G1–G7: Nearly had a heart attack!

[ml williford]

Why lap? I have never done this asking for my info.
Thabks

 

[257X50]

And Talley may not want incompetence in the lapping ...........
It's all the numbers for selling.
Like the number of out of tolerance parts allowed.
A lot higher on a Ford than an F-35.

 

[TwoMore]

seems to me if things are that far out lapping wont take care of it, lapping will only take care of blemishes,dings and edges not out of line specks. if the actions screws are out of line wallowing out the rings wont help. I do lap sometimes but only to clean up any small anomalies so I dont mark my scopes

 

[ntsqd]

Original poster here:

I have read with interest (though perhaps not a complete comprehension!) all of the discussion. A couple of follow-ups:

First, a question: does it matter that the 40mm Talley setup I have in hand is a one-piece base and lower rings—that mounts on a pic rail? Might that reduce the chance of being out of line?

Second: I asked myself the same question another poster posed about why I should expect the alignment rods of the $85.00 Wheeler kit to be any more precisely machines than the inside of my one-piece Mount.

Third, looking at the Wheeler kit online, I cannot ascertain whether the alignment rods would work with 40mm tubes.

Fourth: ARC mounts and rings seem to have a great following and approval for heavy-recoiling rifles with heavy scopes. However, some report having issues with the loose hinge pins coming out. But that APPEARS to go away after you torque down the screws. It sure whether those of you who advocate lapping all Talleys would feel the same about ARC rings. Sounds like you would.

Best regards,

Russ

Everything is perfectly aligned and everything is out of true at the same time. Whether it is the former or the latter depends on your acceptance tolerance and your method of measuring. Even a one piece ring & base set will be out of true if your measuring method has a small enough accuracy error. It'll be true if you measure it with a tape measure and it will be way out if you measure it with an electron microscope.

The crucial question is, what is good enough for the application? This isn't just a tough question in this niche of manufacturing, it is true in all manufacturing. Tighter tolerance adds cost, where's the best balance?

I'm not too impressed with the Wheeler brand overall. They're good for basic stuff, but when their torque wrench is $50 and a known in that industry quality brand name torque wrench starts at 3 times that (or more; example: http://torqwrench.com/tools/item.php?StockCode=MD1F35H) then just how good can their product be?
Same for the scope alignment rods. The taper is turned on a lathe, not ground. If I needed something like this frequently I'd be setting up some centerless ground bar stock like I was chambering a benchrest barrel, and reaming the taper for a small lathe dead center to fit in the end of it. I'd have a lot more confidence in that set-up.

 

[Frog4aday]

Five pages of 'thread' and only two people mentioned the 'simplest' fix:
Burris Signature rings with the posi-align (polymer) inserts
I love these things. No marks on my scopes. They never move or slip. And you can compensate with different ring inserts for misalignment issues in the bases. Or you can add "MOA" via your rings instead of having to buy a 20 MOA base. Great product by Burris. I recommend them. Solves a lot of 'issues' in a simple, effective way.

They "only" make them for 1" and 30mm tubes so that isn't going to help the fellow looking to mount a 40mm diameter scope. (We're are up to 40mm tubes now? Do I hear 50mm? How about 60mm? Bigger MUST be better!)

 

[Susquatch]

I think you should phone Nightforce and the other top quality scope makers & ask them about it. I can hear the laughing already - all the way from here.

I bet they all say it is a total waste of time.

I believe it's an urban legend born in the days of painted rings that has become a religion with a huge following. But the emperor has no clothes.

 

[cjl2010]

Five pages of 'thread' and only two people mentioned the 'simplest' fix:
Burris Signature rings with the posi-align (polymer) inserts
I love these things. No marks on my scopes. They never move or slip. And you can compensate with different ring inserts for misalignment issues in the bases. Or you can add "MOA" via your rings instead of having to buy a 20 MOA base. Great product by Burris. I recommend them. Solves a lot of 'issues' in a simple, effective way.

They "only" make them for 1" and 30mm tubes so that isn't going to help the fellow looking to mount a 40mm diameter scope. (We're are up to 40mm tubes now? Do I hear 50mm? How about 60mm? Bigger MUST be better!)

So the fix is to recommend him a set of rings that don't exist?

 

[therifleman556]

So the fix is to recommend him a set of rings that don't exist?

While acknowledging they don't exist no less

 

[Comancheria]

Actually, I don't mind Frog's advice on the Burris at all—information I cannot use for mounting the dS may well be usable for later projects.

An update: Today, I spoke with the folks I bought it from: The Outdoorsman. They told me they had attended an event, given—I THINK—by Swarovski, in which several dS scopes were mounted on as many rifles—varying from 7 pounds on up—the rifles passing from hand to hand, and fired repeatedly until they had to be cooled down. About half of the rifles had the Talley dS Mount and the other half were—I THINK—Warne. He said they experienced no slippage or problems at all.

Yes, I know they have a bias to support the products they sell. On the other hand, they are pros and are themselves long-range hunters. I am going to give THIS Talley mount the benefit of the doubt.

After consideration of all your very thoughtful replies, here is what I have decided to do:

1. Mount the dS without lapping, but very probably be the rails on both rifles on which I intend to use it.

2. Pound the hell out of it at the range, examining it carefully for slippage or loss of accuracy and consistency. If it doesn't work out, well—that's the risk I signed up for.

3. Not so much with the 2-piece Talleys for my 1 inch and 30 mm Swaros—I am going to research alternatives carefully—hopefully with yall's help. I will then—in all probability—return those two sets—if I can find something better. Maybe Burris?
Thanks again.

Russ

 

[Josh P]

I lap all the rings on all the scopes I mount. When you see the the material not coming off evenly in the rings you'll know why lapping is important. Now some rings don't need much but others do they may even be the same brand and model of ring. But all need at the very least some attention and it's cheap insurance to give you the best chance for success. I'd get a lapping bar some compound and make a few passes I'd bet nickels to dog turds it don't cut evenly.

 

[bigngreen]

Talley rings are awesome, light weight look good but are utter junk on anything with real recoil, I've seen sooo many issues with them! The best luck I have is a quality rail epoxied to an action perfectly flat or skim cut with a mill then Nightforce rings, I have not had that cut loose. Pretty much need to bed or lap most rings out there.

 

[crkckr]

I had a machinist buddy turn down some stainless bar stock and then he ground down the tips to act as an alignment tool much like the Wheeler kit. They are as accurate as he could get them. He also made a lapping rod out of the same bar stock. I check the alignment of every set of rings that I intend to put a decent scope in. Being on the broke side most of the time, the best I can usually afford are Leupold rings & bases. I think most shooters consider them to be, at least, decent. However, I have yet to find a set that lined up perfectly. I can't say if it's the rings, bases or the receiver but something is always off a little. Lapping has fixed the alignment in every case. Sometimes it's just a "bit" but I still feel better putting an expensive (again, for me that's Leupold) scope in rings I know are as aligned as I can get them. I wouldn't lap just for heck of it but at the very least, checking the alignment is essential to me.
Cheers,
crkckr

 

[Rich Coyle]

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.

Points touching only means they're aiming at the same point. If you use the square ends you can see if the rods are square to each other.

 

[Comancheria]

Well, this may be due to my complete lack of familiarity with lapping--BUT--it seems to me that the lapping rod would have to be approximately the size of the rings--e.g., 1 inch for 1 inch, 30 mm for 30 mm, 34 mm for 34, etc. etc. etc.

If that is the case, I suspect I would struggle to find any 40 mm lapping rods on the market--and Lord only knows who I would approach to have a set made.

This is a great part of my throwing my hands up in the air--it's not that I in any way distrust the advice of the majority who have weighed in on this thread, but more that trying to apply all of your vast experience to this particular product.

Best regards,

Russ