Re: Lapping rings
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: slurpin dog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Weaver rings, are you referring to style or manufacturer? Have you found lapping rings cause more problems than fixed?
</div></div>
Weaver style.
Once rings are lapped, they are customized for the errors in that installation.
So when you mount your scope and rings which do you final (torque) tighten first, crossbolt or ring screws? Where I'use dedicated scopes, thought lapping would be the best prcedure to follow so as to keep as near perfect alignment as possible, whether or not beding scope to rings.
I like Weaver rail type mounts to be glassed to the receiver in a fixtured way, so that the mounts are co linear, co planar, and either parallel to the bore or 20 moa lower. This is easy with once piece rails, and harder with two piece mounts.
I want to be able to move a scope and rings from rifle to rifle, and be on the paper, and no bind.
This puts me at odds with gunsmiths building $20k Mausers like jewelry. They want tight fit between mount and receiver to be filled with solder, not epoxy. Then they send it to the engraver.
This puts me at odd with Benchrest who move a scope from rings and rifle to rings and rifle. They want a one piece mount, lapped rings, and glass inside the rings. Then they want a San Francisco bathhouse paint job.
I am trying to build light weight, long range rifles, that are functional. I am building tools for men, not jewelry for pussies. </div></div>