Print Page | Close Window

Two-piece bases - Scope torque?

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Scopes
Forum Name: Rifle Scopes
Forum Description: Centerfire long gun scopes
URL: http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=5814
Printed Date: March/29/2024 at 05:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Two-piece bases - Scope torque?
Posted By: trkyshootr
Subject: Two-piece bases - Scope torque?
Date Posted: February/12/2007 at 21:21

I have a Winchester 70 .308 with a Burris 3-10x40 Signature Select.  When I first mounted the scope with Warne rings and bases, I noticed that the scope was "tinking" when turned on its axis.  After some shooting, the sound stopped.  However, the gun gives from .3" (3/10) to 4" accuracy, so I think that the internals may still be loose.  Because of this concern, with hunting season over, I thought I'd re-mount the scope.  Well, I can't tighten the rings without the scope tinking (note that there are no ring marks on the scope, it is not kinked or bent, and the screws were actually slightly undertight, as I learned when remounting with the Warne torque driver).  I think that these two-piece bases, especially when used with their vertically split rings, make it difficult to assure that the scope's not being torqued.  That being the case, I'd like your thoughts regarding these options:

 

1.  Purchase a one-piece (steel) Weaver-style base.  However, the Warne is around $100, which I'm not willing to spend, and I'm unaware of other manufacturers.

2.  Purchase Burris Signature Zee rings that mount in the Warne bases.  The inserts should cure the torque problem, but I'm unsure of the strength of these mounts which rely on a single cross screw per mount, unlike the steel wedge used by Warne.

3.  Yank the Warnes altogether, and go with Redfield-style rings and one-piece base (to lessen the potential for torqueing).

 

Thanks for your insight.




Replies:
Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/12/2007 at 23:55

This is a normal problem and is easyest solved by lapping the rings.

Warne is a bit more difficult to lap than others but it can be done.

So keep the stuff you have and get a 1" round bar and carborundum paste to lap with.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 00:49

Lapping is highly necesary as mostly actions are everything else than true.

 

Mostly actions are handgrinded on a big beltsander after the machining and the lapping is essential, espesially if it's for a detachable mount. I use mostly Recknagel and Apel mounts, and their quality is superb, but i still lapp the rings. And so do I with mostly other rings that is mounted on separate bases.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: smitty
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 02:20

Have you checked on the sample list for a one piece base?  I saw they had a bunch of model 70 stuff listed.

 

I understand the torqe you are describing.  The lapping will solve that problem. 

 

Smitty



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 10:02

When you say tinking, what exactly do you mean?  Also, when the scope is mounted, is it loose, at all?  I have used many Warne bases and rings, almost exclusively, except for some one piece Talley, both of which are excellent.  Never, have I had a problem.  I have mounted several Fullfield II scopes, but not a SS.  With the Warne rings, I do not lap, I have never felt the need to.  They all mount perfectly and the guns shoot perfect.  The vertical set up should not be a problem.  Does the scope make a tinking sound when moved and not mounted.  I have not used the torx wrench from Warne, thought about getting one, but I do fine without it and have mounted hundreds of scopes and/or remounted.  Let me know more and I am sure I can help

 

.



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: silver
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 10:26

Originally posted by rootmanslim rootmanslim wrote:

I don't know how I can make it more clear. LAPPING IS NOT NECESSARY WITH THE SIGNATURE RINGS, THE S&K RINGS & MOUNTS OR FOR THAT MATTER CONETROL MOUNTS AND RINGS.Don't be B.S.ed into spending $ and time you need not. You see that 400 H&H? It weighs only 9 pounds fully loaded. I have shot a lot of ammo thru it. Nothing has slipped, loosened, misaligned or done anything but work 100%. Ditto for my 12 bore 7 pound slug gun that has had signature rings since the day they came out.
These are the most foolproof, simple rings made by anyone. They always work and they even offer eccentric inserts if you have a really crooked drilling job on the receiver.Go to this site:
http://www.burrisoptics.com/sigrings.html
if you want the facts.

 

The reason that they are doing this is because of the crappy quality control they and the gun makers have been putting out.  Slim is right, that you should not have to lap the rings.  That does not mean the samething as you need not lap the rings.    At some point you may need to put some hand work into it. 

 

My thought is the set up you have, warts and all is paid for.  You have nothing to loose by lapping them.



-------------
"If we weren't all crazy we, We would go insane."   Jimmie Buffet

WWW.formitch.com



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 11:15

I cant agree that all rings that not has plastic inserts is of inferior quality.

I can't either see the problems with lapping metal rings, usally it doesent take very long time.

 

Plastic inserts seems to be fine as long as you stay with light scopes, heavyer scopes is a different matter and there is the plastic rings not good enough.

 

Mostly of my guns have detachable mounts, and I like to have acess to iron sights when the weather is bad.

I don't know of any quality rings that are detachable with plastic inserts....

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 11:50

2. Latest problem we had was with a 2,5-10x52 Zeiss on a Tikka with optilock rings.

3. IF it rains or snows and the bikinis or butler creek is of no good. As soon as they have been open and are closed again there will be fog on the lenses. Iron sights always works and for many shots in the forrest at short distances they are absolutely adequate.

4. There is mounts that is stronger than burris and leupolds to, but as I never had a problem with Apels i have not had a reason to change. Dual dovetails doenst give me the oppertunity to swiths betwen aimpoint and various riflescopes.

I do very rarely want fixed mounts, even on the guns without iron sights i like detachable scopes.

6. Good lapping kits are almost for free, the 34 and the 1" did I turn out my self and the 30mm is standard dimension on the steel.

 

Regards Technika

 



Posted By: smitty
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:07

Ive used the burris signature rings and yes the do work but they are for a permanent installation and who here really has a permanent anything.  We are perfectionists and what we have now is only good until we find the next best thing!

 

My experience with the burris signature rings is that the screws go in easy but are a bear to remove.  My gunsmith replaced all the screws in my last set of signature rings and swore a bunch doing it.  He wont use them again and neither will I.  You also have to like what they look like and I personally dont like to see the plastic inserts.

 

Otherwise, I think the signature rings are really good for the one time installation for the do-it-yourselfer and I think they will hold against some pretty heavy recoil.

 

I have never seen a set of 2-piece bases line up perfectly. If you use them you must take great effort to align them and the rings to avoid torqing the scope and putting rings marks on it.  Lapping is the only sure way of doing this.

 

I prefer to use weaver type bases or a picatinny rail base because of the ability to use QDW rings.  I like switching things up and these allow plenty of tinkering.  I probably enjoy the tinkering as much as the range time with my rifles.

 

Thats my 2 cents on rings and scope mounting!

 

Happy shooting,

Smitty

 

 



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:20
Nobody is really answering your question.  The Warne mounts and rings are superior to anything that has been mentioned thus far on the sight.  You do not need a one piece mount.   Most good quality rifles are milled to specs that do not require one piece mounts.  Believe me, I have mounted enought scopes on enough different brand of rifles to know.  However, they were all good quality rifles.  Stick with the Warne mounts and rings, answer my questions and we will come to a solution.   Trust me.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:22

Originally posted by rootmanslim rootmanslim wrote:

1. If they are not inferior why don't they fit? Yeah I know it's the rifle makers fault.
2. I guess you have never tried the Signatures. How about a 4-16x50 S&B Varmint on an 8 pound 300 H&H ? Heavy enough? Kick enough? work PERFECTLY, never come loose.
3. Access to irons may be important in Europe, I don't know BUT irons are really more fragile than a good scope in a good mount. Besides it's no big deal to carry a spare scope.Bad weather? That's why God gave us Bikini scope covers.
4. No QD mount is as strong as the Burris Double Dovetail (Ditto Leupold)
5. perhaps one of our materials engineers could chime in but IMO the Burris insert grips the scope tighter and conforms to any tube irregularites better than a metal ring.And since the S&Ks conform perfectly to the tube with one gap not two, I'm sure they hang on tight too.
6. Good lapping kits are expensive (see Brownells) and then you need 2 one 1" one 30mm. Then there's the nasty crap all over the receiver and if you ever remove the rings and put them back on, you're right back to square one because nothing goes back on exactly like it came off, especially turn in rings. If they did the rifle would rezero perfectly.... none do.

Dovetail mounts carry torque that is transferred to the scope.  They are a no no to high power mags.  Physics is physics.  Simple as that.  You probably attended Virginia Tech.



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: smitty
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:26

I have never used warn mounts or rings but might try them in the future.  they have QRW rings that are very similar to Leupold. they cost the same so I just stuck with the leupolds because they have worked well for me.  Ill try them on my next rifle.

 

 

My prefered set up would be a rifle that has intregral weaver type base such as the tikka T3 or the thompson/center icon.  They look very similar...does anybody know if they share the same receiver?

 

Smitty



Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 20:54

I can't believe that the Warne rings would be the problem. I don't think you need a one piece base for sure, they hinder loading. If you want the Weavers, I would get two piece bases. They may be ugly but they don't move and work good as a detachable with good re-zero.

I'm not sure what you mean by tinking, but I would look at the scope. Unfortunately I have broken internals on a Burris right now. Something might be loose inside yours, too.



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/13/2007 at 21:03

ANY fixed, non-inserted rings or rings that do not self-compensate for misalignment (as the S&K does) will benefit from lapping!  I know many ring setups have been used with complete success without lapping, but I've yet to lap ANY fixed ring from any manufacturer without seeing some misalignment!  It would be extremely rare to find a rifle and ring/base combination that were in absolute perfect alignment.  I would even go so far as to say such a situation is almost non-existant, because both the receiver mounting holes, the base screw holes, and the mating contours of the receiver and bases are all made within acceptable production tolerances, meaning some deviation from perfect alignment.  Now, that doesn't mean you can't mount scopes on rifles and see no evidence of a problem, as most mounts work "o.k." most of the time, installed as-is out of the box.  But, chances are, you're using more W/E compensation that you would have had the rings been in perfect alignment with the rifle's centerline, and you're probably stressing the scope tube somewhat, even if your scope appears to be working fine.  You don't have to buy an expensive lapping tool if you have access to a lathe to turn a 1" or 30mm rod and make some sort of handle on it.  If you frequently install scopes as I do, a lapping kit from Brownells, including lapping tool and compound, can be had for about $50.

 

I have to admit the Burris Signature rings with the inserts and others like it (Sako Optilock, Jewell 1", etc.) are a good idea, because they do not require lapping, and for that matter, you couldn't lap 'em even if you wanted to.  I've found they hold a scope as securely as any other "non-tactical" type ring available.  The same is true for the S&K rings, for the reason RMS mentions -- they wrap around the scope tube, with only 1 split, and the base of the rings have a radial groove that mates with cone screws and self-compensates for misalignment.  They are also very sleek and nice looking.  I have S&Ks on 4 rifles at present, and I love them.  The same basically holds true for the Conetrols, which the S&Ks were modeled after.  Unlike the S&Ks, Conetrol rings are 3-piece, and they have less compensation for base misalignment, due to fixed cone screw engagement points.

 

That being said, a very valid argument can be made to use these self-compensating rings on all rifles.  However, being the type of person who just likes variety and using different rings on different rifles, I don't mind the little extra effort to lap rings every now and then, and I just like the way some ring and base combinations look on some rifles.  I personally detest the appearance of 2-piece bases protruding over the ejection port, (which sometimes rules out the Burris Sigs), so the base design is a consideration for which 2-piece bases/rings I'll select for a given rifle.  Lapping really doesn't take much time, and if you put a cloth on top of the receiver underneath the rings, it can be done without making a mess.  Plus, as Technika said, sometimes QD rings are a nice option to have on some rifles.  Lapping just gives me peace of mind that everything is done right, and if I'm planning for my scope to be permanently mounted, if done right the first time, you do it once and forget about it.

 

The Warne rings are very high quality, but again, they are made to certain production tolerances, and they cannot compensate for out of alignment receiver mount holes.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: smitty
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 03:12

The rings in that photo, do they align on the vertival plane? I can see they do on the horizontal.

 

Smitty



Posted By: trkyshootr
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 05:55

Well, although the controversy here was not intended the many answers are very appreciated.  I had called Warne and spoken with a tech man previously, but without solution.  Since posting, I spoke again with a very helpful Warne representative - Dave.  I think that he likely answered the question - the tinking may well result from the Warne's cross key (for those unfamiliar with Warnes, they are Weaver-style mounts that use a steel key, instead of the standard cross-screw, to engage the base's mounting slot) moving within the base cutout or slot.  If the rings are not pressed forward while mounting, the key will remain loose enough to make this sound.

 

Dolphin, this perfectly addresses one portion of your question - the tinking sound does occur with the scope off.  However, only when in the rings.  The tinking then is significantly louder and obviously not coming from within the scope, and I didn't put two and two together (and, of course, I was assuming that the tinking resulted from torque being applied by the mounting process).  Also, if the scope is not in the rings, or if it is in the rings and I'm holding the ring keys, it makes no sound.  So, I am fairly confident that the tinking will be solved by assuring that I press the rings fully forward while remounting the scope (although the last time I remounted the scope, I rotated the rifle and listened carefully after tightening each screw, and the tinking did not reappear until I tightened the final two top screws on the front ring).

 

Unfortunately, the front base screws stripped when I loosened them prior to my original post.  I am now awaiting a new set from Warne.  I was upset with myself, and didn't understand how this occurred, since I was using their torque wrench to mount the rings and bases.  Well, I learned yesterday that the original shipment of wrenches was erroneously set at 31lbs., not the intended 25lbs.  The Warne tech told me that screws tightened to this degree could bugger up when trying to remove them.  Fortunately, despite the overtightening of all of my ring screws, there has been no kinking or marring of either of my Warne-mounted scopes.  I expect to have a new torque wrench from Warne by the end of this month - they have not yet received the shipment of 25lb. wrenches.

 

Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies.  If my problem is not solved, I'll be back!



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 06:55
I am sorry I failed to mention the cross key in the rings.  I just assumed that you had them mounted in properly.  If not, they will definately make a tinking sound.  Rifledude made some good points about lapping rings.  But, what I have found about Warne rings and one of the reasons I continue to use them, is in the vertical plane, if tightened properly, the rings are self compensating and torqueinging the scope is not an issue in that most imprortant plane.  Being the compulsive person that I am, I have checked the diameters and measurment on all sets of rings and mounts I have received and found no variation.  Now that does not account for inaccuracies in measurements or internal ring valleys and peaks or rifle mount screw variations, but with the quality of the Warne product, I have never found the need to lap these rings for the above noted reasons and have found many a rifle to be almost bore sighted at the range, without having to do anything.  Now these were new high quality rifles, never tried them on older rifles.  If I were a gunsmith mounting a scope for you for money, I would lap every one.  Why, for two reasons.  One, ultimate perfection and more importantly, to avoid damaging your scope and having to pay for it, as the rings and bases I would be using would vary.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 10:45
Originally posted by smitty smitty wrote:

The rings in that photo, do they align on the vertival plane? I can see they do on the horizontal.

 

That's a good question, Smitty.  I can't prove it one way or another, but I believe they do have a slight compensation in the vertical because of the opposing 2-point cone screw engagement of the ring studs, which should allow the rings to tilt ever so slightly (only a few 0.001" or so would be required) before one side of the rig shoulders up against the base.  As you said, they definitely self-align in the horizontal because the clamping groove encircles the entire ring stud o.d., allowing the ring to clamp in any rotational orientation.  I personally like the much simpler S&K design even better than the Conetrol design, except I believe the Conetrols are a little better finished than the S&Ks.  S&K seems to be one of the best kept secrets in scope rings, as they don't advertise very aggressively.

 

Back to the Warne rings... I can see where the cross pin could be the source of the sound you're hearing.  Regardless, I still think you have nothing to lose by lapping them.  Vertically split rings are a little more tricky to lap, but it can be done.  Regardless of how geometrically true a set of rings and bases are made, no fixed ring can compensate for slight misalignment in the receiver, and it doesn't take much misalignment to cause problems.

 

Good luck! 



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: smitty
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 15:15
trkyshootr, when I mount my leupold rings I make sure the front ring is tight toward the front and the rear tight toward the
rear. This way any horizontal movement is reduced and my scope should mount onto the rifle the same way each time I
do it.

It looks like you have it figured out.

Smitty


Posted By: trkyshootr
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 20:38

I am embarrassed that I didn't earlier figure out the noted error in mounting as the potental problem, and appreciate the feedback.  I am certainly hopeful that after receiving the new torque wrench and base screws, and remounting properly, that the tinking will be a thing of the past.  Now, from all of the replies, a couple of interesting issues arise:

 

1.  Lapping vertically split rings.  I don't understand how this could be accomplished.  Unlike horizontally split rings that can maintain their relationship to one another from lapping to scope mounting, the vertically split rings require removal from the bases prior to the remounting of the scope.  If the rings' relationship isn't constant, is the desired result accomplishable?

 

2.  Smitty, your last comment, regarding pushing the front ring forward and the rear ring aft has me thinking.  With the Warne rings, I think that the tinking is solved equally by pushing the rings forward or rearward.  However, I'm guessing that Warne suggests pushing them both forward to prevent movement due to recoil.  Have you ever found the rear ring sliding forward at all?

 

Again, thanks to all for your informative comments.

(Also, the S&K have really piqued my interest for use in the future, and I'm going to read up on them.)



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 21:51
I am not sure what you mean by pushing the rings forward or backward.  With the bases there is only one way to inserst the rings.  Now you can reverse the Warne bases to take advantage of scope mounting options, but inserting the rings is a fixed option.  One position.  Another question I have to ask, is how are the S and K mounts self compensating.  The from and back mounts have windage screws, but I am not sure how that counts for self compensation.  They appear to be dovetail inserts, which I absolutely ahbor from the stand point of physics, as with recoil, especially on high power rifles the torque on the "loose" end of the dovetail is transferred to the scope, putting the stress on the tube of the scope.  I have not seen a failure due to this, but the physics involved, drives me nuts.  For lower power rifles, it does not bother me as much.  The dovetail mount can serve as self-compensating, but only to a point.  If the mounting screws on the receiver are that screwed up and the scope has to be compensated beyond the turning point of the dovetail, then you are out of room and screwed as well with other mounting systems.  Fortunately, most scopes are forgiving, as there are a lot of hunters shooting with cheapo scopes, shooting alot of deer, without missing and mounting their own scopes and have now idea what anyone on this forum is talking about.  But for us, its fun and intellectually stimulating and of course trying this new techniques on our rifles is one way of seeing if they work and more importantly, getting us out there shooting.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: www.technika.nu
Date Posted: February/14/2007 at 23:07

Of course you can lap Warne rings and then take it down and set i up again.

If the ring before the lapping was pointing 1 degree to the left it will of course point forward in angle with the other ring after the lap, regardless of the dismounting.

 

I am not interested in S&K or control rings.

I don't like the idea at all to have the small set screws to keep the rings togehter.

 

Regards Technika



Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 06:24
If you have never mounted Warne mounts and rings, then you do not understand why lapping is not necessary.  With the vertical set-up, after you place the scope in the rings, there is provided, probably 5 degrees of latitude of lateral play, depending on how you tighten down the screws.  Therefore, it is essential to tighten the screws properly.  You can lap the rings all day long and if you do not tighten the screws properly, you still have an error in the mounting.  As I have previously said, scopes are very forgiving in these cases.  I have seen many a yahoo mount a scope and I have yet to see one destroyed by torque.  Maybe one or two crushed, but not by torque.  In a way, the vertical set-up could theoretically be used to correct for any misalignment of the receiver scope mounting base mounting screws, or as you would say and I would have to agree, go to the Burris rings with the off-set inserts.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: trkyshootr
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 06:27

Dolphin, The only thing that I may have done incorrectly while mounting the rings was fail to push them forward within the base slots.  The base slots are wider, from front to back, than is the thickness of the rings' locking keys.  It was explained to me by the Warne tech that the rings need to be pushed forward in the base slots before securing the rings.  Otherwise, there will be enough looseness at their junction to allow the key to 'tink' inside the base slot.

 

If Smitty was referencing the base mounting, and reversing the bases to widen and maximize the space between the rings, I also do that - it seems as the scope is then better supported along its length.

 

Rootman, I am surprised that many professionals use Weaver-style rings with simple cross screws on their big game rifles.  To me (and I suggest no knowlege; admittedly speaking as a layman here) it seems that a dual-dovetail setup would be the strongest, but allow for less (no) adjustment.  Then, the Redfield-style seems to offer versatility if not as much strength.  And, in a Weaver mount, the Warne appears to be the strongest incarnation, with the solid steel locking key used in lieu of a screw (about which, I've read in several reviews, people have turned the head off while mounting).  If it turns out that the Warne tech's suggestion does not solve my problem, I will almost certainly use a Signature ring, the question then being whether to use the Zee style with the Warne bases, or to use Redfield style bases and Signature rings.

 

Thanks again to all.



Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 11:11

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

If you have never mounted Warne mounts and rings, then you do not understand why lapping is not necessary.  With the vertical set-up, after you place the scope in the rings, there is provided, probably 5 degrees of latitude of lateral play, depending on how you tighten down the screws.  Therefore, it is essential to tighten the screws properly.  You can lap the rings all day long and if you do not tighten the screws properly, you still have an error in the mounting.  As I have previously said, scopes are very forgiving in these cases.  I have seen many a yahoo mount a scope and I have yet to see one destroyed by torque.  Maybe one or two crushed, but not by torque.  In a way, the vertical set-up could theoretically be used to correct for any misalignment of the receiver scope mounting base mounting screws, or as you would say and I would have to agree, go to the Burris rings with the off-set inserts.

 

Have to strongly disagree.  I've mounted quite a few Warne rings on rifles, and in some cases, regardless of what you may have been told, yes lapping is sometimes necessary.  First, scopes are not forgiving of misalignment.  The amount of misalignment in the system translates directly into scope tube bending, resulting in W/E correction or misaligned lenses, which can result in poor image quality.  At best, it can mar the scope tube.  Second, the vertically split rings actually have very little, if any vertical compliance because they have dovetail line contact on both sides, which pulls the rings down against the base.  The scope tube will bend slightly before the rings cock on the bases.  Third, even if this ring design did allow for compensation in the vertical plane, it doesn't in the horizontal plane, which is what you'd have with misaligned receiver screw holes.  Scope mounts can be made to extremely tight production tolerances, but they are still subject to how true the receiver front to rear bridge surfaces and screw alignment is manufactured to.  Fourth, even though it's true that if you install then remove rings, you aren't in exactly the same alignment as when they were lapped, you get darn close as long as you keep the ring halves in the same location front to back and side to side because at least one side of the rings maintains a fixed relationship to the base when installed.  Lapping will still remove gross misalignment problems even if you have slight variations when detached and reinstalled.  Case in point, with a setup I put together a year ago, involving a very high quality rifle (Cooper M21) and Warne rings, lapping was the only way I was able to get the rifle zeroed without using up all the left windage adjustment the Swaro PH 6-24X50 scope had!  This particular scope, though extremely nice, has only 2.1' of windage compensation at 100yds.  So, the rings aren't necessarily at fault if you have misalignment, and the price and quality level of the rifle isn't necessarily an indication of whether or not you will have misalignment in the screw holes or receiver mating surfaces.  Warne rings are very well-made, but they cannot compensate for misaligned receivers, affecting the horizontal plane.

 

As for the S&K mount questions, yes they have set screws, but the set screws are only used to squeeze the rings together.  Once the ends of the rings are squeezed together, the halves form a round ring stud.  This ring stud bears the recoil against the i.d. of the bases, not the screws.  The rings have horizontal compliance front to back because the round ring studs are able to rotate in the bases to conform to the scope tube orientation.  The setscrews used are coned type, and the ring studs have angled grooves to match the taped setscrew points and pull the rings into the bases.  This angled groove goes around the entire o.d. of the ring studs, so the cone screws in the base always lock into the ring stud groove in the center of the diameter regardless of slight rotational variation to compensate for horizontal misalignment.  The 1 piece rings with only 1 vertical split when closed means no screws in the rings themselves to strip out or fail.  It's a very strong, rigid setup.  Hope my description makes sense; it's easier to describe in person than in writing.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 12:40
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

If you have never mounted Warne mounts and rings, then you do not understand why lapping is not necessary.  With the vertical set-up, after you place the scope in the rings, there is provided, probably 5 degrees of latitude of lateral play, depending on how you tighten down the screws.  Therefore, it is essential to tighten the screws properly.  You can lap the rings all day long and if you do not tighten the screws properly, you still have an error in the mounting.  As I have previously said, scopes are very forgiving in these cases.  I have seen many a yahoo mount a scope and I have yet to see one destroyed by torque.  Maybe one or two crushed, but not by torque.  In a way, the vertical set-up could theoretically be used to correct for any misalignment of the receiver scope mounting base mounting screws, or as you would say and I would have to agree, go to the Burris rings with the off-set inserts.

 

Have to strongly disagree.  I've mounted quite a few Warne rings on rifles, and in some cases, regardless of what you may have been told, yes lapping is sometimes necessary.  First, scopes are not forgiving of misalignment.  The amount of misalignment in the system translates directly into scope tube bending, resulting in W/E correction or misaligned lenses, which can result in poor image quality.  At best, it can mar the scope tube.  Second, the vertically split rings actually have very little, if any vertical compliance because they have dovetail line contact on both sides, which pulls the rings down against the base.  The scope tube will bend slightly before the rings cock on the bases.  Third, even if this ring design did allow for compensation in the vertical plane, it doesn't in the horizontal plane, which is what you'd have with misaligned receiver screw holes.  Scope mounts can be made to extremely tight production tolerances, but they are still subject to how true the receiver front to rear bridge surfaces and screw alignment is manufactured to.  Fourth, even though it's true that if you install then remove rings, you aren't in exactly the same alignment as when they were lapped, you get darn close as long as you keep the ring halves in the same location front to back and side to side because at least one side of the rings maintains a fixed relationship to the base when installed.  Lapping will still remove gross misalignment problems even if you have slight variations when detached and reinstalled.  Case in point, with a setup I put together a year ago, involving a very high quality rifle (Cooper M21) and Warne rings, lapping was the only way I was able to get the rifle zeroed without using up all the left windage adjustment the Swaro PH 6-24X50 scope had!  This particular scope, though extremely nice, has only 2.1' of windage compensation at 100yds.  So, the rings aren't necessarily at fault if you have misalignment, and the price and quality level of the rifle isn't necessarily an indication of whether or not you will have misalignment in the screw holes or receiver mating surfaces.  Warne rings are very well-made, but they cannot compensate for misaligned receivers, affecting the horizontal plane.

 

As for the S&K mount questions, yes they have set screws, but the set screws are only used to squeeze the rings together.  Once the ends of the rings are squeezed together, the halves form a round ring stud.  This ring stud bears the recoil against the i.d. of the bases, not the screws.  The rings have horizontal compliance front to back because the round ring studs are able to rotate in the bases to conform to the scope tube orientation.  The setscrews used are coned type, and the ring studs have angled grooves to match the taped setscrew points and pull the rings into the bases.  This angled groove goes around the entire o.d. of the ring studs, so the cone screws in the base always lock into the ring stud groove in the center of the diameter regardless of slight rotational variation to compensate for horizontal misalignment.  The 1 piece rings with only 1 vertical split when closed means no screws in the rings themselves to strip out or fail.  It's a very strong, rigid setup.  Hope my description makes sense; it's easier to describe in person than in writing.

Now having used Warne mounts and rings almost exclusively, except for a few Talley one piece rings, my experience with them is extensive.  I cannot count the number of scope I have mounted, all without lapping.  Not one has ever failed to be almost near bore sighted at

the range.  The rifles range from Wby. Mark Vs and Vanguards, Howas, Savages, Rugers, Parker Hales, a Custom with a German made Mauser action and several other makes I cannot recall.  I have remounted multiple times on many of these rifles.  The rings do not dove tail together.  They simply fit together with the control key in the cross slot.  When tightening the rings, there is very little drop in the scope, towards the receiver.  I know, because before I mount a scope and tighen it down, I set it in the bases and if it fits without touching the barrel, I am almost guaranteed after tightening it down it still will not touch.  Now, while I said, if you wanted you could adjust, by differential tightening of the scope screws, rear vs. front, for misalignment in the horizontal plane, I did not recommend that.  I will have to say, that if a rifle manufacturer today, such as Cooper, can drill and tap a receiver that much out of alignment with the bore, it needs to go back to the factory.  I will also still disagree with the fact that scopes are more forgiving that we think.  There are literally, probably hundreds of thousands of self mounted cheap scopes used every year to shoot deer, I see them, 69.95 dollar scopes with tasco rings, and these guys bring in the meat like there is no tomorrow.  They do not even re-sight their rifle year in year out.  If we really want to do it correctly, we should measure the bore line with a laser and mount a laser in rings, into the receiver scope mounting holes and measure the angle of difference.  Theoretically, excessive lapping could result in oversized rings and at worse if not done properly, especially if trying to compensate for misalignments, a more oval pattern to the ring resulting in denting of the scope that goes undetected, because it is under the ring, which could affect its performance.  I think the bottom line is, we are probably way over analyzing the situation.  I have often thought of going to lapping, but when I get ready to order the kit from Brownells, I think, why, everytime I take the newly mounted rifle to the range, I am almost always right on a 25 yards, or at most, using the old look down the barrel to bore sight or using the Aimshot, just a few clicks and I am there.



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 13:37

Rifledude, your description of the S&K rings does sound interesting.  But, as I said before, I have this eversion of rings that are able to turn in the bases under recoil, for the physical reasons I described above.  I am not sure these rings work like the Leupold dove tail, but in that situation, they rotate to a fixed point.  Under heavy recoil, as Newton put it, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,   Now, this is important, because the rotating base will self align the scope in that plane and may never reach the end of travel for the dove tail.  As the rifle recoils backward, the scope wants to stay in place.  If the dove tail is at the end of its travel there is no problem, if not (in this case, the "loose", right, end of the scope ring base will travel forward, the supposed fixed end, left, will travel backward, placing torque on the scope), you can induce massive torque, especially with a high power magnum.  Rapid rotational torque is far more damaging than is constant low force torque.

This is one thing I like about rifles and optics.  Its like the good old days of Hi-Fi.  As a big audio enthusiast, I loved the days of analog, as physics played a big role with respect to the turntable especially and all the debates as to what was better.  I hope that I never have to see the day when all weapons are some sort of super laser, computer driven, 100 percent accurate device without any room for error or human input.



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 13:42
Oh, Rifledude, you know me, I am always fair.  You have tried Warne mounts and rings, I have never tried S&K.  Therefore, the next rifle I mount a scope on, will be with S&K mounts and rings.  If you recommend them, they have to be excellent.  Unfortunately, I have already purchased the Warne products for the Steyr Mannlicher and I do not own or plan to own an A-bolt which they will fit.  My Nikon I bought from SWFA is back ordered, so, maybe I might just order a set of the S&Ks.  Which, would you recommend?

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 15:54
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I cannot count the number of scope I have mounted, all without lapping.  Not one has ever failed to be almost near bore sighted at

the range. 

Most of the time, they don't, and you can get by fine without lapping, so that isn't surprising.  However, even if you took any of those setups you had no problems with and run a lapping rod through the rings, I guarantee you will be shocked by how much uneven cleanup the lap will reveal on the inside of the rings.  Every single set of rings I've lapped has shown at least some misalignment, and lapping not only corrects this misalignment, it provides more complete contact between rings and scope.  This doesn't mean slight misalignment and imperfections in the rings or receiver will render the whole setup unusable or the scope unworkable.  Generally we're talking about maybe a couple thousandths misalignment here.  In rare cases, like I described earlier, lapping in conjunction with switching the ring halves front to back can correct for using up too much of a scope's W/E adjustment travel.  A few 0.001" variation at the mounts translates into several inches POI change at 100 yards. 

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

The rings do not dove tail together.  They simply fit together with the control key in the cross slot.  When tightening the rings, there is very little drop in the scope, towards the receiver.  I know, because before I mount a scope and tighen it down, I set it in the bases and if it fits without touching the barrel, I am almost guaranteed after tightening it down it still will not touch. 

No, the ring halves don't dovetail together but they do dovetail to the bases.  The angled dovetail surfaces on the bottom of both sides of the ring halves pull the ring down against the base when the side screws are tightened.  You don't notice the difference when you lay the scope & rings against the base and tighten the screws, because the vertical movement in the scope is maybe a couple .001" at most.  Put a dial indicator on the scope when you tighten the screws and it will definitely show vertical movement in the scope tube when you torque the screws even a little.  Considering that internal mating parts of a typical scope are fitted together within a few 0.0001" (ten thousandths) clearances, even 0.003" misalignment -- which is very common -- impairs proper operation of the scope some, even though the scope may still function fine such that one doesn't realize it. 

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I will have to say, that if a rifle manufacturer today, such as Cooper, can drill and tap a receiver that much out of alignment with the bore, it needs to go back to the factory. 

It may or may not have been due to the rifle's receiver; it could have been the base, plus there's clearance between the screw heads and the screw counterbore in the base, permitting the base to be moved from side to side very slightly along the radius of the receiver.  I didn't worry about it since lapping was a fast and easy fix.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I will also still disagree with the fact that scopes are more forgiving that we think.  There are literally, probably hundreds of thousands of self mounted cheap scopes used every year to shoot deer, I see them, 69.95 dollar scopes with tasco rings, and these guys bring in the meat like there is no tomorrow. 

Most rings and scope combinations work o.k.most of the time, and even though scopes are forgiving from the standpoint they may still work when stressed, even the slightest misalignment in the mount system is still misalignment that bends the tube and robs the scope of it's true performance potential.  Scopes have the best resolution in the center of the erector system's adjustment range.  Shifting POI when the magnification is changed on variable scopes is often caused by stressed scope tubes.  You're less likely to notice the difference with a cheap scope, and on a deer hunting rig, even significant misalignment and stresses imparted on the scope tube can easily go unnoticed because shots are generally close and the rig may still function within the limits of its intended purpose, but that still doesn't mean it's an ideal setup. 

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Theoretically, excessive lapping could result in oversized rings and at worse if not done properly, especially if trying to compensate for misalignments, a more oval pattern to the ring resulting in denting of the scope that goes undetected, because it is under the ring, which could affect its performance.

 

Lapping can never result in oversized rings, provided the lapping rod is of the correct size to begin with because there's plenty of clearance between the ring halves when the rings are clamped around the scope tube.  If a perfectly round rod is used and the ring is lapped properly such that you get complete cleanup, you will also never have ovality, since it conforms to the shape of the rod.  Lapping is a very fine finishing process that doesn't remove much material.

Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

I think the bottom line is, we are probably way over analyzing the situation.

True.  

Most of the time, most mounts work well enough as-is that you truly don't have to do anything but install them properly and go shooting.  So, in that respect, you are correct that lapping isn't really "required."  However, I'm also believer that if you're gonna do something, you might as well do it right the first time and never worry about it again.  Since I already have the lapping tool, it takes very little time and effort to lap rings, and there's no downside to lapping, I do it to most fixed rings, whether there is serious misalignment or not.  In cases where there really is a W/E travel limitation, lapping always either fixes the problem or at least helps and is a cheaper alternative to buying another set of rings.

 

 



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 16:11
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

Rifledude, your description of the S&K rings does sound interesting.  But, as I said before, I have this eversion of rings that are able to turn in the bases under recoil, for the physical reasons I described above.  I am not sure these rings work like the Leupold dove tail, but in that situation, they rotate to a fixed point. 

 

They are only allowed to rotate and self align -- "float" -- in the bases very slightly during initial positioning of the rings, not after everything is tightened down.  Once tightened, they don't move at all provided the bases are properly tightened to the receiver.  The scope tube itself provides proper initial alignment.  There is no dovetail on the ring studs, so they aren't at all like the Leupold rings.  The coned set screws keep the rings squeezed together and keeps them vertically contained in the bases.  In the horizontal direction, recoil forces bear against the ring stud, which slide snugly into matching bores in the bases, so they cannot turn during recoil.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way claiming this is the strongest ring design made, just that they are strong, simple, foolproof, and definitely sleek looking.  I like many different mount designs for different reasons.



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 16:39

 

Rifledude wrote:

No, the ring halves don't dovetail together but they do dovetail to the bases.  The angled dovetail surfaces on the bottom of both sides of the ring halves pull the ring down against the base when the side screws are tightened.  You don't notice the difference when you lay the scope & rings against the base and tighten the screws, because the vertical movement in the scope is maybe a couple .001" at most.  Put a dial indicator on the scope when you tighten the screws and it will definitely show vertical movement in the scope tube when you torque the screws even a little.  Considering that internal mating parts of a typical scope are fitted together within a few 0.0001" (ten thousandths) clearances, even 0.003" misalignment -- which is very common -- impairs proper operation of the scope some, even though the scope may still function fine such that one doesn't realize it. 

 

As I said, the scope does drop, but very little and the numbers you mention are very little.

 

 

 

Rifledude wrote:

It may or may not have been due to the rifle's receiver; it could have been the base, plus there's clearance between the screw heads and the screw counterbore in the base, permitting the base to be moved from side to side very slightly along the radius of the receiver.  I didn't worry about it since lapping was a fast and easy fix.

 

I would have to disagree.  I believe the Cooper is at fault here.  The Warne product is machined to be exactly the same every time, with minimal error.  Having used the product, I have never seen any slack at all, zero.  Once the bases go down and with just a slight tightening, they fit snug and with complete tightening they do not move.  The counterbores are precise.  I have never noticed any movement once the head of the screw enters the counterbore.  The only reason I would be concerned, is if I paid that much money for a premium rifle and felt like the receiver was inaccurately tapped and drilled for scope mounting, or that the bore of the rifle was inaccurately drilled.



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 16:48
Just talked to Dave at Warne.  They do not recommend lapping their rings, as they are made to flex and conform with to the scope tube.  He is a competition shooter, using a Nightforce scope at 1000 yards, for the company and uses the standard rings, not hand picked, without lapping.  However, he states, if you want to lap them, their your rings, do what ever you want.  Still want to try a pair of S&Ks, as it is only fair, since Rifledude has tried the Warnes.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 16:58
Let me acknowledge one thing.  Probably the most knowledgable persons on this forum regarding firearms and optics, is Rifledude and I have the utmost respect for him.  His comments have been taken seriously and I do believe lapping is good technique and in a previous post said, that if I were a gunsmith, I would do it on every scope I mounted.  So, what he has had to say comes from alot of experience.  My personal experience with Warne has been positive and he makes good points why and the conditions where lapping make not make a difference.  I just wanted to make it clear, that this is a friendly exchange of opinions and that when he speaks, I listen.  He has been more helpful to me in my reloading project than you could imagine.  Thanks Rifledude.  Now, for that S&K recommendation.

-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/15/2007 at 18:34

Thanks very much for the kind words, Dolphin!  Yes, this is just a discussion of the pros and cons of the different toys we all share a passion for here, just as if we were sitting 'round the old campfire in hunting camp!

 

Keep in mind that whether or not anything discussed here applies to your individual setup depends on magnitude.  Most of the time, the inherent variations in the receiver and mounts can be compensated for by the scope, and as long as the scope isn't being overly stressed and the mounts don't move, you probably won't have any problems. What I'm talking about with regards to lapping is focused more toward correcting preexisting, more serious alignment problems and is not intended to imply that all scope rings need to be lapped as a general rule, even though I personally do it anyway.  Lapping is so easy to do that I recommend it as a matter of course for this and any situation where there are potential signs of scope tube stress or one runs out of scope adjustment.  I just like knowing everything is setup as perfectly as I can make it, even when absolute perfection isn't really necessary.  Then again, when it comes to firearms I can be a hard-headed and obsessive compulsive nut case...

 

There is no manufactured product, no matter how good, that's perfect.  As good as Warne mounts are, scope mount manufacturers have to allow for normal production variations in rifle receiver mounting surfaces, as the receivers are also made to acceptable +/- dimensional tolerances, otherwise some bases wouldn't fit some receivers made to the upper or lower spec limits.  I have no doubt that what Dave told you is true, but manufacturers will seldom ever recommend any modification to their products, as they have no control over the competency of the person making the modification and said modification may compromise the function of their product.  But, keep in mind, if something "flexes and conforms," that implies that there is inherent, known misalignment present that the mount is designed to compensate for to a degree.  In the Cooper example, I didn't remove the bases to find out if the base or the receiver was the problem, because I didn't have to.  The drilled and counterbored holes in a typical mount base have to have some clearance for the screw, otherwise, the hole wouldn't readily accept the screw.  Therefore, since the bottom of the base and the top of the receiver are both radiused, the base can be installed with slight side-to-side positional variance from exact 12:00 orientation equal to 1/2 the total diameter clearance between the cap screw heads and the counterbore i.d.  This also doesn't imply that there was anything wrong with either the Cooper rifle or the Warne mounts, as these types of problems aren't as rare as you would think, even with top of the line stuff.

 

Admittedly, I am talking about small positional variations in the thousandths of an inch, but thousandths of an inch of misalignment in the scope mounts translates into inches at normal shooting distances that the scope adjustments must then compensate for.

 

Here's a quote from S&B's website with regards to scope mounting:

Any scope should be mounted with the reticle as close to its centered position as possible. This can be difficult when using scope mounts limited in their adjustment range or with no adjustment at all. The dimensions of individual rifles and actions can vary widely from gun to gun; that fact, combined with the incredibly wide variety of scope mounts, can present real challenges and frustration in finding the right combination.

Schmidt & Bender scopes are made to extremely tight tolerances. Thus, it is very important to avoid any stress upon the scope when it is mounted, as this can have a major affect on accuracy. Consult your dealer or a knowledgeable gunsmith for recommendations.

RMS makes a very valid case for just using the self-compensating and inserted type ring designs on everything, however, the looks argument is very subjective.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Plus, not all mount designs work best with all scope and rifle combinations.

 

 



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.


Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: February/16/2007 at 06:35
Originally posted by RifleDude RifleDude wrote:

Thanks very much for the kind words, Dolphin!  Yes, this is just a discussion of the pros and cons of the different toys we all share a passion for here, just as if we were sitting 'round the old campfire in hunting camp!

 

Keep in mind that whether or not anything discussed here applies to your individual setup depends on magnitude.  Most of the time, the inherent variations in the receiver and mounts can be compensated for by the scope, and as long as the scope isn't being overly stressed and the mounts don't move, you probably won't have any problems. What I'm talking about with regards to lapping is focused more toward correcting preexisting, more serious alignment problems and is not intended to imply that all scope rings need to be lapped as a general rule, even though I personally do it anyway.  Lapping is so easy to do that I recommend it as a matter of course for this and any situation where there are potential signs of scope tube stress or one runs out of scope adjustment.  I just like knowing everything is setup as perfectly as I can make it, even when absolute perfection isn't really necessary.  Then again, when it comes to firearms I can be a hard-headed and obsessive compulsive nut case...

 

There is no manufactured product, no matter how good, that's perfect.  As good as Warne mounts are, scope mount manufacturers have to allow for normal production variations in rifle receiver mounting surfaces, as the receivers are also made to acceptable dimensional tolerances, otherwise some bases wouldn't fit some receivers made to the upper or lower spec limits.  I have no doubt that what Dave told you is true, but manufacturers will seldom ever recommend any modification to their products, as they have no control over the competency of the person making the modification and said modification may compromise the function of their product.  But, keep in mind, if something "flexes and conforms," that implies that there is inherent, known misalignment present that the mount is designed to compensate for to a degree.  In the Cooper example, I didn't remove the bases to find out if the base or the receiver was the problem, because I didn't have to.  The drilled and counterbored holes in a typical mount base have to have some clearance for the screw, otherwise, the hole wouldn't readily accept the screw.  Therefore, since the bottom of the base and the top of the receiver are both radiused, the base can be installed with slight side-to-side positional variance from exact 12:00 orientation equal to 1/2 the total diameter clearance between the cap screw heads and the counterbore i.d.  This also doesn't imply that there was anything wrong with either the Cooper rifle or the Warne mounts, as these types of problems aren't as rare as you would think, even with top of the line stuff.

 

Admittedly, I am talking about small positional variations in the thousandths of an inch, but thousandths of an inch of misalignment in the scope mounts translates into inches at normal shooting distances that the scope adjustments must then compensate for.

 

Here's a quote from S&B's website with regards to scope mounting:

Any scope should be mounted with the reticle as close to its centered position as possible. This can be difficult when using scope mounts limited in their adjustment range or with no adjustment at all. The dimensions of individual rifles and actions can vary widely from gun to gun; that fact, combined with the incredibly wide variety of scope mounts, can present real challenges and frustration in finding the right combination.

Schmidt & Bender scopes are made to extremely tight tolerances. Thus, it is very important to avoid any stress upon the scope when it is mounted, as this can have a major affect on accuracy. Consult your dealer or a knowledgeable gunsmith for recommendations.

RMS makes a very valid case for just using the self-compensating and inserted type ring designs on everything, however, the looks argument is very subjective.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  Plus, not all mount designs work best with all scope and rifle combinations.

 

 

Well said. 



-------------
D. Overton


Posted By: RifleDude
Date Posted: February/16/2007 at 14:58

Originally posted by rootmanslim rootmanslim wrote:

The "beauty" of a base & ring combo that takes 12 screws, has wings on the top or side escapes me. It is somewhat forgivable in the Burris (8 screw) because of the self aligning and protection provided the scope but the S&K is both beautiful, self aligning and strong. In effect it is an improved Control, a mount which has been proven the world over for decades. All this debate about twisting, 1000ths etc etc is a lot of talk leading to nothing except making any easy project (mounting a scope) into something akin to brain surgery in the dark with an exacto knife. I have the Burris on several rifles and have flopped my S&B 4-16 9 dot varmint back and forth many times with no problems. Diito S&K bases on 2 300 H&Hs, a 375 H&H and a 300 WinMag. The same Vari X III with the same S&K rings has happily made the rounds on these 4 hard kickers and the tube is unmarked.You guys stick with your "cult mounts" and I'll stick with the KISS method.

 

You must have missed the part where I repeatedly stated I was a big fan of S&K, as well as Conetrol and Burris Sig mounts.

 

Again, there are times when I prefer other mounts besides those, for instance, I do not like for any 2-piece base to extend even slightly over the ejection port, regardless of the merits of the rest of the mount.  This is as important to me from an aesthetics standpoint as how sleek the rest of the mount is, and is my own personal hangup.  Fo example, as much as I like S&K mounts and as nice as they look on most rifles, the rear base on S&K mounts for a Rem700 does extend a little into the ejection port.  I don't like that -- to me, this looks like an afterthought design.   Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there is no right and wrong answer when it comes to aesthetics.  Yes, it may sound like I'm making an easy project into a complicated one, but really, I'm not.  I'm just a perfectionist and like to get everything setup as perfectly as possible, and lapping rings is no big deal to me.  But again, my point about lapping rings is sometimes it does fix problems, not that it is a mandatory step that must be taken every time for all mounts.  Since I don't rotate scopes from rifle to rifle, I set everything up once, do it right the first time, and forget about it.  But, that's me



-------------
Ted


Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net