Talley rings need not lapping? I don't think so.

[gitrdun]

A Remington 700 TI comes into the shop. The owner complains that it cannot hold zero. I remove the scope and see deep ring marks on the tube at the fore end. I drop Wheeler alignment bars and note a 3/32" offset fore to aft. Rings are out of alignment. I then drop a precision bar and tighten it on the aft ring and allow the fore ring to float. There is a visible gap between the top of receiver and bottom of base. Feeler gauge shows a 0.010" gap at the rear of the base but would not fit under the front of the base. The front ring is canted downward. A 0.010" stainless shim is cut and placed under the rear portion of the fore base.

Once the canted base has been corrected, let do some light lapping against Talley's recommendation. Low and behold, ring material is being slightly lapped off the sides and bottom. Once again, we drop the Wheeler alignment bars into the rings. Dang it anyways, the points are looking dead center in both elevation an windage alignment to each other. Good news.

Next, comes mounting a scope in the rings. The scope has been set to it's mechanical and optical center. Should it line up with a decent centering using an optical columinator? Yes it does, actually, it takes about 4 clicks of a 1/4 MOA scope to bring it right dead center.

Thus, my story is that Talleys' claim to their rings not requiring adjustment is nothing more than BS advertisement. Their rings as with all other out there cannot compensate for receiver height accuracy nor the accuracy with which scope holes are drilled to thus affecting both windage and elevation accuracy when all is mounted. Talley, no matter how great their rings and rings bases are cannot compensate for receiver inaccuracies.

Remember something. All parts of your firearm and the gadgets that you mount on it are manufactured to tolerance. Sometimes, those tolerances either being minus or plus can work either for you or against you. Precise measurements are the only way to determine what you end up with.

Think of it this way. Most commonly made scopes sold these days are made of an aluminum tube. The internal mechanism which are your turrets are a very precise instrument. If you disturb the tube which holds the internals of such precise instruments, the accuracy downrange is highly compromised.

I must apologize for being so long winded. However, I would like to educate some of you folks that if you desire optimal accuracy from your optics, there's a bit more involved than some duffus dropping the scope into the lower ring halves and tightening the upper halves. Well Duhhhh.

[elkhunter11]

I always lap the Talley Lightweights.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I always lap the Talley Lightweights.

In this particular case elkhunter11, we were dealing with something that went far beyond lapping. Canting a 10 thou base at it's rear position means that something is far out of line up. I only proceeded with lapping after I was satisfied that the rings came into a concentricity that would allow some slight lapping.

[crazy_davey]

Have owned and mounted lots of Talley lightweight rings, all needed lapping. Not a fan anymore for a few reasons. Will never buy another set.

[gitrdun]

Sure enough fellows, but keep in mind that misalignment of the ring bores cannot be blamed entirely on the rings or bases themselves. Inaccuracies can be accounted for the receiver itself. No matter what the source, proper mounting will deal with it.

[gtr]

Lapping is always a part of installing a scope, or should be. As you say, some are out more than others.

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by gtr

Lapping is always a part of installing a scope, or should be. As you say, some are out more than others.

Some are worse than others. In which case, lapping is the final solution. However, in the gun that I've described in my earlier post, the ring was out 0.010" out of line up. Far beyond the means of lapping.

[260 Rem]

I have been fortunate, primarily using Leupold rings and one piece bases as I have not had issues suggesting that lapping would have been beneficial. I suppose the one piece rings are a remedy for both misaligned screw holes and variations in receiver height? And maybe the wide bands on the PRW style are wide enough to reduce the potential for ring crush?

[Pathfinder76]

This isn't a great conspiracy. Of course they are going to say don't lap them. How in the world do you control the monkey running the lapping bar?

I've lapped dozens of sets of rings. I don't anymore. I mount them with an alignment bar (a one piece one) and have found no difference in outcome. Most problems with ring alignment are on the receiver. Anymore I've gone to S&K rings which you wouldn't lap anyway and by design align with the scope naturally.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

I have been fortunate, primarily using Leupold rings and one piece bases as I have not had issues suggesting that lapping would have been beneficial. I suppose the one piece rings are a remedy for both misaligned screw holes and variations in receiver height? And maybe the wide bands on the PRW style are wide enough to reduce the potential for ring crush?

Because your one piece base moves the receiver into alignment?

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

Sure enough fellows, but keep in mind that misalignment of the ring bores cannot be blamed entirely on the rings or bases themselves. Inaccuracies can be accounted for the receiver itself. No matter what the source, proper mounting will deal with it.

I think Talley makes the claim they do not need lapping provided they are mounted on something that is concentric, straight and drilled and tapped correctly. Yes many people blame the rings but 90% of the time rings of any manufacturer don't line up properly is because of the outside surface of the receiver they are attached to and or the holes tapped in the receiver are wonky. Even if they line up centered and square on the receiver does not mean the barrel centerline is lined up proper to the receiver centerline either, that's a whole other can of worms. This is why gunsmiths keep busy truing up receivers and why windage adjustable rings and bases and ring inserts are so popular to accommodate a receivers crookedness. Personally I dislike windage adjustable rings and inserts as they are bandaid cures for sloppy casting, machining and heat treat warpage of most receivers.

[Smokinyotes]

I have mounted talley low, medium and high rings on probably at least 20 different tikka rifles. None of them needed lapping. When torqued properly you don't get ring marks either.

[260 Rem]

Originally Posted by chuck

Because your one piece base moves the receiver into alignment?

Gosh Chuck, I thought those tiny screws were tough enough to twist the receiver into alignment. Good observation. Could there be another explanation?

[gitrdun]

Originally Posted by Smokinyotes

I have mounted talley low, medium and high rings on probably at least 20 different tikka rifles. None of them needed lapping. When torqued properly you don't get ring marks either.

Getting ring marks is about as ugly as it could be. Otherwise, in terms of precise measuring, how do you know for sure? And no matter what how once proceeds, would you not want your scope tube to be absolutely stress free so that it's internal mechanism work as it should?

[Smokinyotes]

Originally Posted by gitrdun

Getting ring marks is about as ugly as it could be. Otherwise, in terms of precise measuring, how do you know for sure? And no matter what how once proceeds, would you not want your scope tube to be absolutely stress free so that it's internal mechanism work as it should?

I use the wheeler alignment bars. I have never had a zeiss, leupold or nightforce not work as it should. Maybe on other rifles it may be an issue but ive never had a problem with a Tikka with talley rings.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by 260 Rem

Gosh Chuck, I thought those tiny screws were tough enough to twist the receiver into alignment. Good observation. Could there be another explanation?

Do you suppose that a one piece base corrects misaligned screw holes and receiver discrepancies or not?

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by chuck

Most problems with ring alignment are on the receiver. Anymore I've gone to S&K rings which you wouldn't lap anyway and by design align with the scope naturally.

I agree.

IMO Talley lightweight rings are junk. I used to really like them, but they all needed to be lapped, reciever off or rings off(sometimes both) I would never mount a set without lapping.

I had a set mounted and lapped by a very well known gunsmith because he had my rifle for some other work at the time. That was on my primary sheep rifle I was using at the time. The front ring cracked after two seasons, bad enough that I will never use them again on any rifle.

S&K's first and DD Leupolds next.

[bobinthesky]

I think you'll find that very few manufacturers recommend modifying their product.

[qwert]

This is another new thread for a common and repetitive subject.

Much more discussion @
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...lapping&page=2

Good Luck, YMMV.