marks. If a ring mark was the worst thing which ever happened to one of my scopes, it would be living a charmed life. I shoot my rifles under field conditions, not off a bench.
</div></div>
Amen. Plus I hit them with a coat of Krylon
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Thanks for all of the input. I am concluding that more than likely these rings will not have to be lapped, but I should check them very close before mounting the scope. Thanks again.
Thanks for all of the input. I am concluding that more than likely these rings will not have to be lapped, but I should check them very close before mounting the scope. Thanks again.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I just posted this reply on another forum. The original post was from a fellow who found his scope would not fit into his rings. He had quality components. Read and learn:
Post Options Post Reply
Quote kokopelli Quote Reply Posted: Today at 08:46
You are experiencing "machining tolerance" up front and personal. On every forum I frequent the pseudo "experts" claim that they don't need to lap or they don't need to check alignment because they have a blah blah blah set of rings and bases and they're perfect so no testing or checking of the alignment of anything is necessary. BOOO! HISSS! It just isn't so. There is nothing in the manufacturing world that is perfect. There are plus/minus tolerances that apply and a product or part that falls within those tolerances is acceptable, outside of those tolerances is not aceptable. You just got one component with a minus tolerance and another with a plus tolerance together at the same time. Those "experts" who claim that rings and bases made by so and so are perfect is talking through a hole in his head. One can get this exact situation with any manufacturer and you might even get a front ring that's too tight and a rear ring that is too loose. That's reality. <span style="font-weight: bold">Once shooters figure this out and understand that every single component of a scope installation needs to be checked they will be on the way to obtaining the best accuracy from their firearms.</span> There are no shortcuts.
I just posted this reply on another forum. The original post was from a fellow who found his scope would not fit into his rings. He had quality components. Read and learn:
Post Options Post Reply
Quote kokopelli Quote Reply Posted: Today at 08:46
You are experiencing "machining tolerance" up front and personal. On every forum I frequent the pseudo "experts" claim that they don't need to lap or they don't need to check alignment because they have a blah blah blah set of rings and bases and they're perfect so no testing or checking of the alignment of anything is necessary. BOOO! HISSS! It just isn't so. There is nothing in the manufacturing world that is perfect. There are plus/minus tolerances that apply and a product or part that falls within those tolerances is acceptable, outside of those tolerances is not aceptable. You just got one component with a minus tolerance and another with a plus tolerance together at the same time. Those "experts" who claim that rings and bases made by so and so are perfect is talking through a hole in his head. One can get this exact situation with any manufacturer and you might even get a front ring that's too tight and a rear ring that is too loose. That's reality. <span style="font-weight: bold">Once shooters figure this out and understand that every single component of a scope installation needs to be checked they will be on the way to obtaining the best accuracy from their firearms.</span> There are no shortcuts.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I have watched US Optics machine their rings as a solid pair. To my knowledge, both Seekins and Badger use the same technique to machine their rings into perfect pairs. What I can see is the following:
A perfect pair of rings is machined with very close to zero tolerance together. The farther apart they move will apperantly cause misalignment in that tolerance. Why? Is the base not exactly square? Has the base been misaligned from square or aligned when it was mounted? Are the mounting surfaces of the base perfectly machined?
I ask these questions because of the three rings mentioned, they are first bored with solid alignment then cut into matched pair afterwords with very minimal tolerance on bore and alignment. These rings are all machined on Computer programed machines that will show zero to .00001 tolerances in the programs. So, with that said, why are people having issues with these rings?
I would only accept the answer of one of the manufacturers or an experienced machinist who knows where I am trying to go with this as all else is only mere supposition
I have watched US Optics machine their rings as a solid pair. To my knowledge, both Seekins and Badger use the same technique to machine their rings into perfect pairs. What I can see is the following:
A perfect pair of rings is machined with very close to zero tolerance together. The farther apart they move will apperantly cause misalignment in that tolerance. Why? Is the base not exactly square? Has the base been misaligned from square or aligned when it was mounted? Are the mounting surfaces of the base perfectly machined?
I ask these questions because of the three rings mentioned, they are first bored with solid alignment then cut into matched pair afterwords with very minimal tolerance on bore and alignment. These rings are all machined on Computer programed machines that will show zero to .00001 tolerances in the programs. So, with that said, why are people having issues with these rings?
I would only accept the answer of one of the manufacturers or an experienced machinist who knows where I am trying to go with this as all else is only mere supposition
Re: Lap Badger rings?
The way we manufacture our rings is quit different than most. Im not sure how badger does theirs, but all of the important fetures are machined into the ring bottom in one operation. We actually get what would be 3 operations in a standard cnc in one operation. This eliminates human error and holds the important tolerances within the machines capabilities and new mori cnc's are far beond accurate.
99.999% its going to come down to how your base fits onto your reciever with our rings. And yes, i am confident in saying that..
The way we manufacture our rings is quit different than most. Im not sure how badger does theirs, but all of the important fetures are machined into the ring bottom in one operation. We actually get what would be 3 operations in a standard cnc in one operation. This eliminates human error and holds the important tolerances within the machines capabilities and new mori cnc's are far beond accurate.
99.999% its going to come down to how your base fits onto your reciever with our rings. And yes, i am confident in saying that..
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
99.999% its going to come down to how your base fits onto your reciever with our rings. And yes, i am confident in saying that.. </div></div>
Agreed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: heatseekins</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
99.999% its going to come down to how your base fits onto your reciever with our rings. And yes, i am confident in saying that.. </div></div>
Agreed.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
Well, I may come pretty close to being an expert in the optics testing and adjusting field. I was trained in just that regarding all types of surveying intruments back in 1962. I worked in that field for about 10 years. Getting a rifle scope into its mounts is pretty tame stuff compared to what I trained in. I also have 16 years of experience in the machining field, although I am not a machinist. I don't pretend to be. I do understand engineering as I have quite a bit of training in that field also. I have quite a bit of training in Geology, too, enough to know that one doesn't use a rock to get a rifle scope into alignment.
The scope rings and bases are very much better than they were just a few years ago. The receivers that these components attach to are not. If you screw a perfect base down onto a warped receiver you will get a bad result. It matters not if the rings are perfect either. Perfect rings cannot correct a problem somewhere else in the installation. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> You must test every component in the installation and correct any and all errors if you are to end up with a quality result. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> An example of how I was trained is: When testing a survey transit you had to get the same results in each of three independent tests before you made any adjustment. After making the necessary adjustment, you proved your work with three more complete tests and the results had to match. A transit has about 11 separate adjustments that all have to be in synch at the same time in order to be acceptable. On older units the crosshairs were individually adjustable; for vertical hair , left/right and in rotation. For horizontal hair, up/down and in rotation. All of the principles of optics testing apply directly to setting up and adjusting machine tools, also. I have rebuilt and sold a number of them, too. The principals don't change. You must test every aspect of the installation if you are going to get a quality result. You can't assume everything is OK just because one or two of the components is high quality. There are no shortcuts to getting good results! Those who can't grasp this concept should have a truly knowledgable person install their scopes for them.
Well, I may come pretty close to being an expert in the optics testing and adjusting field. I was trained in just that regarding all types of surveying intruments back in 1962. I worked in that field for about 10 years. Getting a rifle scope into its mounts is pretty tame stuff compared to what I trained in. I also have 16 years of experience in the machining field, although I am not a machinist. I don't pretend to be. I do understand engineering as I have quite a bit of training in that field also. I have quite a bit of training in Geology, too, enough to know that one doesn't use a rock to get a rifle scope into alignment.
The scope rings and bases are very much better than they were just a few years ago. The receivers that these components attach to are not. If you screw a perfect base down onto a warped receiver you will get a bad result. It matters not if the rings are perfect either. Perfect rings cannot correct a problem somewhere else in the installation. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> You must test every component in the installation and correct any and all errors if you are to end up with a quality result. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> An example of how I was trained is: When testing a survey transit you had to get the same results in each of three independent tests before you made any adjustment. After making the necessary adjustment, you proved your work with three more complete tests and the results had to match. A transit has about 11 separate adjustments that all have to be in synch at the same time in order to be acceptable. On older units the crosshairs were individually adjustable; for vertical hair , left/right and in rotation. For horizontal hair, up/down and in rotation. All of the principles of optics testing apply directly to setting up and adjusting machine tools, also. I have rebuilt and sold a number of them, too. The principals don't change. You must test every aspect of the installation if you are going to get a quality result. You can't assume everything is OK just because one or two of the components is high quality. There are no shortcuts to getting good results! Those who can't grasp this concept should have a truly knowledgable person install their scopes for them.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
I have had NF and Badger rings and never needed to lap at all. The only thing is of course to make sure things are wiped down and debri free before mounting optics.
I have had NF and Badger rings and never needed to lap at all. The only thing is of course to make sure things are wiped down and debri free before mounting optics.
Re: Lap Badger rings?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kokopelli</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I may come pretty close to being an expert in the optics testing and adjusting field. I was trained in just that regarding all types of surveying intruments back in 1962. I worked in that field for about 10 years. Getting a rifle scope into its mounts is pretty tame stuff compared to what I trained in. I also have 16 years of experience in the machining field, although I am not a machinist. I don't pretend to be. I do understand engineering as I have quite a bit of training in that field also. I have quite a bit of training in Geology, too, enough to know that one doesn't use a rock to get a rifle scope into alignment.
The scope rings and bases are very much better than they were just a few years ago. The receivers that these components attach to are not. If you screw a perfect base down onto a warped receiver you will get a bad result. It matters not if the rings are perfect either. Perfect rings cannot correct a problem somewhere else in the installation. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> You must test every component in the installation and correct any and all errors if you are to end up with a quality result. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> An example of how I was trained is: When testing a survey transit you had to get the same results in each of three independent tests before you made any adjustment. After making the necessary adjustment, you proved your work with three more complete tests and the results had to match. A transit has about 11 separate adjustments that all have to be in synch at the same time in order to be acceptable. On older units the crosshairs were individually adjustable; for vertical hair , left/right and in rotation. For horizontal hair, up/down and in rotation. All of the principles of optics testing apply directly to setting up and adjusting machine tools, also. I have rebuilt and sold a number of them, too. The principals don't change. You must test every aspect of the installation if you are going to get a quality result. You can't assume everything is OK just because one or two of the components is high quality. There are no shortcuts to getting good results! Those who can't grasp this concept should have a truly knowledgable person install their scopes for them. </div></div>
I agree 100% - doesn't matter if the rings and/or bases are perfect if the receiver or barrel is off. I've been shimming bases for years to get proper alignment and it almost always takes some lapping to finalize the install. On some really bad receivers I've had to forgo shims and use the Burris zee rings - they work great, I keep sets of the different inserts handy for those times. Even for those that think their high-end rifle with high-end rings & bases are perfect, they should at least lay a set of alignment bars in the rings before they go clamping down on that very expensive optic tube !! Some might be surprised. I've sold scopes to guys before that didn't want to pay me $25 to install it properly come back with a busted lense or kinked tube from slapping the scope in the rings and going for it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kokopelli</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, I may come pretty close to being an expert in the optics testing and adjusting field. I was trained in just that regarding all types of surveying intruments back in 1962. I worked in that field for about 10 years. Getting a rifle scope into its mounts is pretty tame stuff compared to what I trained in. I also have 16 years of experience in the machining field, although I am not a machinist. I don't pretend to be. I do understand engineering as I have quite a bit of training in that field also. I have quite a bit of training in Geology, too, enough to know that one doesn't use a rock to get a rifle scope into alignment.
The scope rings and bases are very much better than they were just a few years ago. The receivers that these components attach to are not. If you screw a perfect base down onto a warped receiver you will get a bad result. It matters not if the rings are perfect either. Perfect rings cannot correct a problem somewhere else in the installation. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> You must test every component in the installation and correct any and all errors if you are to end up with a quality result. <span style="font-weight: bold"> </span> An example of how I was trained is: When testing a survey transit you had to get the same results in each of three independent tests before you made any adjustment. After making the necessary adjustment, you proved your work with three more complete tests and the results had to match. A transit has about 11 separate adjustments that all have to be in synch at the same time in order to be acceptable. On older units the crosshairs were individually adjustable; for vertical hair , left/right and in rotation. For horizontal hair, up/down and in rotation. All of the principles of optics testing apply directly to setting up and adjusting machine tools, also. I have rebuilt and sold a number of them, too. The principals don't change. You must test every aspect of the installation if you are going to get a quality result. You can't assume everything is OK just because one or two of the components is high quality. There are no shortcuts to getting good results! Those who can't grasp this concept should have a truly knowledgable person install their scopes for them. </div></div>
I agree 100% - doesn't matter if the rings and/or bases are perfect if the receiver or barrel is off. I've been shimming bases for years to get proper alignment and it almost always takes some lapping to finalize the install. On some really bad receivers I've had to forgo shims and use the Burris zee rings - they work great, I keep sets of the different inserts handy for those times. Even for those that think their high-end rifle with high-end rings & bases are perfect, they should at least lay a set of alignment bars in the rings before they go clamping down on that very expensive optic tube !! Some might be surprised. I've sold scopes to guys before that didn't want to pay me $25 to install it properly come back with a busted lense or kinked tube from slapping the scope in the rings and going for it.
Similar threads
