Scope Bedding Opinions Needed

If I were to bed a scope to a set of rings, I'd treat it just like an action and a stock.
 
Should you want to bed a one piece Weaver mount to a receiver, the instructions are out there, and it is straight forward:
http://www.kenfarrell.com/instruction.html

But if you want to bed a two piece Weaver mount to a receiver, and have the mounts be in the same plane, collinear, and either parallel to the bore or pointed 20moa lower than the bore, then you will need some mechanical reasoning and some fixturing.

I have bought hundreds of rifles.
If the Weaver rings have been lapped, I take them off and throw them away.
 
Clark said:
I have bought hundreds of rifles.
If the Weaver rings have been lapped, I take them off and throw them away.
Click to expand...

And you obviously don't shoot benchrest. Much of the info presented here pertains to accuracy shooting, not to pounds of metal.

al
 
Kent Owens said:
al,
You mean you ain't using Weaver rings and rails on your BR rifles?:confused:
Click to expand...


Hey, I had an experience today which renews my faith in BR and even pseudo-br stuff........

Borden Alpine, Talley rings, Kokopelli alignment bars.

Now, be it said that rarely, and I do mean RARELY, Do even billet bases/rings line up for the Kokopelli, the instrument is that good.

I mounted the Talleys and did a light lapping pass...... 90% contact immediately and not an unscratched centimeter of anodizing...... and the Koko's wouldn't let so much as a photon through the gap.

Due to some other issues I was checking I swapped the unitized bases/rings from front to rear, same direction but rear-to-front and visey-varsey and I carefully wobbled them around the screws and tightened one-by-one and se........... and I checked them again...... and dead-NUTS on...... UN-freakin-believable!!!

parallelism be thy name Borden/Talley!

:)

al
 
Al,

I have never seen that. Every one that I have put a lapping bar in needed some work, more often than not, a lot.

BTW, for those that dismiss the need to lap, the other big reason for lapping and dehorning rings it to prevent damage to the finish of the scope tube. One of the last scopes that I mounted was for the owner of the company that I work for. It was a March variable worth over two grand. No way would I want to gouge that scope. I don't know how many Leupolds that I have seen with deep gouges in their finish, that were discovered after they were removed from a set of shiny Redfield rings. Almost all were "gunsmith" mounted.
 
The worst ring damage I have ever seen was Leupold Mark 4 rings on a Leupold 3.5x10 tactical scope mounted by a Leupold representative at a Thunder Ranch Tactical training seminar for police SWAT guys...man was the owner of the scope surprised when I removed the scope and rings to rebarrel the rifle...he called Leupold immediately demanding a refund for the cost of the scope and rings..:eek:
Gotta love that steel on aluminum tactical mounts..:D
 
If you are a gunsmith with enough skill, lapping rings is never needed nor desirable. The Weaver bases CAN be glassed accurately enough.
Check the Weaver base glassing job with a granite surface plate the the tops are in the same plane and the edges are in the same plane.

Then when scopes with rings are moved from rifle to rifle, they start out on the paper, and without stress.
If rings have been lapped, this mobility is lost.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leave the rings with the rifle;move the scope. IMO letting ring mobility over rule fit, in critical applications, is letting the tail wag the dog. On the other hand, I agree that bedding bases is a really good idea.
 
With two of my BR guns down and apart for fresh ups, I snapped a pic of this set of Kelbly rings since they were off. I bedded these four seasons ago. This set of rings has had 7-8 scopes in 'em over that time and there's not a mark on any of the tubes.
r1-3.jpg


People fuss and fret over a couple of .0001's in chamber runout, make the most accurate ammo possible, spent hours to properly bed an action....but then just toss some rings and bases on a gun, tighten the snot out of 'em and expect the scopes to perform flawlessly?

Jim Morrison was right.......;)
 
Scopes, bases and rings should be installed with the same TLC that
barrels are fitted with. Weaver may work on your favorite 06 but
its nearly impossible to get them right. The screws being on one side
causes the scope to rotate ( twist) loading it with stress. When
removed from that type of ring, scopes can be found to be noticeably
out of round. Over half of the guns I disassemble , the front base screw
can be found contacting the barrel threads. Particularly an issue with
remingtons, there is no parallelism in the top of the action. The rear
bridge is lower than it should be and tilted backwards. The rear bridge
is also frequently tilted to one side. The best rings made will appear
to be out of alignment. Two pc bases can be corrected with lapping
but a one piece base needs to be installed without stress. It can be done
and short of remaching everything, is best done with a dial indicator
and bedded with shims. Kelbly rings when insalled on a panda or other
machined dovetail ribs really do spoil us, Few things get any better than
that. Round top actions, allow great parallelism and even Savage has
gone that route. Not only saving themselves a machine operation, but
eliminating a scope mounting issue. I have found redfield and leupold
dovetail turn in rings to shift side to side in heavy recoiling guns.
the rear ring is a nightmare. But they do look nice.
As Al Nyus said just slapping them on doesn't work
 
Scopemountbottomsfixturedinmofidfie.jpg


I have modified V blocks to fixture the scope mount in the mill vise.
A fly cutter [ala Steve Acker] or mill bit then cuts the bottom of the mount.
I still glass it to the receiver, even it if fits perfectly, to make a more low compliance fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top