I have a wheeler kit that I use for my scopes (most of which are two piece). The kit has alignment bars and a lapping bar. I am not sure I could get the scope sitting perfectly in the rings without using them both. Maybe I overthink things as well.
Those alignment bars definitely help for some setups. For picatinny or one piece you are stuck with whatever quality is built into the rings.
Scope is being mounted ...using Talley 1-piece rings/bases...
Unnecessary, especially on a one-piece ring / base setup, and you will do more harm than good. Talley specifically recommends that you not lap them. You will void your warranty as well, since they will have been "modified".
Unnecessary, especially on a one-piece ring / base setup, and you will do more harm than good. Talley specifically recommends that you not lap them. You will void your warranty as well, since they will have been "modified".
By "One-piece", I mean the base and ring are one u it for the front and one unit for the rear; not a complete "one-piece " mount. From my res3arch, Talley rings usually need lapping to be perfectly centered. As far as voiding a warranty, I'm not concerned on a $50 set of rings/bases. My main point of this thread was "should I be concerned with getting shavings/compound in the action or between the stock/receiver", not whether it was needed, necessary or warranted, but thanks for the concerns. I have still yet to hear any of the nay-sayers explain what could go wrong with lapping rings......
Unnecessary, especially on a one-piece ring / base setup, and you will do more harm than good. Talley specifically recommends that you not lap them. You will void your warranty as well, since they will have been "modified".
So SC changed his story from "more harm than good" to "don't be afraid of it" when questioned... explain the damage done by lapping.
Also, voiding the warranty for modification is not what that return policy says. It is probably purposefully written like that to avoid being illegal. Most blanket "that will void your warranty" claims are. Read up on the Magnuson-Moss Act.
Comment