Lapping scope rings Why and How.

[Gwion]

Homer, if you don't lap the top half of the rings, how do you ensure the lapping rod is running true in the bottom half?

Also, if you don't true the tops, it seems to me more likely that the top halves will mark the scope as any discrepancy there will be exacerbated.

Just honest questions.

[Redwood]

Homer, if you don't lap the top half of the rings, how do you ensure the lapping rod is running true in the bottom half?

My thoughts too

[<<Genesis93>>]

I think there's a bit of confusion here.... who suggested not attaching the top of the rings??
They are attached, and tensioned so as to allow the bar to be rotated / slid...sufficiently to wear away the 'uneven-ness' and non-concentricity of the mounted rings....

There is a process, lap, tighten.... lap, tighten... at least the way I do it

The bar also allows the aligned installation of the bases

[Gwion]

I think there's a bit of confusion here.... who suggested not attaching the top of the rings??
They are attached, and tensioned so as to allow the bar to be rotated / slid...sufficiently to wear away the 'uneven-ness' and non-concentricity of the mounted rings....

There is a process, lap, tighten.... lap, tighten... at least the way I do it

The bar also allows the aligned installation of the bases

Absolutely. Same same. And as such, aren't you also lapping the top half???

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Sorry but I'm left with the impression, you blokes still don't fully understand, what it is you are doing!
What we are trying to achieve here, is to create a stress free Bed, for the scope tube to rest in (the bottom halves of the scope rings). The scope ring tops, only task, is to clamp down and around the scope tube, to hold the scope in place in this bed!!!

Gwion, I'm using Gravity and the the Alignment value of the straight and parallel Lapping Bar (remember, that is what we are doing here), to ensure that what I'm doing (Lapping the bottom half of the scope rings), is true and correct!

Genesis93, where are the scope ring top halves going to go?
They are not Fixed!
Initially, they are Floating Parts that have no choice but to wrap around the contour of the scope tube (after all, thats what there job is and what they were designed to do), as they are being clamped together!
As I said before, as long as there are no burrs or daggs on them, all's good and there is no point in doing anything more to them!

Please, have a good think about what I have said before eg; "This is a subject that is, like so many technical tasks, misunderstood.", and again here, before you reply! Also, if as a result of the information I have brought to your attention, you now realise you may have been doing something that is incorrect, wasting your time or may have actually been detrimental to welfare of your property, that insecurity is your problem, please don't make it mine!!!

Doh!
Homer

[<<Genesis93>>]

No... homer, you're obviously in a whole other level of knowing....

Sometimes I'll have an argument with the mrs, and if we start going around in circles I'll just concede, and say "yes darling, you're right...." it's just easier that way

[Strikey]

I agree with you, Homer, my procedure for lapping rings is very similar to yours and there is no need to do anything with the top halves as they are going to self align when torqued down, I would bet most people probably don't tighten them down evenly so that would negate any lapping done to them. I once got carried away with lapping the top half of some Ruger rings, they were fairly rough and I needed to remove the burrs/machining marks, I now have a set of zero gap Ruger rings

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Genesis my "Dear", thank you for acknowledging that I've actually worked out what it is I'm doing and fully understand the Task, that I'm about undertake, before I start it!

Strikey, Ruger factory rings are The Pits!
If the scope slips in the rings, you can place appropriate sized shims of metal (Aluminium Coke Can), between the top of the scope and the underside of the top half of the ring (this will give you that Gap back)! But only do it to one ring at a time!
In other words, take the top off the Front ring, shim it and then tighten it back up. Then do the same with the Rear ring, that way you should maintain your scope zero (with a bit of luck)!

Hope that helps

Doh!
Homer

[Strikey]

Homer, thanks for the compliments on the Ruger rings I call them something worse than the " pits " but after I tightened them down 'til they stripped then backed them off a quarter turn ( that's the correct way of tightening stuff ) they are doing the job, its not a heavy recoil rifle, 6BR, so the Ruger " zero gap " rings will be staying. I will warn others that if you want to lap the top halves even though there is nothing to be gained, to be very watchful of what you are doing otherwise they might end up with a set of rings that won't hold anything

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Strikey, I forgot to Thank You for your compliment of trusting me and what I have stated!
Good luck with those Ruger rings mate!!!

Regards
Homer

[<<Genesis93>>]

Homer, I understand, you've come on to a new forum, want to make an impression of the guy in the know...but your reverse logic, just doesn't wash....

I suspect you yourself dont fully understand what and why you're doing it.... but by all means, keep on keepin on

If the bottom halves are of a finish that requires lapping..... it would kind of follow that the top would also...

But by all means, you do it the way you 'understand'....

Strikey, the panel beater's /diy/out the back paddock with a piece of fence wire, a hammer and your lunch (which conveniently includes a can of drink) - solution to your problem of no gap.... is to shim it.

[don't get too wound up Homer, I'm just stirring you up mostly ]

If you would like the considered response; the lapped internal of the ring would theoretically replicate the diameter and shape of the scope.... place a small amount of material, say under the top ring half, and you'll have a much reduced CONTACT AREA (defeating the lapping purpose) and force the tension screw to pull the ring so ever out of round...

Placing a longer shim to line a more significant proportion of the inside surface; will cause the inner diameter of the clamping area to be reduced, ever so slightly, while the clamped tube obviously remains the same.....will you be setting up random forces and stresses in the tube hard to say and for a $100 scope I probably wouldnt be fussed..... but considering I'm a pedant, I'd fix the problem, not bandaid it.....I'd use the correct/engineering solution;

Take some material off the underside of the top ring half flat.

So, to sum up, my opinion, FWIW about lapping only half the rings is ...

[Chronos]

Apparently having 250 posts makes you an expert and wise elder of this forum

Chronos

[Chronos]

oh and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9fDA1WwgUM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTIY9cZlpPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XnvWg7ez-M

Chronos

[<<Genesis93>>]

Apparently having 250 posts makes you an expert and wise elder of this forum

Chronos

So you're one of those are you....with this fantasy in your head where you believe you're more special and have some kind of status?? so sad. Count your facebook 'friends' too?

250 post of quality versus 1700 odd posts of drivel... yeah you win.

You just have more free time perhaps....

Whats the oh and crap? one video show the lapping of the bases... the other lapping both?? fence sitting ? or just confusion
the other is some guy, you'll probably tell me he the world 1000yard champion ....

[Gwion]

So... Even those videos contradict each other.
Wheeler kit also comes with instructions to use the top halves while lapping.

[Gwion]

Not arguing the point, I just don't see how lapping the top half is an issue.

Not that I've lapped a heap, only 4 or 5 but most of those showed a significant amount removed from the tops as well.

[Chronos]

So you're one of those are you....with this fantasy in your head where you believe you're more special and have some kind of status?? so sad. Count your facebook 'friends' too?

250 post of quality versus 1700 odd posts of drivel... yeah you win.

You just have more free time perhaps....

Whats the oh and crap? one video show the lapping of the bases... the other lapping both?? fence sitting ? or just confusion
the other is some guy, you'll probably tell me he the world 1000yard champion ....

yes i'm one of those, I've spent hours writing posts for shooting forums, trying to share stuff I've learned from helpful people in the sport only to have "one of the others" pick it apart without a hint of appreciation for the effort put into it. I've seen abrasive, borderline abusive people come and go on this and other forums, rifle clubs and workplaces. Lots of experience and knowledge but instead of sharing it by writing posts like the OP has here you just drop in and sh1tcan most of it without making any genuine contribution to a thread and then make an argument with anyone who disagree's with your point of view. In a few months you'll have pissed off enough people that every thread you participate in will degrade into an O/T slanging match then you'll get banned

the point of the video's I linked should be clear to you, as it was to Gwion. different techniques, similar results but you'll notice if you bothered to watch them that one guy agrees with your technique.

As for sitting on the fence, i have lapped rings both with the ring caps on and off and i know which way i prefer. I won't bore you with the details but i won't argue for that method either because both can be an improvement in the right situation, in others it can make no difference and that's why it's important to let people decide what they want to do with their rifle.

Chronos

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,
Chronos, Thank You for your comments!

There is an old saying;
"Never get in an argument with an idiot in public, the onlookers can't tell the difference"!
Here endith my participation in this thread!!!

Doh!
Homer

[<<Genesis93>>]

.....There is an old saying;
"Never get in an argument with an idiot in public, the onlookers can't tell the difference"!
Here endith my participation in this thread!!!

Doh!
Homer

Indeed.....

however, you appeared to have corrupted Mark Twain, who was himself I believe taking a general meaning from a verse of the 'Proverbs' (biblical) in reference to a 'fool' not an idiot - while ultimately you've possibly confused and misquoted the great George Carlin in relation to an 'idiot' (my preferred of the two)...

For the record as well as the use of the correct quote in the future, it goes like this;
(George Carlin)
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

If however you do prefer the Twain version then please;
(Mark Twain)
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”

Hope I've clarified that for you

In all seriousness, no need to take the 'no further part' stance, if everyone agreed all the time.... it would be very boring around these parts....

[Rakk]

In all seriousness, no need to take the 'no further part' stance, if everyone agreed all the time.... it would be very boring around these parts....

It's getting the opinions out without turning things into a flame war people have trouble with

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Further to this same thread and rifle etc.................I changed my mind!

I took off the previous NF scope off and fitted a new 5-25 x ATACR second focal plane!

Changed my mind

DSCN1337.JPG (856.66 KiB) Viewed 4503 times

DSCN1336.JPG (875.58 KiB) Viewed 4503 times

DSCN1341.JPG (1.08 MiB) Viewed 4503 times

Thought I needed a bit more magnification etc.

Doh!
Homer

[Strikey]

That's a big step up in mag from the NXS, Homer, 22 to 25x, How much better is the ATACR than the NXS?

[happyhunter]

.

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Thank You Strikey and HH!

Strikey (Ya Cheeky Bugger!), I haven't had a chance to do a side x side comparison but if it helps, they are both very impressive!
I want to put the NXS on my .308, so once I've done this, I can do a bench comparison at dusk etc and have a better idea.

Doh!
Homer

[Rocker]

Nice rig

[Wm.Traynor]

Often wondered about lapping rings. Saw the Kokopelli ad ( http://www.kokopelliproducts.com/kokopelli.html ) on benchrest.com years ago. I suppose the question is, "How much bend in a scope is bad for accuracy?" Or, "Do the rings bend to fit the scope?"

I have no idea. Anyone tried a before and after?

[Homer]

G'Day Fella's,

Wm Traynor, after spending a coupla thousand on a scope, I don't want to find out if IT or the Rings are going to bend!
The way I describe it is;
Lapping the rings is the equivalent of bedding the action. You are allowing the scope to be at rest in the rings, with the least amount of torsional stress being applied to it!

Hope that helps

Doh!
Homer

[Vati]

I suppose the question is, "How much bend in a scope is bad for accuracy?" Or, "Do the rings bend to fit the scope?"

If things are out of alignment the difference will be spread to some extent between the scope rings and mounts.

All I've ever found from mounting scopes is a little blemished paint, no marks to suggest any acute pressure being applied in an undesirable way that would make me feel the need to do this.

2c