See Through or Detachable Scope Rings for 375 H&H

[shardin2]

Greetings,

I recently purchase a CZ 550 American Safari rife in 375 H&H, I want to use a setup that uses a scope, but also the sights. Going back and forth with See Thru scope rings and Detachable Scope Rings. I like to put a 9x40 riflescope on it. Any recommendations which would be a better setup, the See Through or Detachable Scope Rings/

Thanks

 

[Wyatt Smith]

IMO if you want the irons you don’t want the scope at all. Also QD Will leg you have a spare scope. Then we get into proper cheek wield.

 

[Adrian]

I would be getting the quick detach set up.
I'd you are using it for dangerous game then your first shot will likely be with a scope and if you need to follow up in bush at short range, get rid of the scope and use the iron sights.
You don't want your field of view obscured at a critical moment with a scope and then try to find the open sights through the see through base.
See through bases tend to place the scope a bit higher and therefore your shooting position might not be natural with the scope.
Does anyone use see through bases in Africa?

 

[TTundra]

Go with QD. In a situation where you want to use your irons on that 375 you'd rather a full field of view and not trying to look thru a peep hole.

I have warne QD on my 416, and they work great. The dismount and remount tears into my fingers (small lever on the warnes), so If I were to buy again I would go Alaska.

 

[Dewald]

QD mounts. Lots of options available for CZ550.

Alaska Arms
Talley
Leopold QRW
Warne

In that order.

 

[Red Leg]

No contest. See throughs are typically an abomination. Most I have seen were poorly made (Weaver being the worst) - an exception were some claw models. But most importantly, they put the telescopic sight way too high - particularly on a hard recoiling rifle. It makes quick target acquisition almost impossible. QDs have been perfected and work exactly as advertised. I think Talley and Alaska Arms are of equal quality. Leopold QRW and Warne are next level down but also functional.

 

[nztimb]

IMNSHO the see throguh mounts are an anachronism being a carry over from the 60's when the QD system was not common or cost effective. It is a very inneficient system and results in poor cheek weld with the high set scope and less than the quick sighting that is needed for an iron sight use.
The modern QD systems are very quick and easy to remove and replace with perfect return to zero. Personally I like the Talleys

 

[IvW]

No contest. See throughs are typically an abomination. Most I have seen were poorly made (Weaver being the worst) - an exception were some claw models. But most importantly, they put the telescopic sight way too high - particularly on a hard recoiling rifle. It makes quick target acquisition almost impossible. QDs have been perfected and work exactly as advertised. I think Talley and Alaska Arms are of equal quality. Leopold QRW and Warne are next level down but also functional.

What he said^^^^^

QD....

 

[spike.t]

How good are you with iron sights?.....also I would be interested to know how many people actually get around to removing their scope when following up....so possibly go for 1..to whatever scope and possibly remember to crank it down to 1 on the follow up...

 

[Forrest Halley]

If the rifle has iron sights and I'm off some place far from home, I like the ability to use them. I vote QD and a low power variable and a higher power variable. QD.

 

[cagkt3]

QD - I like Alaskan Arms or Talley

 

[colorado]

Talley steel QR rings. I have almost 500 full power rounds through my CZ 550 in 500 Jeffery using them and a Leupold 1.5-5x scope. They hold zero, and are typically within 1/2" or better at 100 yards when you take them off and put them back on. I also use them on our 7 1/2 lb 375 Weatherby. They are awesome

 

[CBH Australia]

This seems pretty clear.
I have a set of Warne , They were available and apparently these were the Premier model machined from slid steel. I have had them on 2 rifles .458 and .now the .375 with a 1.25-5 Leupold, no real experience though in comparison to these blokes.
Sounds like googling Alaska arms mounts is the go.

 

[BeeMaa]

As you can see, QD is the way to go.
I agree with the others who are chiming in.

On my CZ 550 375H&H, I used Warne QD rings with a Leupold VX3 1.5-5x20 scope.
I tried the Talley rings, but had a problem with them...switched to Warne and never looked back.
My problem was probably the exception and not the rule.
The Warne rings always returned to zero for me, without exception.

Stick with a quality brand like Alaska, Talley or Warne and you will be fine.

 

[One Day...]

Warne, Talley and Alaska Arms are equally good ... but different.

QD vs. see-through
I agree with the group. QD. Period. If you ever need to use the rifle really up close in a wounded dangerous game follow-up scenario (which is extremely unlikely) anything atop the rifle is a distraction. This will really be a point & shoot scenario...

Rule #1
You generally do not want any cheap ring where the recoil lug on the rear ring is located on the moving clamp. It will never return exactly to the same place. You want the recoil lug to be part of the ring itself.

Alaska Arms
I started with Alaska Arms but the Alaska Arms levers on the left side of the rifle occasionally dug into my side when I carried the rifle on the sling with a light shirt. This was annoying.
Admittedly, the Alaska Arms rings do have the recoil lug on the moving clamp, but they are not cheaply made (nor are they cheap to buy). They return reliably to near zero.
The unique lever camming system of the Alaska Arms makes them the easiest and fastest to remove.

Warne
The recoil lug is located in the middle of the ring on the Warne, so the rear ring seats at the front edge of the rear bridge. This may be less visually appealing to some, but this also allows the scope to be set another 1/4" forward, away from the shooter's eye. This is not a big deal on a .375 H&H. This is a lot more relevant on a .500 Jeff, .505 Gibbs, or .458 Lott.
The Warne also have a pointed top. Some find it aesthetically appealing it. Some do not.

Talley
The rear ring recoil lug is located at the front edge of the ring on the Talley, so the rear ring seats in the middle of the rear bridge. Some find it more aesthetically appealing. Some do not.
The Talley have a flat top. Some find it more aesthetically appealing. Some do not.

I have 7 sets of Talley rings on high-recoil rifles. They all return exactly to zero.

Select which of the above characteristics are right for you, you cannot go wrong with either of the three

 

[Ridgewalker]

I use Warne. Have used Leupold stud QR...not quick release at all! Warne were the next available and they have worked well for me. On my 375 I use 2 scopes. A 1-6x for DG which with 1x I honestly can never see why needing to remove it unless it breaks. Sight acquisition is faster for me with my old eyes than open sights (which now I can hardly see!) My scopes have illuminated dots which just seem to go to the spot I want to put a hole.
Anyway, it has worked well for me...so far!

 

[M McDindi]

I have Warne QD rings on every rifle I own if they have iron sights or not. Reason is they are machined from solid steel. Easy on - easy off - and more importantly they return to within 1/2" of zero when going back on.

While I've used the see-thru mounts and understand the concept seems at first to be a good idea and for some they do like them. They do present a couple of difficulties. Mostly, they require the scope to be mounted very high above the bore line. It's generally better to keep a scope mounted as low to the bore line as possible. Makes sighting and shooting hold over/hold under guesstimates easier. Next, the ones I've seen have all been aluminum. While the recoil of a 375 H&H is higher then most common US rifle calibers, the higher mounting and more flex inherent in aluminum vs. steel will cause the scope to actually have more movement/flex caused by recoil puts a lot of stress on the erector system that holds the reticle in place. Plus, if you're planning to put that size/weight that high......

Not sure why you're interested in putting a scope of that magnification on a 375 H&H. While it is capable of longer ranges, it generally used for closer in work (inside 200m) and shooting off sicks or freehand. Trying to keep a stable sight picture at magnifications over 4x or 6x become very difficult for the vast majority of people.

One thing I've learned is that if your scope starts at 1x or 1.25x, with very little practice you can shoot at those magnifications with both eyes open. This means you don't need to take your scope off for real close in work. Full field of view is as good as full open/iron sights, maybe 90-95% as good. Several manufactures have scopes that are 1x-4, or 1.25x-5x, or 2x-7x that might be a better option to consider.

Just my opine is all.

Edited to add. The reason I use QD rings on everything is I always take a pre-sighted in spare scope for the rifle I take on my Africa trips. I've never had a rifle go tits-up on a trip, but I have had a scope do it just once on a rifle with no iron sights and lost two days getting to town and back for a replacement. Never again.

 

[Shootist43]

Forrest Halley +1. the 375 H&H is a very versatile caliber. As such it is used up close for some game and at distance on others. Multiple scopes on QD rings is the best way to go IMHO.

 

[Red Leg]

I have Warne QD rings on every rifle I own if they have iron sights or not. Reason is they are machined from solid steel. Easy on - easy off - and more importantly they return to within 1/2" of zero when going back on.

While I've used the see-thru mounts and understand the concept seems at first to be a good idea and for some they do like them. They do present a couple of difficulties. Mostly, they require the scope to be mounted very high above the bore line. It's generally better to keep a scope mounted as low to the bore line as possible. Makes sighting and shooting hold over/hold under guesstimates easier. Next, the ones I've seen have all been aluminum. While the recoil of a 375 H&H is higher then most common US rifle calibers, the higher mounting and more flex inherent in aluminum vs. steel will cause the scope to actually have more movement/flex caused by recoil puts a lot of stress on the erector system that holds the reticle in place. Plus, if you're planning to put that size/weight that high......

Not sure why you're interested in putting a scope of that magnification on a 375 H&H. While it is capable of longer ranges, it generally used for closer in work (inside 200m) and shooting off sicks or freehand. Trying to keep a stable sight picture at magnifications over 4x or 6x become very difficult for the vast majority of people.

One thing I've learned is that if your scope starts at 1x or 1.25x, with very little practice you can shoot at those magnifications with both eyes open. This means you don't need to take your scope off for real close in work. Full field of view is as good as full open/iron sights, maybe 90-95% as good. Several manufactures have scopes that are 1x-4, or 1.25x-5x, or 2x-7x that might be a better option to consider.

Just my opine is all.

Edited to add. The reason I use QD rings on everything is I always take a pre-sighted in spare scope for the rifle I take on my Africa trips. I've never had a rifle go tits-up on a trip, but I have had a scope do it just once on a rifle with no iron sights and lost two days getting to town and back for a replacement. Never again.

I had assumed he must have meant 3x9 with a 40mm objective - but maybe not.

 

[Von S.]

I believe that the inventor of the see thru scope mounts was executed back in 1970 for the absolutely most worthless thing to ever festoon a firearm.