G1–G7: Nearly had a heart attack!

[Inkognito]

• Can I lap Talley mounts?

We do not recommend lapping any of our mounts. Since they are machined, it really eliminates the need to do so. Since the lightweight mounts are horizontally split, you can lap if you would like.
We highly advise against lapping our steel rings. Since they are a vertically split ring, lapping can knock them out of round.
Our Picatinny rings, although horizontal split, do not need lapped either. They are a match grade ring and are perfectly round when they come off the machine.
Note: If you lap any Talley rings, it will void any return policy since the mounts have been modified.

I personally think lapping is a legacy procedure that holds on from an era when it was useful. I always assumed it was a necessary step until I read an essay once about the precision of modern machining and the author posed the question of why people think they are going to be able to improve upon the precision of modern CNC machining equipment with a manual hand held lapping device that requires the motion of a human arm for its precision? That kind of logic appeals to me and as I thought about it I came to the conclusion that I could not do better than a precision CNC machine by using a hand held lapping device so I do not lap any of my rings. (I am basing this discussion on the assumption that the lapping tools used are the manual hand operated type. If there are CNC lapping machines then those would not cause the problems that I posit, but I still feel they would be unnecessary.) I do, however, buy good quality rings and good quality one piece mounts and I concede that if you buy cheap rings or use two piece mounts it is possible that if they are out of spec enough then lapping might be able to improve things. But there really is no excuse for even cheap rings to be that out of spec with today's modern equipment.

So I am speculating that in generations previous to my own, lapping was a very common and useful exercise in precision shooting that has held over due to our desire to be able to make things better than what it was when we bought it. I think all people but especially the kind of people who get into long range shooting like to think that there are things that they do that make their equipment better. I know I have that feeling and I have to fight it at times when I realize that in today's world with all the modern technology much of what I can add will have no effect at best and more likely will actually make things worse.

Yes, I just walked all over a sacred cow. I have had this conversation before and 99% of shooters not only disagree with me but they usually start hurling insults that remind me of what I see from the lefty SJW BLM crowd. But its my opinion and it is based on interesting if not sound logic so I put it out there for consideration and hopefully amicable discussion.

 

[Marc Gauthier]

For a basic kit, a ready-to-shoot weapon that also includes a cartridge box, a rifle case, and a cap, all for around $ 400, you should expect that everything is not right.

 

[Marc Gauthier]

For a basic kit, a ready-to-shoot weapon that also includes a cartridge box, a rifle case, and a cap, all for around $ 400, you should expect that everything is not right.

 

[rancher5]

Doggoneit, Rich! I had it all figured out that I wasn't going to have to do anything— and you have to go and $?!& in my punch bowl!

Doesn't mean you have to , just because somebody does.

 

[therifleman556]

I personally think lapping is a legacy procedure that holds on from an era when it was useful. I always assumed it was a necessary step until I read an essay once about the precision of modern machining and the author posed the question of why people think they are going to be able to improve upon the precision of modern CNC machining equipment with a manual hand held lapping device that requires the motion of a human arm for its precision?

Modern machinery isn't infallible. Ever heard of screw holes being off center? External dimensions of the receiver come into play as well. Unless you set up your receiver and check holes for alignment and the mounting surfaces themselves, how can you guarantee that your not stressing the scope tube? Admittedly, lapping isn't perfect. But, it will show alignment issues (if there is any).

 

[ntsqd]

I'm using Talley AL mounts on my ULHR project. Since I don't have a good way to measure the action curvature on the rear bridge I have not lapped them to the action. I have lapped the ring bores and with them being black anodized it's pretty clear where they would have made contact with the scope tube and where they wouldn't. I've since read an article on bedding the scope to the rings and that makes sense to do. I'm considering doing the same for the mounts to action fit.

As to the probability of moving the bores CL away from the as-machined CL, would you rather have that or a scope being bent by the mounts? I'll take the subtle change in optical CL orientation any day.

Carried to the extreme what is really needed is for the ring bores to be honed to final size with something like a Sunnen CK-10 in a fixture that aligns the desired optical CL (0 MOA, 15.3 MOA, etc.) with that of the action that they are attached to. Once honed to size on an action those mounts are forever matched to that action only.

 

[jrock]

The offset I've seen in the Talley's isn't vertical but horizontal alignment. One time I had to reverse a set of Talley rings as they maxed out the windage of the scope. I do have the Wheeler kit and use the indicating bars which are just turned stock to a point. Some times the tips are off in the horizontal plane by 30 thou+. That would mean the scope/rings have to resist 30 thou of bending which I would rather not have at all. I've recently tired bedding vs. lapping and much prefer it but I'm still experimenting.

I recently worked on a friends Ruger Predator and the screw holes in the receiver are off both axially and radially. Rail appeared good but once torqued, it twists and cants to one side. Verified this with parallels and feeler gauges. Significant offset between rings. Friend didn't want to lap and so we assembled it with no apparent damage to the scope or groupings. I think it does have an effect on dialing POI but he hasn't tested it for that yet. May see him return for some more work.

Bottom line, its always worth a check

 

[DSheetz]

Does anyone remember back in the 60's when scopes and rings weren't the norm ? Rings came with felt inserts to help in the alignment and reduce the stress on the steel tubes of the scope when being mounted . But then most scopes weren't gas filled then either the world of optics has come far since then .

 

[MontanaJack]

Spending thousands on a scope... yes, I'm going to confirm alignment before clamping all that money into a couple of vices that could distort or bend the tube.... Precision machining has contributed tremendously to the extended distances we can shoot in this era. However, nothing is fool proof. Notice the two pointed rounds in the lapping kit shown earlier in this post? Very simple, mount one in each ring. If the two points touch, alignment is not at issue. However, that doesn't say anything about area of contact. I've mounted many scopes using all the name brands. Haven't had the points kiss yet. If the points don't kiss, you're going to distort the scope tube. Period.

 

[ntsqd]

The Talley mounts that I'm using are ring and base in one piece, no separate base. Alignment was pretty good according to that tool. I lapped them to see what I could learn and it turned out that I learned a lot.

I have experienced needing to reverse a ring to get basic alignment. That was a Warne ring set for a pictinny rail. I don't use those any more. Not so much for that, but I rather intensely dislike a vertical split ring.

First rings that I ever used were Euhler's (sp?) with peelable shims to set the fit to the scope tube. These are probably the root of my intense dislike for vertical split rings.

 

[WiscGunner]

I personally think lapping is a legacy procedure that holds on from an era when it was useful. I always assumed it was a necessary step until I read an essay once about the precision of modern machining and the author posed the question of why people think they are going to be able to improve upon the precision of modern CNC machining equipment with a manual hand held lapping device that requires the motion of a human arm for its precision? That kind of logic appeals to me and as I thought about it I came to the conclusion that I could not do better than a precision CNC machine by using a hand held lapping device so I do not lap any of my rings. (I am basing this discussion on the assumption that the lapping tools used are the manual hand operated type. If there are CNC lapping machines then those would not cause the problems that I posit, but I still feel they would be unnecessary.) I do, however, buy good quality rings and good quality one piece mounts and I concede that if you buy cheap rings or use two piece mounts it is possible that if they are out of spec enough then lapping might be able to improve things. But there really is no excuse for even cheap rings to be that out of spec with today's modern equipment.

So I am speculating that in generations previous to my own, lapping was a very common and useful exercise in precision shooting that has held over due to our desire to be able to make things better than what it was when we bought it. I think all people but especially the kind of people who get into long range shooting like to think that there are things that they do that make their equipment better. I know I have that feeling and I have to fight it at times when I realize that in today's world with all the modern technology much of what I can add will have no effect at best and more likely will actually make things worse.

Yes, I just walked all over a sacred cow. I have had this conversation before and 99% of shooters not only disagree with me but they usually start hurling insults that remind me of what I see from the lefty SJW BLM crowd. But its my opinion and it is based on interesting if not sound logic so I put it out there for consideration and hopefully amicable discussion.

Errors are measurable.

It is impossible for a single component manufacture to account for the infinite variable from available parts. The inherent "error" in the design of a system that uses multiple interfaces will be there 100% of the time. Custom fitting IS required to remove this stacked tolerance, wether done by the consumer, the builder or the manufacture.

Burris rings allow this custom fitting without material removal.

Lapping rings accounts for the stacking tolerances by addressing it at the end point.

Truing receivers, bedding bases and reducing interfaces limited the amount of correction needed at the endpoint.

ANYONE who says custom fitting isn't required simple has a less refined view of precision. The ONLY way to not need to custom fit your setup is if the manufacture makes a custom setup for you. There is no avoiding it, just deciding how much much quality you are willing to sacrifice.

As you as simply speculating, it is very easy to measure the error in your setup as it WILL be there. Once you have the facts (how much your stacked tolerances add up too) you can decide if that needs to be corrected.

Highest level components are still susceptible to stacking tolerances.

 

[Bob Wright]

I use Talley rings quite a bit, Leupolds as well. I found that my lapping bar is very handy to use as an arbor to tighten the base screws onto the receiver with a torx tool that was modified by bending it 90° and just short enough to get under the lapping bar and snug up the screws. Then I final torque. Lapping is mostly quicker as the alignment is improved.
I've seen enough marred scope tubes from guys that had poi shifts and wanted my help. So I still lap them when it's feasible to get good results.
The photo below was the second pass, after it was obvious the front ring had some maching errors in it and needed a second pass.

 

[Bucklowery]

There has been a lot of discussion on rings, and we measure everything else. Has anyone checked the tubes? What if the tube is not perfectly round?



Thanks

 

[Comancheria]

Wow—I feel like the guy who asked if there is any relationship between matter and energy—-and Einstein, Poincaré, Curie, and all their associates happened to be in the room.

Cannot say how much I appreciate everyone's input! Will read and digest and clock back in later.

Oh, and Aushunter—planning to move the scope between a 12 pound (with scope) .300 RUM and an 8 pound (also with scope) .300 Win Mag. It is the lighter rifle that worries me most.

Best regards,

Russ