Welcome Guest!
Do you Lap your rings?
- Thread starter drumbum77
- Start date
coolbreezeroho
Senior Member
Yes
GT-40 GUY
Gone But Not Forgotten
Never had to.
treemanjohn
Banned
Always
Esau
Senior Member
Yes. Accuracy is not an accident, but due to attention to detail. Why would you not do it?
Jester896
Senior Clown
I do
Stroker
Senior Member
Never seen a need for it, but I can see where it would be needed. I have gone to the Burris Signature Zee rings with inserts in the last few years and like them a lot, no need for lapping. I got four riles wearing them now.
Last edited:
Rabun
Senior Member
I lap. Bought one of those weaver scope mount kits after a scope came loose that I paid to have installed.
wareagle700
Senior Member
It depends. There is no need to lap quality rings on a quality base. Good rings are made to tighter tolerances than you can hold with a lapping bar, all you are doing is covering up a problem underneath the rings.
Lapping helps though when you have rings mounted on a surface that throws off alignment. Like a 2-piece base and rings on a R700, plan on lapping or bedding the base.
Lapping helps though when you have rings mounted on a surface that throws off alignment. Like a 2-piece base and rings on a R700, plan on lapping or bedding the base.
Jester896
Senior Clown
might have to bed a 1 piece too these days
lonewolf247
Senior Member
Here is my take on it. I don't see where it would hurt to lap your rings every time you set up a rifle with new mounts. That being said, many people don't and they get away with it.
Years ago, when I bought my first rifle, I had no idea what lapping was, or the reasons for doing it. I also, really didn't understand, how the design of different mounts, are more likely to be subject to alignment problems, and require lapping.
My first mounts were the Leupold dovetail mounts,(designed by Redfield), which this particular mount, had the 1-piece base. I think the 1-piece base has an advantage, over the two piece base, if their are level imperfections or side to side alignment issues, on the receiver of the rifle.
However, this dovetail system was originally designed to compensate for any windage imperfections cause by poor alignment when the receiver was drilled and tapped. This can be another negative if you don't properly align it when you mount them.
I didn't lap mine when I mounted my scope over 20 years ago, and I got away with no problems. In hindsight, I would never use this type of mount today, and NOT lap it. Even worse if you have the two piece base.
My point is, this mount is a really complex mount, and if you want to do it right, I'd lap it. IMO, it is still a great mount, I have it on 2 or 3 rifles, but with todays more precise machinery, the rifles receivers are more true. I think this mount is unnecessary, at this point, at least on newer rifles, I've done. It provides a fix, for a problem that no longer exist. It also creates more variables for misalignment, the very problem it's designed to fix.
Sorry to get carried away on one type of mount, ha! I was trying to illustrate how some mounts require lapping more so than others.
I'll Fast forward to the DNZ mount, and other designed like them. With a one-piece base DNZ mount, where the rings are integral to the base, this eliminates imperfections in the receiver of the gun, and not having any attachment point/disconnect to the rings, would eliminate any variations side by side too.
On this type of mount, it is built all in one piece, and trued up and aligned at the factory. All you are doing is bolting it down to the receiver, place your scope in the rings, and tighten down the rings. There really shouldn't be any need for lapping with this mount. I have gone to this style, now on 5 or 6 rifles, and didn't lap them. I have also not encountered any problems associated with running out of adjustments on my scopes.
So to summarize, I'd lap any dovetail style mounts, and also any 2-piece base mounts. On the DNZ 1 piece, I would not...
Years ago, when I bought my first rifle, I had no idea what lapping was, or the reasons for doing it. I also, really didn't understand, how the design of different mounts, are more likely to be subject to alignment problems, and require lapping.
My first mounts were the Leupold dovetail mounts,(designed by Redfield), which this particular mount, had the 1-piece base. I think the 1-piece base has an advantage, over the two piece base, if their are level imperfections or side to side alignment issues, on the receiver of the rifle.
However, this dovetail system was originally designed to compensate for any windage imperfections cause by poor alignment when the receiver was drilled and tapped. This can be another negative if you don't properly align it when you mount them.
I didn't lap mine when I mounted my scope over 20 years ago, and I got away with no problems. In hindsight, I would never use this type of mount today, and NOT lap it. Even worse if you have the two piece base.
My point is, this mount is a really complex mount, and if you want to do it right, I'd lap it. IMO, it is still a great mount, I have it on 2 or 3 rifles, but with todays more precise machinery, the rifles receivers are more true. I think this mount is unnecessary, at this point, at least on newer rifles, I've done. It provides a fix, for a problem that no longer exist. It also creates more variables for misalignment, the very problem it's designed to fix.
Sorry to get carried away on one type of mount, ha! I was trying to illustrate how some mounts require lapping more so than others.
I'll Fast forward to the DNZ mount, and other designed like them. With a one-piece base DNZ mount, where the rings are integral to the base, this eliminates imperfections in the receiver of the gun, and not having any attachment point/disconnect to the rings, would eliminate any variations side by side too.
On this type of mount, it is built all in one piece, and trued up and aligned at the factory. All you are doing is bolting it down to the receiver, place your scope in the rings, and tighten down the rings. There really shouldn't be any need for lapping with this mount. I have gone to this style, now on 5 or 6 rifles, and didn't lap them. I have also not encountered any problems associated with running out of adjustments on my scopes.
So to summarize, I'd lap any dovetail style mounts, and also any 2-piece base mounts. On the DNZ 1 piece, I would not...
Buckstop
Senior Member
I don’t lap. I use quality rings mounted on a quality one piece rail. I use a machined bar to align them. I do bed the rear of the rail though with jb weld.
killerv
Senior Member
I lap the bottom portion of the rings
Bill Mc
Senior Member
Don't lap. Never had a problem. And most times, If I do everything right, I can shoot some god groups.
KingTiger
Senior Member
No need to lap with the DNZ Products Game Reaper 1-piece base & rings.
wareagle700
Senior Member
Unless you mount them to a receiver that causes the base to flex once tightened down.
Gator89
Senior Member
For serious benchrest, competition shooters, good idea.
For me to shoot deer, an occasional coyote, hog, etc., not necessary.
For me to shoot deer, an occasional coyote, hog, etc., not necessary.
nmurph
Senior Member
Exactly. If the receiver and base aren't perfectly flat, and the screw holes matching up, then you are putting stress in the base that gets transposed to the scope. It might be to a degree that doesn't matter to you. But if you want the most accuracy out of your gun, bed the base and lap the rings.
Similar threads
