# Scope mounting



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

I mounted a scope last night and got curious how others do it.

How many just line the rings up and then put the scope on?

How many of you align the rings then use a lapping bar?

Unfortunately I did not take pictures of each step, as I was getting impatient and wanted to be done. But here are 2 pictures that show the second round of lapping. You can start to see how little of the rings actually clamp to the tube. I ended up having to do it 4 times and ended up with about 90 - 95% contact.


----------



## RugerFan (May 25, 2011)

*Alignment rods*

I use the Brownell's alignment rods. Heavy steel with collars for 1" or 30mm rings. They work great to make sure everything is truly straight before stressing the tube of the scope. I've tried different ways of getting everything just right and last time hung a plumb bob off my neighbor's house. Once the rifle was level moved the crosshairs to align with the string. That plus a laser sight on the next neighbor's house had me about 1 1/2" right of center at 100 yards. Not saying mine is the best way but it works for me.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Tally fixed ring mounts.


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

CHARLIE said:


> Tally fixed ring mounts.


???? That is what those rings are.
Trying to show that if you just throw the scope on, you scope is essentially being held by a few pinch points.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

OK I get it and where you are going. Just caint see it in your photos. Thanks


----------



## BradV (Jun 27, 2012)

Haven't spent any time lapping rings.

My typical method:

1. Bed rail to receiver, check with straight edge after torquing
2. Mount quality set of rings
3. Insert scope and align
4. Torque with wheeler FAT wrench

Haven't ever had a scope slide on me and I haven't seen any scope rings on the tube. Many have been mounted multiple times. 

I think lapping is likely a necessary step on a setup like you are showing as the two pieces are mounted independently on two separate surfaces. Remington 700 receivers aren't known for being perfect, and this can be seen when bedding a one piece scope base to one lol.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

BradV said:


> Haven't spent any time lapping rings.
> 
> My typical method:
> 
> ...


. Lapping is just one of those things that not all that many people do, but once they do it once, they may very well just sit back and say "dang, I should have been doing this all along"... It just jumps out at you how much of a difference this could make as far as stress points on the scope, etc; it's not a scope sliding issue you'll be looking at, just a matter of is this set of rings putting stress on the tube in a manner that either shortens it's life, decreases its performance, or whatever.


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

dwilliams35 said:


> . Lapping is just one of those things that not all that many people do, but once they do it once, they may very well just sit back and say "dang, I should have been doing this all along"... It just jumps out at you how much of a difference this could make as far as stress points on the scope, etc; it's not a scope sliding issue you'll be looking at, just a matter of is this set of rings putting stress on the tube in a manner that either shortens it's life, decreases its performance, or whatever.


If you buy quality rings and bases in the first place, you shouldn't need to lap anything. I've mounted plenty of scopes in my life, and have never once lapped any of the rings that I use....but I stick to Spuhr, Seekins, and Badger. "Buy once, cry once" rings especially true with rings and optics.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Guess I need to redo all my guns, none are lapped, don't know how I made it this long without scope falling off or whatever they do without lapping.


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

I have the wheeler scope mounting kit that has the torque driver and lapping set. It is what I do to all my rings.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

The 1" metal shaft with pointed ends attached and tightened into each ring with tips pointed and almost touching each other tells me naw, no need to lap. Guess I have been doing it wrong for over 50 years. But everyone has their own way to do it and thats fine.


----------



## theeyeguy (May 24, 2011)

Lapping won't matter for 95% of those out there. If you are using a one piece base and good rings, I haven't found a need yet. Two piece bases, it really just depends on the shooter and what they are wanting out of the gun.


----------



## Flapp'n Shad (Sep 29, 2015)

I only use Iron Brigade Armory mounts the bottom half of the rings are one piece with the mount.No lapping needed.


----------



## Bottomsup (Jul 12, 2006)

223AI said:


> If you buy quality rings and bases in the first place, you shouldn't need to lap anything. I've mounted plenty of scopes in my life, and have never once lapped any of the rings that I use....but I stick to Spuhr, Seekins, and Badger. "Buy once, cry once" rings especially true with rings and optics.


It doesnt matter how well your rings and bases are made. Not all receiver surfaces are level. Lapping gives you the best contact area and helps prevent ring marks in the scope tube.


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

Bottomsup said:


> It doesnt matter how well your rings and bases are made. Not all receiver surfaces are level. Lapping gives you the best contact area and helps prevent ring marks in the scope tube.


In my experience ring marks on your scope come from one of three things: 1) incorrect torquing of ring screws, 2) a cheap finish on the tube itself, or 3) cheaply manufactured rings. You can alleviate the cheap ring issue, in most cases, if you use a quality one piece base and bed it to the receiver...or by spending the dough on better manufactured rings and mounts (seekins, spuhr, etc...). If you do decide to lap the rings, how do you confirm that your lapping bar/kit is true? I'd spend the extra cash that I was going to spend on a lapping kit, and put it towards better rings and bases, myself.

That said, I have rifles built on trued 700's, a trued model 7, Bighorn, stiller, defiance, surgeon, and an FN SPR. I've mounted Schmidt's, Khales, vortex, and Nightforce, and Bushnell DMR's, and have never once had to lap rings due to an out of spec receiver.


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)




----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

I bedded and lapped one 700 before. After all was said and done it didnt make any noticeable difference with anything from the others ive mounted scope to. I did it just to do one. Now bedding the scope mount was an eye opener


----------



## BradV (Jun 27, 2012)

muney pit said:


> I bedded and lapped one 700 before. After all was said and done it didnt make any noticeable difference with anything from the others ive mounted scope to. I did it just to do one. Now bedding the scope mount was an eye opener


Amazing how big of a gap there is to fill on a 700 isn't it . This is issue I feel most people aren't realizing.

If your base is not straight of course you will get poor contact regardless of how much you spend on rings. Lapping in many cases is not addressing the actual problem.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

BradV said:


> Amazing how big of a gap there is to fill on a 700 isn't it . This is issue I feel most people aren't realizing.
> 
> If your base is not straight of course you will get poor contact regardless of how much you spend on rings. Lapping in many cases is not addressing the actual problem.


While probly not 100% true i agree. Im sure there are some scope/ring/mount combo's that would benefit alot from it. However i bet 90+% of us would never notice a difference


----------



## Wado (May 15, 2011)

*Scope mounts*

Back when I was working in a machine shop I played with Mauser actions and actually turned out some nice rifles. I drilled the receivers for Redfield bases in a milling machine that was equipped with a digital read out that had Kurt vises set up on it. We had a set of Snap Jaws with built in parallel's that really was great because the bottom of a Mauser receiver has two straight square edges that I thought would be a good reference point to not only hold the receiver but kept it square. I got my center by measuring either the front of the receiver from side to side with a spring loaded edge finder or off of a fixture I made that screwed into the barrel threads and if everything is right puts you center of the bore. One thing these Germans or whoever machined these actions did was keep things pretty darn straight, until the war got really going and then the quality fell way off. They had a witness mark on the receiver centerline that I would go back with the pointed end of an edge finder and nine times out of ten was within a couple of thousand's of my center line, and they didn't have a fancy DRO to do this. All this is great but the one piece base may not sit flat and when you pull it down there's no way the rings align. Some smiths use two piece and shim to get them aligned or work on the one piece either by shimming, bedding or removing metal. It all goes back to the receiver whether it is straight or not. Just setting a base on and wiggling it around and giving the mental go ahead might work for utility rifles but high accuracy demands a closer tolerance, in my opinion. I guess you can nitpick this to death but if you can see it with your eyes chances are it's crooked or not level and if your scope sits in the rings and rocks they are out of line, period. An easy test would be to tighten the back screws on the mount and if the front raises it's out of line or do the reverse and see what happens. Two piece need to be checked with shaft, preferably the ones that are pointed on each end. Redfield turn in rings need to be aligned with a shaft, don't use the scope and they are the only ones I ever lapped. You have got to start with a good foundation.


----------



## Bottomsup (Jul 12, 2006)

223AI said:


> In my experience ring marks on your scope come from one of three things: 1) incorrect torquing of ring screws, 2) a cheap finish on the tube itself, or 3) cheaply manufactured rings. You can alleviate the cheap ring issue, in most cases, if you use a quality one piece base and bed it to the receiver...or by spending the dough on better manufactured rings and mounts (seekins, spuhr, etc...). If you do decide to lap the rings, how do you confirm that your lapping bar/kit is true? I'd spend the extra cash that I was going to spend on a lapping kit, and put it towards better rings and bases, myself.
> 
> That said, I have rifles built on trued 700's, a trued model 7, Bighorn, stiller, defiance, surgeon, and an FN SPR. I've mounted Schmidt's, Khales, vortex, and Nightforce, and Bushnell DMR's, and have never once had to lap rings due to an out of spec receiver.


 I do all my own receiver truing and barrel work and I know for a fact the Remington 700 receiver is finished on a belt sander and no two are exactly alike or perfectly level. I guess you are blessed with perfect ones. If the rings are not parallel and true to each other the edge of the ring is what digs into the scope and causes many ring marks. Over torquing is the the number one cause. One piece bases are not good unless bedded because it can and will flex the action and base on a rem 700. Most precision shooters prefer short actions because they flex less. I have never seen a ground 1" lapping rod that wasnt straight or true. I mostly use Kelbly rings and two piece bases.


----------



## Flapp'n Shad (Sep 29, 2015)

If the one piece Iron Brigade Armory mounts are not true to the reciever on my 9 700's short action weapons i have not noticed.When i lay the mount on top of the reciever the tiny bolt holes line up perfect and seems to be pretty close.


----------



## BradV (Jun 27, 2012)

Flapp'n Shad said:


> If the one piece Iron Brigade Armory mounts are not true to the reciever on my 9 700's short action weapons i have not noticed.When i lay the mount on top of the reciever the tiny bolt holes line up perfect and seems to be pretty close.


I imagine some may be spot on, but with 9 receivers I bet you missed it. The problem is not that the bolt holes do not line up. It is that there is usually a gap at the rear of the receiver if you only tighten down the front screws. If you tighten the rear screws you are then flexing the base, and throwing your rings out of alignment.

Check out this instructable for a clear picture on what is going on.

http://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Bed-A-Scope-Base-Remington-M700-308-AAC-/


----------



## Flapp'n Shad (Sep 29, 2015)

BradV said:


> I imagine some may be spot on, but with 9 receivers I bet you missed it. The problem is not that the bolt holes do not line up. It is that there is usually a gap at the rear of the receiver if you only tighten down the front screws. If you tighten the rear screws you are then flexing the base, and throwing your rings out of alignment.
> 
> Check out this instructable for a clear picture on what is going on.
> 
> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-To-Bed-A-Scope-Base-Remington-M700-308-AAC-/


I'll do more research,but my weapons are pretty accurate now my new bench 6ppc will be a different story i'll do every and anything to make it right.


----------



## BradV (Jun 27, 2012)

Flapp'n Shad said:


> I'll do more research,but my weapons are pretty accurate now my new bench 6ppc will be a different story i'll do every and anything to make it right.


I don't doubt they are accurate, but there may simply be a small amount of extra stress put on the scope tube. Most cases you probably would see no difference in practical accuracy, and if that 6ppc is a complete total custom bench gun it may very well be true to begin with


----------



## Flapp'n Shad (Sep 29, 2015)

BradV said:


> I don't doubt they are accurate, but there may simply be a small amount of extra stress put on the scope tube. Most cases you probably would see no difference in practical accuracy, and if that 6ppc is a complete total custom bench gun it may very well be true to begin with


I agree and yes it will be 100% custom from Ed Adams.


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

Well this thread got interesting.


----------



## Flapp'n Shad (Sep 29, 2015)

sleepersilverado said:


> Well this thread got interesting.


Some good info here.


----------



## sleepersilverado (Jun 27, 2011)

Flapp'n Shad said:


> Some good info here.


I agree and that is why I brought it up. I could not believe how well the scope set/stuck into the bottom of the rings with out the tops on after lapping.

Similar to a car missing a lug nut. Wheel is still on there but not as snug.


----------



## MechAg94 (Dec 15, 2013)

I can easily see that buying good rings is first step.

I have the Wheeler alignment and lapping kit. When I looked at lapping, I never saw that it was contacting any one spot. Might have to try again though. I have at least one scope I need to mount. 

For alignment, I never had much issue with rail mounts. The only one I can remember having to adjust was a twist on bolt rifle mount.


----------



## Bottomsup (Jul 12, 2006)

Wado said:


> Back when I was working in a machine shop I played with Mauser actions and actually turned out some nice rifles. I drilled the receivers for Redfield bases in a milling machine that was equipped with a digital read out that had Kurt vises set up on it. We had a set of Snap Jaws with built in parallel's that really was great because the bottom of a Mauser receiver has two straight square edges that I thought would be a good reference point to not only hold the receiver but kept it square. I got my center by measuring either the front of the receiver from side to side with a spring loaded edge finder or off of a fixture I made that screwed into the barrel threads and if everything is right puts you center of the bore. One thing these Germans or whoever machined these actions did was keep things pretty darn straight, until the war got really going and then the quality fell way off. They had a witness mark on the receiver centerline that I would go back with the pointed end of an edge finder and nine times out of ten was within a couple of thousand's of my center line, and they didn't have a fancy DRO to do this. All this is great but the one piece base may not sit flat and when you pull it down there's no way the rings align. Some smiths use two piece and shim to get them aligned or work on the one piece either by shimming, bedding or removing metal. It all goes back to the receiver whether it is straight or not. Just setting a base on and wiggling it around and giving the mental go ahead might work for utility rifles but high accuracy demands a closer tolerance, in my opinion. I guess you can nitpick this to death but if you can see it with your eyes chances are it's crooked or not level and if your scope sits in the rings and rocks they are out of line, period. An easy test would be to tighten the back screws on the mount and if the front raises it's out of line or do the reverse and see what happens. Two piece need to be checked with shaft, preferably the ones that are pointed on each end. Redfield turn in rings need to be aligned with a shaft, don't use the scope and they are the only ones I ever lapped. You have got to start with a good foundation.


What he said ^

I couldnt have said it any better and I have 30 years plus machining experience with a passion for precision work and understanding physics.


----------



## Wado (May 15, 2011)

*Drill and Tap fixture*

I also have a Mauser drill and tap fixture that works pretty good but you have to pull the barrel out to use it. If you are rebarelling it's no problem otherwise back to the milling machine. I did a couple in my drill press at home with this gadget but there is no comparison to a good mill. I did a receiver for a .243 I threw together and even with the drill bushings the bit walked on me and I got an oval hole and then broke the tap like a dummy. Try getting one of those rascals out.


----------

