Re: Question about transferring a scope & rings to new
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keninsb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, not trying to stir the pot here, and have resigned myself to reinstall the scope and rings like new (including the lapping), but I posted the same question on the CalGuns.net web site and got a few strange response, at least they seemed a lioff to me.</div></div>
From what you posted about the two replies you mentioned, neither of them is <span style="font-style: italic">"wrong"</span>. The way that the responses were worded and your (admitted) minimal experience (and understanding) of the way lapping works makes it seem more complicated than it is. And that is not intended as a "dig" on you in any way. Also, IMO it's smart to remove and re-install the rings and start over since you're going to want to level the reticle with a plumb line.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keninsb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One guy posted saying that "You lap rings to smooth them out to keep them from marking the scope tube". Now I am 99% sure that you lap the rings to make sure that are parallel and so that the inside of the rings make better contact with the scope to get a better "bite". Is that not correct?</div></div>
Lapping the rings does decrease the likelihood of ring marks, because lapping the rings <span style="font-style: italic">"in"</span> increases the contact area between the scope tube and the rings, increasing holding power for the given in/lb torque spec (i.e. the rings get a <span style="font-style: italic">"better bite"</span> on the tube). The rings will also be less likely to "bite" into the tube at the edges (this can still happen with rings whose edges aren't radiused along the tube contact, even if the ring tops are torqued to manufacturer specifications).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keninsb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another guy said that "The reason for lapping is to remove any angular misalignment of the rings and base system" which sound reasonable, but his point was that that the rail will not mate to each recevier the same and that will warp. The rail needs to be bedded to the receiver before mounting the rings then the rings need to be lapped.</div></div>
This is also correct. Even if rings are perfectly-machined with their bores' concentric to each other, if the rail doesn't mate perfectly with the receiver the rail can distort and rings can still mark a scope. Rails and receivers aren't always perfect, and if the rail doesn't mate perfectly with the receiver the rail can warp. The result can be mis-aligned rings and a marked scope tube. That's why the guy said that <span style="font-style: italic">" The rail needs to be bedded to the receiver before mounting the rings then the rings need to be lapped."</span> Sometimes rails and bases need to be bedded, and sometimes they don't. It's easy to tell with a known-true one piece rail: Attach the rail to the receiver using only the two front screws (just snug). If the rear of the rail mates well with the receiver you're GTG. If there's a gap you should bed the rail.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: keninsb</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am sorry, I didn't mean to make this post into a long lengthy discussion, but there are SO many varrying opinions out there.
Thanks again,
Ken </div></div>
No problem. I hope this helps clarify things for you.
Keith
