Scope mounting

J

JRLesan@embarqm

Guest
I want to mount a scope on a 10/22 platform with integral MilSpec (Picatinny) rails. I'm using QRW rings and a 1'' (tube) Leupold 24X scope merely to initially test the rifles potential. I'm familiar with scope mounting in general, but wonder if there is a 'correct' procedure for MilSpec rail mounting. I would not suppose lapping rings would be beneficial if the scope were ever removed and remounted (which I intend to do) or switched to a different rifle (which I might do). I'm aware that the accuracy of the slots comes into play, but generally want to know if I should use a 1" test bar to mount the rings to the rail and then mount the scope or mount the rings and lap and mount the scope and repeat the procedure if I should disassemble or what? My final objective is to mount a 3X9 in QRW rings and use it on two separate platforms with rails. Thanks...
 
Get one of these http://www.kokopelliproducts.com/scopeb.html AND ONLY ONE OF THESE! All other products on the market TRYING to be like this are hopelessly flawed. Brad has the patent, others are too braindead to give him credit or pay him royalties, therefore just buy a Kokopelli set and check your setups. NOBODY here can answer your question in a meaningful way but a set of these alignment bars will absolutely show you the truth.

Then and only then you can either proceed, or fix the problems and then proceed.

hth
al
 
Generally, I think that for factory actions, the base or bases should be bedded to the action, and once that is done, and finally secured, that the rings should be placed on the base, and while loosely clamped, pushed forward so that their cross bolts bear on the front of the cross slots in the base. At that point the bottoms of the rings should be fully tightened, then a suitable lapping bar and abrasive (I like the Kokopelli bars.) should be used to lap the bottom halves of the rings until the lapping patterns show that the bar is cutting on the whole surface. As an alternative, the rings may be bedded, using epoxy, and release on the scope. The next step is to round off all the interior edges and corners, at the parting line, so that they cannot scar the scope as the rings are tightened. From there on, the mounting is pretty straightforward. I will leave you with one caution. A long time back, I mounted an inexpensive scope using rings with the same sort of uneven split that the QRW rings have, and found that for a given amount of screw torque, that the amount of squeeze on the scope tube seemed to be much greater that it would have been with a more normal horizontal split. Looking back, I think that I had a tendency to over tighten scope ring caps, as much to make sure that the screws did not loosen as anything. These days, I tighten with more finesse, only to the point that I am sure that the scope will not slip. It may seem that rings that look well made, which are mounted on a one piece base, should not require lapping, considerable experience has not shown this to be the case, generally. You really never know what you have until you have taken a few stroke with a lapping bar, and can see where it is cutting. When remove a scope from rings that have been lapped, I generally just take off the tops of the rings, and leave the bottoms in place, preserving the lapped alignment.
 
Thank you for the responses. I understand some of the intricacies of mounting scope bases but my base is integral and not a factory action - a clone and a custom 'one off' action. My question has more to do with repeatability of removal of scope rings and scope as a unit and re-installation of the 'package' (rings and scope) on the same receiver or a different receiver with integral Mil-Spec rails. My instinct is to say that each receiver needs its own set of lapped rings left permanently installed if one wishes to obtain optimum accuracy potential which defeats the purpose of 'quick release' rings. Since a 1022 platform is not a bench gun, I doubt that it makes any real difference, but I don't want to spend the range time experimenting when someone before me has probably already done so. Simply put, if I mount the rings, lap them in, mount the scope, and then install the rings and scope on a different action, am I likely to torque the scope because of minute differences in the slots? I think 'yes' but would like opinion of someone with more years of experience and knowledge than me.
 
JRLesan@embarqm said:
................ but I don't want to spend the range time experimenting when someone before me has probably already done so. Simply put, if I mount the rings, lap them in, mount the scope, and then install the rings and scope on a different action, am I likely to torque the scope because of minute differences in the slots? I think 'yes' but would like opinion of someone with more years of experience and knowledge than me.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it.

All the "years of experience" will tell you is, THERE'S NO ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION! Move a scope from one 10-22 to another, or from one Rem700 to another, or from one "identical" custom hand-jobbie CNC'd Vunderbarr Action to another. Move a scope from the kitchen to the living room..... it doesn't matter WHERE you're moving it, IT MUST BE CHECKED if you really do care to know. And the way to check it, the ONLY way to check it with commercially available tooling, is with Kokopelli bars.

Sorry to sound so adamant but some of us just aren't into guessing games.

To answer another question you may ask, YES it's entirely possible to set up scopes to be moved from rifle to rifle. I've several very expensive, but more to the point, VERY ACCURATE setups with this capability.
 
You are certainly right: I'm still not understanding how a set of kokopelli bars will enable me to transfer a scope mounted in QRW rings from one rifle to another without removing said scope from rings to check the alignment of the rings on the second rifle. So as to not waste anyones valuable time, I'll figure this out for myself. Sorry my equipment isn't ACCURATE and EXPENSIVE, Al.
 
Generally, if you are on a budget, and want to solve this problem, the answer lies in being able to use the Burris Signature Zee rings, but in your case, there is a hitch, they are made for Weaver bases, and since they do not have a loose clamping piece, they do not open far enough to fit on Pictinny bases....close but no cigar. If the width of your base could be narrowed just a little, I think that they would fit.
 
Original; poster said "...dont think lappig would be beneficial..."?? I thought lapping is always beneficial.

Then I went to the product suggested website (Kokopelli) and he said "mount your scope the same as bedding your stock" or something to that effect. That was more to my understanding as to the best procedure.

I have not always lapped but have on the last couple mounted. I do believe it is the way to go.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Generally, if you are on a budget, and want to solve this problem, the answer lies in being able to use the Burris Signature Zee rings, but in your case, there is a hitch, they are made for Weaver bases, and since they do not have a loose clamping piece, they do not open far enough to fit on Pictinny bases....close but no cigar. If the width of your base could be narrowed just a little, I think that they would fit.
Click to expand...

Burris Signature rings can be fitted to Picattiny rail, but the ring to base tightening screws have to be removed completely so that the ring can be slid onto the rail. It's sort of a pain in the tail, but it can be done that way.
 
Larry,
The reason that I wrote that is that I have run into bases and rings that would not fit, no matter what was done, more than once. On the other hand, I am glad that your production tolerances worked out better than ours. The rings are great. I would switch to a compatible base just so I could use them. I have an old 110 that needed .020 offsets turned sideways, opposite each other to center a centered scope.
Boyd
 
Boyd, I too am a fan of the Burris Signature rings, unless the absolute last bit of excess weight has to be banished.

However, I have a 1K rifle that was a consistent .25 MOA performer that started to throw shots. Diagnosing it was slow...Finally decided to switch scopes, which meant taking the scope out of the rings. As soon as I loosened the front ring, the whole scope would wobble -- not just pivot, but "rattle" -- before the rear ring had been loosened at all. Nor were the screws in the rear ring loose. I checked everything, and the +10 & -10 orientation of the inserts was correct.

I still do not know exactly what went awry, but I've learned to check things after initial mounting by loosening & re-tightening.

Would appreciate anyone with a clue as to what could be happening.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Were these on a Weaver base?
Click to expand...
Sort of. It was a 3/4 thick Weaver style (aluminum) stock from Brownells. A "one piece" base -- about 16 inches long -- mounted on the barrel block, and cantilevered back over the action. The mount to the barrel block is via a fitted milled slot in the block, with two screws, two pins, and JB weld. We then milled two cross-grooves for the rings through-screws.
 
My gunsmith and I have been using the Burris Signature Rings on Pictinny bases for several years. You do have to remove the screws from the base of the ring to install & remove them. They work! The plastic inserts seem to make most scope problems go away.

On my Stiller Action 25 BR two times I have shot 5 shot groups under 0.200 removing and reinstalling the scope between shots! For Deer Season when I travel to TN from FL I usually carry a spare scope pre sighted. Switchings scopes I have never seen over a .5 change in POI with scopes that had been sighted in before on the rifle.

Living in SE Florida over time I have seen the plastic rings cold flow a little over time which results in the clamping screws needing to be re-torqued.

I personally have two 12-42 Nightforce scopes and several 30 MM tube Leupold scopes mounted in the signature rings. I like these rings better than the expensive Nightforce rings.

It would be nice if Burris would make them in AL with 8-32 clamping hex head screws.
 
If the reader is not familiar with the Burris rings, they do not have the typical loose clamping piece which does allow more typical Weaver compatible rings to fit either type of base. The bottom half of the ring has a weakening cut in the steel that allows the part outboard of it to be drawn against the base. Perhaps the particular brands of Picatinny bases that we ran into fit problems with were slightly larger than the ones that the poster above uses. I wish that they had not been. It would have been a lot easier. Because the slots in Picatinny bases are wider than those in Weaver bases, a Weaver ring with a loose clamping piece will almost always be able to be use on a Picatinny base, in some cases that I have seen Picatinny rings would not fit a Weaver base. I last ran into this when I tried to put a spare pair of Seekins Picatinny rings on a Weaver base. Luckily, for those that do not have a full set of options for base selection, the Seekins rings are available for both styles of bases. (FWIW the Seekins rings are light, very strong pieces of art.) Personally, I do not care what rings or bases anyone buys. I was just trying to save someone having to deal with a problem that I ran into twice. I might also mention that I am very experienced at mounting scopes with all base systems. Looking at friends hunting rifles, that have ring marks on their scopes, I would have to say that it is a particularly good thing for gunsmiths' customers that Burris came out with what are now called their Signature rings. There are a lot of messed up scope tubes out there, that were "gunsmith" mounted.
 
Last edited:
Some of the rails are a little wider and some of the ring bases are a little tighter.

All one needs to do is use a larger screw driver and insert it in the cut in the base of the rings. Do this with care and the ring base opens to take care of the tolerance problem.

We have used a few hundred of the Weaver Style Burris Signature Zee rings. We lub the base screws before installing them. Never had a problem with the #6 screws. Sometimes customers have came in with thread problems. They had installed them dry with no lub. Just tip. (yes I have had one or two get loose. Check the torque from time to time and this will not be a problem)
 
What brand of Picatinny base do you generally use, perhaps a model number, and if you are going to use the Burris rings, why Picatinny, when the same style bases are available dimensioned for Weaver? One great truth is that you do not have what I was working with in front of you, nor I what you have been using. This medium has its limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top