Vahunter wrote:You really don't need a fancy mounting kit or a vise unless you really want one then you might as well lap the rings and all that stuff. I mounted a scope on my Omega the other day while watching tv with the gun in my lap. I did use leupold rings and bases.
Lapping is a hot topic. Technically there is value, but lapping done wrong is far worse than not lapping high quality components. Personally I don't bother with lapping as I've seen far too many bad jobs than good and for a basic hunting/target rifle I wouldn't do it.
Lapping does not guarantee that the rings are square to the bore axis. It simply accounts for any misalignment of the rings to the base. Think about it this way.
If I mount the rings to the base (no rifle) it is possible that the rings are not perfectly square. I.e. the base and rings when put together have some misalignment. Technically that is guaranteed, but higher quality parts used should minimize the error. There is no such thing as zero tolerance...just practically zero, but everything has an accuracy spec. With the rings mounted to the base, I could lap the rings and if done properly I will remove material in such a way that the base/rings become "straighter." Note that what I'm actually doing is wearing the rings out of alignment, but doing so in such a way that the total base/ring alignment is much better. I've made the whole system better at the expense of individual parts.
Please note that if I move the rings, even on the same base, it may no longer be "straight." That lapping only works for that specific position. Also, note that when the base is mounted to the rifle it may torque the base so ring lapping should always be done after the base/rings are on the rifle. Removing any one of these parts or even changing torque specs and things may not be right anymore. A "perfect" set of rings and bases can be mounted out of alignment on a rifle if the receiver was out of spec. However, note that the purpose of lapping is to remove any stress from the scope tube due to mounting misalignment. It does not guarantee in anyway that the lapped setup is aligned to the rifle bore (even the outside of the receiver may not be aligned to the bore axis!).
Everything has a tolerance, even the mounting/lapping kit. It is entirely possible that you have a "perfect" alignment from non-lapped rings, but the kit shows it is out of spec. i.e. the kit isn't perfect and it likely was made on similar tools as your rings/base! The lapping bar is probably more in spec than a separate base and rings with several screw attachments, so the argument could be made that technically lapping "always" helps as the statistical distribution of tolerances will always be in its favor. That's the best argument for lapping IMHO.
IMHO, all of that ignores one vital assumption. The assumption is that those things are perfectly ridged so no stress is transfered to the scope tube during firing. However, have you ever seen slow motion video of a rifle firing? Everything flexes and even the best setup transfers stress to the scope tube! That alone probably explains why some rifles have no problem not lapping and others, even lapped correctly, exhibit issues. Statistically with the right equipment, lapping always helps, but practically your equipment may not be ridged enough for it to matter.
Personally, if I'm going to mount a scope to a low quality receiver/base (basically anything production) I look for a once piece mount as that should be ridged enough to remain mostly straight. E.g. I hunt with a Marlin 1895 SBL. I'd prefer a one piece scope base over a ring setup every time. It doesn't fix the potential base misalignment, but it does mitigate the impacts significantly. If I'm mounting to a high end receiver/base (such as that BAT I just posted about), I buy high end rings and don't bother lapping. At that point the tolerances on the base/rings are approaching the lapping kit and may in fact actually be better than most kits. I've seen a lot of bad lapping kits.
Of course this entire analysis ignores the fact that the scope tube isn't straight either! I guarantee that there no one is selling a perfectly straight scope tube. Practically perfect, sure, but only the finest scopes will even come close to that. The unlapped rings may have more or less stress than the lapped...it just depends on how the error tolerance stack up. IMHO, if you bother to lap your rings, you should really lap the scope as well (never heard of anyone doing that though!). Interestingly enough, such a scope tube lapper would look a lot like today's one piece scope mounts and probably would be made on the same equipment.
Statistically lapping always helps, but practically I'm not sold on it. I'd rather just purchase higher quality parts that are thicker for rigidity and were made to better tolerances in the first place. Lapping a pair of rings basically makes they useless for any other rifle.
You don't need super high end rings for a Nikon, but don't mount a $400 scope in $20 rings found in the bargain bin. $50-$75 are probably enough, but it isn't uncommon to see higher end 30mm rings with 1" reducers so that when/if you upgrade to a better scope you don't have to buy new rings.
). I'm experienced with shotguns and handguns, but this is my first rifle. I would appreciate some guidance regarding selecting a scope. To start off, I'll mostly be doing target shooting at 100 yards and up, but I might try hunting someday if I get the opportunity. I guess that means versatility is key. Also, I'm an avid photographer and shoot only Nikon bodies and lenses, so I definitely have some brand loyalty to Nikon. 
3x9 is ideal for deer hunting. I don't think you'll go wrong with the scope you are looking at.
