458 Lott ate my QD Warne rings

[WAB]

I have put hundreds of rounds through my Lott in M70 with no issues. Perhaps I’m just lucky?

One lookout on mounting scopes in QD mounts on heavy recoiling rifles, make sure both front and rear rings are fully engaged on the recoil lugs. You have to have both of the mounts hard forward against the lugs as you do the final tightening of the scope.

 

[rookhawk]

I have never had a problem with the Talley system on anything. Their finish is superior to Warne which means they mar a scope less, and I have never had a set fail with any caliber.

And never an issue with a lead sled which I have used for over a decade.

Regarding lead sleds, I know of two TBIs personally from scopes coming off while using an overweighted lead sled. (416 Rigby and larger)

they aren’t designed to stop all energy and if too heavy, they cause problems. No different than if I held your best magnum rifle butt to a concrete wall and pulled the trigger. If the scope doesn’t let loose, the scope would break, if not that, a broken wrist. Energy needs to go somewhere, preferably yielding, not rigid.

 

[Red Leg]

Regarding lead sleds, I know of two TBIs personally from scopes coming off while using an overweighted lead sled. (416 Rigby and larger)

they aren’t designed to stop all energy and if too heavy, they cause problems. No different than if I held your best magnum rifle butt to a concrete wall and pulled the trigger. If the scope doesn’t let loose, the scope would break, if not that, a broken wrist. Energy needs to go somewhere, preferably yielding, not rigid.

I am no engineer, but with regard to a scope, I believe that is exactly wrong. The scope resists recoil. Lessening the recoil lessens the energy the scope is trying to overcome.

I can not speak for your friends and I do not doubt what they believe have been their experiences. I will simply note that I have shot thousands of rounds from a lead sled and have a friend who custom loads ammunition and has shot tens of thousands of rounds with customers' rifles. Neither of us have ever experienced a damaged rifle or scope from a lead sled.

 

[One Day...]

Seen it before...

Just so that you do not feel that I am telling tall tales machinistbutler, here is a pic of my own Alaska Arms mounts still attached to the Schmidt & Bender 1.25-4 x 20 scope that I initially had on my CZ 550 .416 Rigby and now keep as a backup. I have since replaced this with a Leica because the older S&B has a 4" ocular and 3" eye relief, while the newer Leica has a 3" ocular and 4" eye relief. The .416 scope never "kissed" me, but came close enough to warrant my attention, and I also discovered through experience that having the recoil lug on the clamp is not as perfect for consistent re-attachment of the scope as having it on the mount itself, which is why I moved to Talley.

As you can see, in my case the mating of the recoil lug to the recoil notch did not happen on the vertical edge of the notch, but it sure happened nonetheless on its top horizontal edge

I am willing to bet that if anyone who shoots a .40+ CZ with a scope goes and looks at their scope mount recoil lug, they will discover some mating

This is where, in all objectivity, I agree with WAB that a system where BOTH front and rear rings have a recoil shoulder (like the Talley screw-on bases & rings - which is what I have on my own Winchester 70s, as well as my Weatherby Mark Vs) clearly help in distributing the recoil forces. I actually suspect that most bases that shear off are poorly installed: e.g. bases not mated to the action; 4 screws hole bearing surfaces not mated and not all sharing in the recoil force absorption; front and rear rings not contacting equally the recoil shoulders of the bases, etc. No doubt a well assembled rifle will hold to the Lott et al., and I have always though that CZ missed the mark in having only one side recoil notch on only the rear ring, as opposed to two recoil shoulders over the full width of both front and rear bridges...

 

[rookhawk]

What happens when the rifle comes to a sudden stop but the heavy scope still has inertia? The rings and mounts are what is stopping the optic to get it to the same backward force of the rifle.

all I can say is two traumatic brain injuries I know if first hand were from scopes flying off of magnum rifles held in lead sleds.
Were the scopes mounted properly? Unknown.

 

[rookhawk]

Seen it before...

Just so that you do not feel that I am telling tall tales machinistbutler, here is a pic of my own Alaska Arms mounts still attached to the Schmidt & Bender 1.25-4 x 20 scope that I initially had on my CZ 550 .416 Rigby and now keep as a backup. I have since replaced this with a Leica because the older S&B has a 4" ocular and 3" eye relief, while the newer Leica has a 3" ocular and 4" eye relief. The .416 scope never "kissed" me, but came close enough to warrant my attention, and I also discovered through experience that having the recoil lug on the clamp is not as perfect for consistent re-attachment of the scope as having it on the mount itself, which is why I moved to Talley.

As you can see, in my case the mating of the recoil lug to the recoil notch did not happen on the vertical edge of the notch, but it sure happened nonetheless on its top horizontal edge

I am willing to bet that if anyone who shoots a .40+ CZ with a scope goes and looks at their scope mount recoil lug, they will discover some mating

This is where, in all objectivity, I agree with WAB that a system where BOTH front and rear rings have a recoil shoulder (like the Talley screw-on bases & rings - which is what I have on my own Winchester 70s, as well as my Weatherby Mark Vs) clearly help in distributing the recoil forces. I actually suspect that most bases that shear off are poorly installed: e.g. bases not mated to the action; 4 screws hole bearing surfaces not mated and not all sharing in the recoil force absorption; front and rear rings not contacting equally the recoil shoulders of the bases, etc. No doubt a well assembled rifle will hold to the Lott et al., and I have always though that CZ missed the mark in having only one side recoil notch on only the rear ring, as opposed to two recoil shoulders over the full width of both front and rear bridges...

View attachment 371454

Makes sense to me. I like the talleys. My complaint with the CZs is they are “half a mauser”.

yes they have a double square bridge, but why? On a true square bridge Mauser you have room to mill into the receiver for pivot or claw mounts that are virtually indestructible and return to zero.

But the CZ has all the material, yet resorts to clamp on mounts with one leg spur on the rear ring...never got that oje

 

[WAB]

I was playing with my Lott today. I actually removed the express
Sight and put on a Talley ghost ring in the rear base. I had to put a lower front sight on it to adjust for elevation. It’s a sweet pointing rig with the scope off and no issues hitting an 8” plate off sticks at 100. I’ve shot enough buff that I may just switch to the ghost ring and accept the limitations.

 

[machinistbutler]

@One Day... Thanks a bunch for your input, I value your opinion a lot. The front ring is in the middle of the dovetail, not close to where the dovetail comes to a stop.

@rookhawk I have never used a lead sled, my neighbour has one though but he is slight and recoil bothers him. I weigh quite a bit, shooting the Lott doesn't bother me unless I grip a bit light with my right hand and then get a slap on my middle finger from the trigger guard . Hate it when I do that. Got smacked good yesterday. The rigby hasn't got me like that, but the Lott lets me know in a hurry .

Thanks again everyone for replying to this thread.

Came home from the woods tonight and am enjoying a cold beer, may dip into some scotch in a bit so my next post could have some spelling errors.

 

[One Day...]

all I can say is two traumatic brain injuries I know if first hand were from scopes flying off of magnum rifles held in lead sleds.
Were the scopes mounted properly? Unknown.

No one is arguing that this cannot happen, and it DOES happen.

But the application of forces is simple.

1) Under the recoil impulse, the scope, through inertia, wants to stay forward, while the rifle goes rearward. This is inarguable. This is why recoil lugs are mated on their front surfaces, not rear.

2) If the scope remains attached to the rifle during the recoil impulse and move rearward with it, when the rifle stops recoiling, the scope, through inertia, wants to continue going rearward. This too is inarguable. We all agree.

I am certainly willing to believe that scopes whose attachment is defective or just cracked under recoil impulse can fly off rearward from rifles on a lead sled. The same way stocks with defective wood and/or defective bedding can split in a lead sled...

The part that I think is often missed in these lead sled discussions, and others for that matter, is that catastrophic failure is generally caused by a pre-existing issue with the rifle system and/or the shooter misunderstood manual of arms.

My complaint with the CZs is they are “half a mauser”.
yes they have a double square bridge, but why? On a true square bridge Mauser you have room to mill into the receiver for pivot or claw mounts that are virtually indestructible and return to zero.
But the CZ has all the material, yet resorts to clamp on mounts with one leg spur on the rear ring...never got that one

As to why CZ do not offer claw mounts on their double square bridge etc., I suspect this is always the same answer: yes, the CZ offers incredible value (as in: it is amazing the potential in a $1,000 CZ 550 rifle) but one would not expect the workmanship and refinement of a $10,000 Mauser or Rigby, right?

WAB said:
I was playing with my Lott today. I actually removed the express
Sight and put on a Talley ghost ring in the rear base. I had to put a lower front sight on it to adjust for elevation. It’s a sweet pointing rig with the scope off and no issues hitting an 8” plate off sticks at 100. I’ve shot enough buff that I may just switch to the ghost ring and accept the limitations.

Gone to iron-sights only double rifle and shots no longer than 50 yards myself. I like to keep the "D" in DG...

 

[machinistbutler]

With the way my eyes are acting I would be liable to shoot some old cow buffalo in the ass after the PH said take the one on the far right standing broadside. I feel more confident with a scope .

 

[rookhawk]

This would cure all ills. Mounts to the bridge, screwed down, rings pivot in and cannot come off forward or aft.

the price is the painful part: https://www.newenglandcustomgun.com/proddetail.php?prod=4695

 

[Ridge Runner]

Just one question:

was the shooting occurring while using a lead sled? I’ve seen many horrible issues with magnums 416 and up being shot from a lead sled. A heavy scope exacerbated it, that energy wants to go some where, end it would appear the Metal will yield before the sled.

apologies if it was not shot from a sled. I’ll bet you a beer it won’t happen half as fast shooting off sticks though!

I shoot off sticks, or off hand. I this case of the scope blowing off I was shooting off the bench; not using a lead sled or bag type benchrests.

 

[KencoArms]

I've always had good results with Warne.
Recommend you contact them directly with pictures and info.
Not sure you are open to accepting help from a company with a fault.
But at the price of (possibly) free, you might give it a try.

If you contact the with knowledge of foot pound of torque used to tighten them they may replace them.

 

[machinistbutler]

@ KencoArms Would be inch pounds , and I use an inch pound torque driver to set the ring torque, but with thumb screws for the quick detatch you can only guess what torque you are putting on them.

With the warne qd set up you can't use a torque driver to set an exact torque on that design.

I can't help but wonder on the hard kickers if having an option to set the torque to required specs may be better, and still have the levers to be able to get them off in a hurry.

 

[machinistbutler]

Took a few pics of the warne and a Schmidt Zenith I have used for over a decade. Countless times have removed it. There is some chipping of the finish on part of the dovetail and recoil lug, but no wear into the metal of the lug.

The 375 this scope sits on does have less recoil than the Lott for sure, but nice to see no wear into the ring lug. I must have shot 1000 rounds or more with this set up.

 

[C.W. Richter]

Likely why CZ went back to the true Mauser-style action (CZ 550 Safari) requiring proper bases and rings (pref. Talley or Alaskan.) On the one hand, a heavy scope would tend to reduce felt recoil a bit, but on the other it'd exacerbate forces on the scope mounts....Not an issue with high quality steel rings/bases. Also why they call it CZ, not Granite Mtn. Arms, Dakota, orig. Win., et. al. A 550 Safari that's gone over properly (bedding, crossbolts, trigger, etc.) by a gunsmith is a great gun.

 

[C.W. Richter]

Consider higher quality rings, reduced loads, a lighter scope, and/or having those old "Buttes" milled down (and drilled/tapped) such that proper bases and rings can be installed. Is that a std. 550 or a Safari model?

 

[machinistbutler]

Pic of a talley that actually ripped the steel, taken a screen shot from another website so I hope it is ok to post. And further up the thread it was commented how the alaskan arms rings failed with the Lott.

The talley pic shows wear into the lug, then the ring failed badly.

@C.W. Richter any other suggestions on what high quality rings to use?

 

[machinistbutler]

I have some fixed , not Qd rings somewhere, may put a one inch tube scope on it this week and see how it does. Have a couple leupolds and a zeiss that have ok eye relief.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

EAW makes CZ rings that have a recoil lug for the front bridge. It may offer you more support. They are not QD but are detachable.
They are available at NECG