Gents,

I'm wanting to take the time and effort to properly mount a scope myself. I've never done it before, having a LGS do it for me twice in the past. However, I've got the itch to do it myself. My question is, is lapping the rings really necessary? I'm using Talley rings on a Weatherby Vanguard Accuguard in .300 WM. What do most people on the forum recommend? Thanks in advance.


TS

You don't need to lap Talley rings. Nor Warne rings.

The only ring's I've ever thought would benefit from lapping are the rings included with Ruger rifles, and Leupold/Burris traditional rings intended for Redfield style bases.

Mounting a scope using Talley and Warne rings and bases is very easy. I recommend that you use a torque screwdriver and torque all the screws to exactly the recommended torque. With Warnes, it's easy. It's 25 inch/lbs for all screws. Talley will have it's own specs, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Wheeler...h%2Caps%2C167&sr=8-2

I used a Wheeler 1" lapping kit on Leupold rings on a CZ452 American. Didn't really need much. I have since switched to Talley for my 3 CZ's and didn't lap them. I use a Scalarworks on an SPR build (no lapping needed), and will change to Warne QD on my Gunsite Scout I just used Leupold Ruger rings on. I didn't have a 30 mm lapping kit and didn't want to bother, but now when I remove it when I get the Warnes I'll see if I caused any ring rash.

Ring lapping threads appear once or twice a year. Modern, quality rings should never be lapped. Never. Never, ever.

Rings that requires lapping are poorly made -- they should be thrown away. Properly made rings can be thrown out of spec if they are lapped.

Thanks for the replies. I won't lap, and I'll get myself a Wheeler Fat Wrench for the proper torque application.


TS

There are generally two answers you'll get regarding lapping. Either never do it, or always do it. Really, it depends. Because maybe they need it, maybe not. Assuming the rings are properly aligned: if the rings are leaving marks, or you are getting scope slippage when the screws are torqued properly, you likely need to lap. I've lapped my own Ruger, Leupold, Burris and Badger rings, and I assisted a friend lapping his Seekins, because each of them left marks on the scope, or in the case of Ruger, the scope slipped damaging the scope. Some of those are brands some shooters get all gooey over.

Proper lapping not only increases the contact area for a better grip, that increased contact area will do a better job keeping fluids from getting between your scope and rings. Use your rifle enough, and it is inevitable that the scope will get wet, and the rings possibly exposed to oil.

The only two types of rings I don't think ever need lapping are Warne/Talley/Weaver rings, and Burris rings with the nylon inserts, because they mold to your scope, not mold your scope to the rings. Warnes (and Talleys, and Weavers), and [Burris with] nylon inserts, flex around the scope. Traditional horizontally split rings will flex your scope tube before the rings will flex. Those types of rings have to be true of you'll end up with damage or a slipping scope.

I had a Bausch and Lomb Elite 4000 on a Ruger M77 in the supplied rings. Didn't bother to lap them, and never took the scope out of the rings after mounting it to see if the rings needed lapping. If I had, I might have seen the tell-tale marks on the scope. I torqued the screws, bore sighted, and on the first shot the scope slipped forward, and the rear ring impacted the bevel where the power adjustment ring was and mushroomed the aluminum bevel. And silver lines were on the scope tube indicating where the pressure from the rings were. That's how bad some quality rings can be. And when you are shooting hard recoiling light rifles like your .300 Win Mag, you can end up with a significantly damaged scope on the first shot like I did if your rings aren't true.

But you won't have that problem with Talleys as long as you torque the the screws to Talley's specs.

It’s been a long time since I lapped scope rings (not since the last 1 inch size), but when I did, it was obvious from the lapping wear pattern on the lower ring half that the contact area changed markedly in all cases. I have had only limited experience with a cartridge (300 WM) more powerful than 308 Winchester, and have experienced no problems with the Spuhr and Leupold Mark 4 rings that weren’t lapped since the old days, but I have sometimes wondered what I might have discovered if I had continued the practice. (Considering the prices of both types, I wouldn’t have expected problems, but ....)

I've never used Leupold Mk 4 rings. I've used "no lap" Badgers. And the set I used needed lapping. Some people will argue that lapping ruins the maker's warranty, but I wonder if anyone has ever sent in rings for warranty work. I half believe that when a maker says lapping void's their warranty, it's a pitch to make you think they never need lapping.

Lapping is like ketchup. You put it on whatever needs it. Like when Gloria said to Archie, "You'd put ketchup on ice cream." Archie responded, "If it needed it."

YouTube has a video where Larry Potterfield of MidwayUSA demonstrates lapping rings. Evidently the video is from 2013. I don't know the brand of those rings, but the interior surfaces of those things are the biggest pieces of shit I've ever seen. They show just horrible manufacturing processes, and are about as smooth as a corrugated culvert pipe. I would never put something like that on any firearm. But....if anything needed lapping, those are it. Going to the trash would be a better option, however.

Going back many moons to my youth, the first rings I used were Leupold. The insides of those rings were smooth and flat. I did not lap them, and my Dad probably would have shot me if I did. I believe I still have Leupold rings on a 22lr from those days, and on my Dad's pre-64 Winchester Model 70.

Since then, most of my 2-piece rings are Nightforce -- which are machined to very good tolerances. I also own one-piece mounts from Nightforce, LaRue, Warne, and GGG -- which are all machined to very good tolerances. I'd probably get shot by the gunsmiths I use if I ever tried to lap them.

I've pulled many scopes from many rifles over the years. It's part of my top-down rotation via upgrading scopes. In the early days before I had precise torque-limiting tools, I'm pretty certain I over-tightened some rings & mounts. Not a single one of my scopes ever showed tube wear, tube marks, or tube damage when inspected on rotation. This includes Leupold, Nightforce, Burris, and Vortex scopes. A couple of my early Nightforce scopes are probably on their 5th rifle, courtesy of my optics upgrades. Quality rings & mounts don't need lapping.

I just tried some Warnes on the Gunsite Scout and they are big heavy precision machined chunks of metal with separate recoil lugs. But they are taller than the Leupolds and worsen the cheek weld.

I put the Leupolds back on, and when I first removed the scope found minimal markings on the tube. This time I left the bottoms a little loose, set the scope in and let them self align as I tightened the cross bolt on the base. Then tops went on nicely with no biding anywhere.

1913 rails and aluminum rings on AR's and precision rifles have pretty much eliminated lapping. But an XS extended scout rail and 1913 rings would raise the scope quite bit worsen the cheek weld again.

It's not just about the rings. It's everything from the top of the receiver up. If everything is as it ought to be, there may be no need to lap. Quality rings help, but are no guarantee. I'd rather err on the side of lapping if I have a $1200 scope on the gun and I'm using horizontally split hard rings.

The last two scopes I mounted were $3000 NF ATACRs. Each one caused a two-scope rippled upgrade and remount on other rifles. No lapping. No issues with the any of the scopes -- which were all Nightforce. Quality rings, quality receivers, and quality scope rails.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
I just tried some Warnes on the Gunsite Scout and they are big heavy precision machined chunks of metal with separate recoil lugs. But they are taller than the Leupolds and worsen the cheek weld.

I used a cheek rest with ammo carrier on mine that addressed that issue. I might not have needed at at all with low mounts. My mounts were medium height. When I had the scout scope on it, I used low mounts and the axis was plenty low enough.

I never really got that rifle exactly where I wanted it. I even took an Aimpoint PRO and took the spacer out of the mount and put it out on the rail, and even that was too high. I ended up putting the scout scope back on it and sold it or traded it.

I like the Warnes, but didn't want to buy a fat wrench. I sprung for the cheaper Warne product. Little T-handle wrench that torques to the required 21 lb. If I know my mindset, I would over-lap my rings and ruin them.

I only use Burris Signature rings. With the ring liner, there's no need to ever lap anything and ring marks are a thing of the past.

FWIW, I lapped some 1" Warne QD rings recently. Don't know that I needed to, but I had the tools so I did. Scope hasn't moved after several hundred rounds.

I wouldn’t lap Nightforce or Spuhr or similar quality rings or mounts. The reality is that those rings are built with tighter tolerances than the lapping rod that you would buy and use to lap the rings. If I lapped a set of Nightforce rings and saw uneven wear indicating that the lapping was “necessary” or did something positive then I would believe that the lapping rod was not machined to equal tolerances.

The last scope that I mounted (and future scopes that will be mounted) were torqued on a properly machined granite stone that maintains a tolerance in the area of .0001 of an inch across the whole stone. I use the same stone to re-level wet stones that I use to sharpen my precision woodworking tools. I have no doubt whatsoever that I lack the tools and measuring instruments to improve upon the alignment of Nightforce or Spuhr rings and mounts.

I don't think cost has much to do with whether or not rings need to be lapped. And neither do ring tolerances. Again, it's not just a rings issue that indicates lapping may be necessary, it's everything from the receiver up.
It seems to me that really tight tolerances can magnify any other aspect that isn't perfect. Night Force and Spuhr may cost quite a bit, especially Spurh, but a short perusal of the interweb shows plenty of posts from people they felt that those brands needed to be lapped. In fact, it seems Night Force recommended lapping their rings some years ago, until they didn't anymore. Maybe their aluminum rings are a little more forgiving. I've never used aluminum rings, but I have used aluminum bases. (Correction, actually I have. I used Burris aluminum XTR rings but they don't need lapping.)

If I'm mounting a scope that cost much over $1,100, I'm probably going to lap if I am using horizontally split hard rings. $3,000 or more? I will absolutely lap. I'd rather be safe than sorry, and rings are more sacrificial than the scope. I have never regretted lapping, but I have certainly regretted not lapping.

There may be a measures of disagreement among the various shooters. Precision shooters using heavier, long barreled 12+ lb guns shooting rounds like .223, 6.5 and .308 may not need the the scope holding power of someone shooting a .30-06 or .300 Win Mag out of a rifle weighing under 10 lbs and who experience more recoil.

Enjoy your lapping.

Nightforce hasn't recommended lapping any of their rings since I started using their products. My first NF I purchased is an NXS 5.5-22x. Still have it; still have the rings purchased with it. That scope has been mounted to at least 6 rifles. I probably purchased it sometime in the early 2000's. NF specifically stated in the instructions with the rings to NOT lap them. I know those rings have been both over torqued, and properly torqued. The NF scope tube shows no signs of pressure, no signs of scratching, no signs of damage. When I've pulled the rings to remount the scope, with a quick wipe down of the scope tube with a wet rag, there is no evidence that the scope was ever used.

I'll enjoy my not lapping. And I'll enjoy quality equipment that is CNC built to tolerances well beyond the capabilities of manual lapping processes.

I shoot with a many competitors who use quality rings/mounts and scopes that retail for $2k to $4k. I've never talked to an experienced competitor who laps his rings. Some of these guys shoot their guns enough to wear out a barrel or two every year.

Scope ring lappers. Shoot your gun before and after lapping? See a difference on target? Was your scope moving in the rings before lapping?