Who laps their scope rings?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Never have, but can't say that it is a bad idea. Just not sure how helpful it is. You regularly see people talking about shimming under a scope tube or even shimming the ring on the base and it seems this would be the diametric opposite of lapping so? I often use Sportsmatch adjustable rings and they are neutral on the scope tube as they are adjusted and can then be locked in place once adjusted so seemingly no stress on any scope tube.
 
Upvote 0
Only to solve slippage in a hard-recoiling springer. Elsewhere, I see no need. I have never experienced sufficient misalignment to damage a scope tube nor any ailment that can be attributable to the rings being out of axis with each other.

That’s not to say I deny there being examples where it is necessary but if it’s the fault of the rings, they probably aren’t rings I want to use. Yet I haven’t seen it from even the cheapest $10 rings. They can’t be off by much because they are extruded on the important axis and then cut off to size. Whatever surface imperfections are present are easily compensated for by the cloth tape that lines them. Again, the exception being when you need absolutely, positively 100% metal to metal contact on a hard recoiler.

There are many, many things I do when setting up a new airgun that involve tedious smoothing, fitting, and alignment. Scope rings just isn’t one of them.
 
Upvote 0
Some of the newer UTG Pro Accusync rings have had horrible alignment. They used to be made in the USA, then of course UTG decided to cheap out, contract them out to China, but keep the price the same. Stay away from those (two piece), you'll only end up sending them back...
Click to expand...

Exactly my experience. To bad because they were fantastic rings for the money when they were first introduced. 

$10 or $100+ rings can be hit or miss, but usually get what you pay for.
 
Upvote 0
I don't like to take chances even with expensive rings to stress out and damage the scope tubes or even leave any hint the scopes have been mounted because mass manufacturing can't be perfect 100% of the time. The rifle rail may not necessarily be perfect either. Many stress damages can't be seen by the naked eye. I don't lap to increase gripping power it's to not leave any marks on the scope. Even adjustable rings can leave marks if the machining isn't perfect plus the gun rail may not be either. Even seen 1 piece rings leave evidence on scope tubes. Yup properly torqued and all. Burris rings with the plastic shim inserts so far worked very well for me those don't need lapping however as a habit at least run the scope allignment check rods through them anyway.

https://youtu.be/fTIY9cZlpPs
 
Upvote 0
I usually lap my scope rings. The exception would be a higher end one piece mount, I typically don’t do those as it shouldn’t be needed. I do lap all my two piece rings because it doesn’t matter if they are machined perfect when your mounting surface isn’t. I have seen some dovetails that were far from perfect and lapping will ensue a good fit. I don’t think lapping is as important as it used to be as the tolerance of scope rings have come a long way in the past several years. I mostly do it for piece of mind and knowing I won’t have any ring marks on my scope when removed. It really doesn’t take me that long to do this, I have had plenty of practice over the past several years installing scopes for friends and family. I know that I have done well over 100 since I purchased my Wheeler mounting kit. I also enjoy doing it because I like to work on my guns. I enjoy it so much that I have considered buying a FX with my next purchase....sorry I just had to do that and was only joking around. Anyway, that’s my thoughts on the subject of lapping rings.
 
Upvote 0
Odoyle-

"Even adjustable rings can leave marks if the machining isn't perfect plus the gun rail may not be either."

That's why I prefer Sportsmatch rings. They are designed to be neutral throughout the adjustment range (both windage and elevation) when unlocked and remain so until manually locked by the user. Seems this would eliminate the concern you mention. Even a poorly machined rail shouldn't impact this function.

I do agree that rails can be off badly. I once had a Savage centerfire rifle that had a rail angled badly enough that I had to use Millett Angle-Loc rings to be able to get on target. Seems that long ago Savage drilled the receiver for the rail before heat treating and the action would "curl" slightly during heat treatment sometimes causing misalignment to the receiver/barrel. Similar misalignment surely seems possible for air gun manufacturers.
 
Upvote 0
I used to, until I started using the Burris XTR Signature Rings with the adjustable inserts. They are height and windage adjustable to set the scope's optical center close to the point of impact. I continue to put bubble levels on a mandrel and lap the pieces to ensure that they sit on the tube perfectly and won't be marring it up from mismatched and poorly machined parts.
 
Upvote 0
If you are using a typical airgun scope why would you even bother?
Click to expand...

Not typical.

IMG_20210113_0046410502.1611240692.jpg

 
Upvote 0
I used to lap my rings, and would continue to do so if I still used 2-piece rings without bedding. Since going to one-piece mounts, I have stopped lapping - I lapped a few, but they lapped so evenly that it wasn't doing any good. Even cheap "Monstrum" one-piece mounts seem near-perfect. Another benefit is that my windage is typically right on the money after attaching the scope. On precision powder-burners I'll bed the scope rather than lap because I can shim it to put mechanical zero right where I want it for greatest accuracy and best use of adjustment range.

GsT
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu