458 Lott ate my QD Warne rings

[Red Leg]

I just picked up a beautiful FN browning 375 H&H from the 60's . The rifle looks new, never had a scope mounted on it. I paid $1000 Canadian, so probably about 700 bucks or so american dollars. The action is just a beauty. Nice pairing with my 338 from the same era that I inherited from my father when he passed. I agree the price isn't everything when it comes to rifles .

Although one of the double square bridge Rigbys in 416 would sure be nice.

They are great rifles. Does yours have the hinged bolt release or the standard mauser lever? If the former, keep it very clean or they will sometimes release the bolt on a fast reload. Potentially embarrassing on something large hairy and inbound.

 

[machinistbutler]

They are great rifles. Does yours have the hinged bolt release or the standard mauser lever? If the former, keep it very clean or they will sometimes release the bolt on a fast reload. Potentially embarrassing on something large hairy and inbound.

I have quite a few pre war czech mausers and many of the German ones from ww2 era, this release looks a little different from the wartime mausers, I think exactly the same on my 338.

 

[Red Leg]

Yes, that is the FN hinged design. Just keep it clean. They are great rifles. You made a hell of a deal.

 

[Scott CWO]

Sigh. Not to put too fine a point on it, but you actually have no idea what training I have had.

But look, you are the one who jumped into this discussion and essentially said I didn't know what I was talking about with respect to a lead sled - I was "completely incorrect" if I quote you correctly. I believe that you were also the one that said you knew this because you know a couple of former SF soldiers who apparently believe that and told you so. Therefore, by extension, you apparently know better how to sight in a rifle than do I. Or at least they do. That may seem like a compelling argument to you, but I am not sure everyone would agree.

But fine. And sincere apologies for mentioning my military service. But your friends' Army experience seemed important in making your point. Mine has some small bearing on the choices I have made from everything from caliber to sighting systems to the boots I wear. My only point is that whatever they know about precision long range shooting, other than basic rifle handling, is not all that relevant to my experiences or the uses to which I put a rifle. I have no doubt that they have far more experience in setting up a rifle to drop a Taliban, or ring a gong at 700 - 1000 meters than I do - much less 1800 meters. I apologize for implying that your two friends have shot at game animals at extreme range. It seems to be quite in vogue these days, and I jumped to an erroneous conclusion. However, little of that skill set is particularly meaningful to any of the game shooting that I do, or I suspect, the vast majority of the members of this forum.

I personally believe that a lead sled is a great tool for removing external errors for sighting in a rifle that will be used within 400 meters. I can't seem to find anything you have said which points to me being "completely incorrect" in that regard. But if there is some actual aspect about the use of such a device that I have missed in the last decade, I am interested in those observations.

We all know you have military rifle training and likely know more than most. You are correct in that I don’t know the extent of your training, nor you, mine. I brought up my friends experience thinking that you would be open minded to the ideas of a likely more experienced marksman from your branch of the armed forces, instead of my civilian and competition experience. These guys have experimented with all kinds of calibers, loads, shooting platforms, rests and bipods.

Frankly, I was surprised to see you endorse lead sleds for smaller calibers and accuracy due to the way that rifle barrel harmonics and the human body react when a rifle is discharged. My friends’s advice is to go ahead and use your sled to start but to switch to a high quality short bipod or bags for ultimate fine tuning. Even at 300-400 yards, there is a difference, according to him. If the difference is of no value to you, that’s your choice and I am sorry for bringing it up. We enjoy shooting accurately at much farther distances to fine tune and to feel more confident at closer ranges. Similar to how some of our archers shoot at 100 yards so that a 40 yard shot feels easier.

 

[WAB]

Interesting note on the sled. I shoot with a sled, bags and bipod. You can get some small variation at 300+ yards. I’ve never seen it become meaningful with free floated barrels. The biggest variability I have seen is on lightweight fully bedded barrels. I have one that will shift a couple of inches off sandbags vs prone with a sling at 100. This can be eliminated by pulling the sandbags back to the forward action screw.

Shooting prone with a sling produces a much greater potential shift than sandbags vs lead sled. This makes a lot of sense if you think about what actually impacts barrel harmonics.

Like Red Leg, I use a lead sled to tune light caliber rifles. I find it very effective. Once sighted in, I send a lot of lead downrange from all shooting positions.

Most of my rifles are now free floated. Jim Carmichael did some interesting work that suggested the light weight barrels benefitted from some upward pressure at the tip of the forend. This is likely correct, but it introduces the possibility of variable pressure with shifts in a wood stock.

 

[Scott CWO]

Interesting note on the sled. I shoot with a sled, bags and bipod. You can get some small variation at 300+ yards. I’ve never seen it become meaningful with free floated barrels. The biggest variability I have seen is on lightweight fully bedded barrels. I have one that will shift a couple of inches off sandbags vs prone with a sling at 100. This can be eliminated by pulling the sandbags back to the forward action screw.

Shooting prone with a sling produces a much greater potential shift than sandbags vs lead sled. This makes a lot of sense if you think about what actually impacts barrel harmonics.

Like Red Leg, I use a lead sled to tune light caliber rifles. I find it very effective. Once sighted in, I send a lot of lead downrange from all shooting positions.

Most of my rifles are now free floated. Jim Carmichael did some interesting work that suggested the light weight barrels benefitted from some upward pressure at the tip of the forend. This is likely correct, but it introduces the possibility of variable pressure with shifts in a wood stock.

While a sled removes some human errors, it creates other factors that are likely too different to apply straight through to shooting the rifle later without a sled. It’s just physics. That is all I was trying to say. Some people don’t know that most rifles shoot differently from a sled (or a brick wall) if the goal is knowing how your rifle shoots in the best consistent way at the range or in the field. To get the best consistent accuracy at the range, that more easily transfers to a hunting scenario involving the human body, for load development for small and mid-size calibers, the guys I have referred to shoot prone with a short bipod that attaches solidly to a rail mount at the front sling stud with floated barrels. They exert a bit of forward pressure to load the bipod. The left arm is bent at the elbow to form an upside down V. The left hand is placed just inside the right shoulder and controls a roller sand bag under the butt stock of the rifle to adjust elevation.

Obviously this likely wouldn’t work with a large DG caliber rifle and could entail a trip to the ER. Lol. But it is the best technique they have found to find out how well the rifle and load performs with a human body. Later when out hunting and using the bipod more extended or a backpack or even offhand, at least you know what the rifle is capable of doing with you holding it.

 

[WAB]

Technically you are correct. Practically, I have shot sled, bags, rest, bipod, prone with sling, sitting w sling, sticks, etc., on many many rifles. As stated above, the only time I have seen a practical difference is on a fully bedded lightweight barrel and that was not appreciable between sled and bags, it was between prone with sling and any sort of rest.

I should add that this experience includes thousands of rounds with very accurate varmint rifles.

We can argue technicalities all day long, the bottom line is, once your rifle is sighted in, forget any of the rests and practice with it from hunting positions.

 

[Dirtdart]

Most HUNTING rifles I have seen in .40 caliber on up including mine, use a barrel band eye for sling attachment.
That ain't going to work with any bipod I have ever seen. There is usually no swivel stud on the fore end to bite the support hand during recoil. I am the first to admit that I tap out when it comes to calibers larger than .416/423. I do shoot those calibers in prone position with at least a daypack as a front rest if the occasion calls for it.
I am curious, do any of you guys use a bipod on these type of rifles?

 

[WAB]

Most HUNTING rifles I have seen in .40 caliber on up including mine, use a barrel band eye for sling attachment.
That ain't going to work with any bipod I have ever seen. There is usually no swivel stud on the fore end to bite the support hand during recoil. I am the first to admit that I tap out when it comes to calibers larger than .416/423. I do shoot those calibers in prone position with at least a daypack as a front rest if the occasion calls for it.
I am curious, do any of you guys use a bipod on these type of rifles?

No, I typically shoot the big stuff standing with sticks or sitting.

 

[Red Leg]

While a sled removes some human errors, it creates other factors that are likely too different to apply straight through to shooting the rifle later without a sled. It’s just physics. That is all I was trying to say. Some people don’t know that most rifles shoot differently from a sled (or a brick wall) if the goal is knowing how your rifle shoots in the best consistent way at the range or in the field. To get the best consistent accuracy at the range, that more easily transfers to a hunting scenario involving the human body, for load development for small and mid-size calibers, the guys I have referred to shoot prone with a short bipod that attaches solidly to a rail mount at the front sling stud with floated barrels. They exert a bit of forward pressure to load the bipod. The left arm is bent at the elbow to form an upside down V. The left hand is placed just inside the right shoulder and controls a roller sand bag under the butt stock of the rifle to adjust elevation.

Obviously this likely wouldn’t work with a large DG caliber rifle and could entail a trip to the ER. Lol. But it is the best technique they have found to find out how well the rifle and load performs with a human body. Later when out hunting and using the bipod more extended or a backpack or even offhand, at least you know what the rifle is capable of doing with you holding it.

I accept that you are fully vested in wringing the maximum range potential from a given rifle and cartridge. I know this seems hard to accept, but I don’t care what the maximum range potential of one of my rifles might be. I do not equip them with the sort of scopes that could even take advantage of such capability. It does not interest me at all. What I do care about passionately is how my rifle performs within the range and target envelope for which it is being used.

My personal experience with the sled involves well over a decade of use and many thousands of rounds of ammunition In many different calibers. I can think of exactly two rifles that changed zero in any meaningful way from bench to sticks - one was a “custom” .243 that seemed to defy any logic of where it would next put a MOA group, and the other was a .220 Swift built as a light stalking rifle. It too seemed to defy any form of consistency. I should note both reacted to any sort of support. The hundreds of others showed no or no meaningful difference between a sled, a sandbag, or sticks. Those are simple facts.

I do not use an attached bipod for any of my shooting - range or field. I rarely shoot prone outside of a competitive event where I will be securely trussed up in military sling anyway. Almost all of my practice is from the sticks or sitting. In the field, I would guess 70% of my total shots at game have been from hasty rests, 20% from sticks, and 10% unsupported. I have killed one game animal beyond 400 meters.

My only point about all this is that my sled judgement is based on an enormous amount of rounds down range from the same rifles after sight in. I will freely admit, none of this has anything to do with ringing a gong at 1000+. But I would also argue little of that is particularly relevant to the rifles I use, the ranges I typically shoot, or the calibers I prefer. And I am absolutely confident I know what my rifles can do and what I can do with them at the ranges I engage game animals.

 

[machinistbutler]

I heard from the Warne technician. He isn't sure why it happened, he thought possibly the scope wasn't pushed forward and then the lug slammed into it's stop . I mentioned I didn't think I could do it up consistently tight enough and that led to the issue.

He did state it should not have worn like that and is sending me a new set. I will try a lighter scope in the meantime on my 416 Rigby and see how the lug holds up on my old rings. I hopefully will have time to shoot some tomorrow if I get the scope fastened down. Rings aren't Qd , so I will torque them to recommended specs.

 

[WAB]

I hope it works for you!

 

[machinistbutler]

Me too! I have a new 375 I can use it on if it starts getting any wear.

 

[C.W. Richter]

A steel pic rail would only make the problem worse. More weight, more height being clamped the same way.

but greater strength with those two "buttes" on the receiver. i suppose they too would have to mate with the existing, compromised integral mounting system but the added rigidity may offset that...i hate picatinny rails (get in the way of extracted cartridges, access to the magazine, etc.) though the arsenal of the same name has been good to me in my career. lol

 

[fourfive8]

Scope and mount issues are a pain. A few years ago I went the preventive medicine route for my heavy recoilers. Nothing has happened after doing this on several rifles and over a few hundred rounds of heavy recoil.

I do not use detachable mounts because if I have to take the scope off, it is either broken so what use is a QD system anyway or if I need to do it with a purpose I will plan the time and will reinstall, then shoot a few rounds to fine tune the sight-in. If I had a scope mounted with QD mounts, took it off then reinstalled it, I'd want to shoot a few rounds anyway to confirm sight-in. QDs sound handy on paper, just can't figure out the total concept after thinking about it.

My preventative medicine? I try to use dual dovetails (super strong) on screwed down bases. And I have discovered that a scope like the FX 2.5X Ultralight by Leupold is all a DG rifle needs. It has plenty of magnification and clarity, has heavy and visible reticle, has good eye relief at 4.9" and has plenty of exit pupil. Their downside is they are short coupled so take a little imagination and possibly some "mix and match" ingenuity for using dual dovetail mounts. I use a 1" scope mounting bar and grinding compound to lap the rings to minimize off-axis torque. I use the bar and lap all scope rings no matter the mounting system or caliber. The FX 2.5X scope weighs about 6.8 oz therefore has minimal inertia under recoil, so minimal stress on both the scope and the mounts. Works for me.

I have no CZ heavy rifles. But IMO a decent gunsmith with a mill could fix, relatively easily, most of these mounting problems I see reported. Even if it meant truing up the top flat then D&T ing holes for attaching conventional scope mounting bases. Dunno... just a thought.

 

[C.W. Richter]

didn't lead sled win widget of the year award? it is NOT the same as your body.
.416 Max Compressed handloads w/ the most maximum pressure in that caliber there is...Just Do It! I just don't buy guns that might require a lead sled (.460 Wby comes to mind). Makes sense to me.

 

[machinistbutler]

i honestly think drilling and tapping tiny little screws to hold bases instead of using the integral bases would not be nearly as strong.

There should be a recoil lug for the front bridge , or have the base utilize the front of the action opening similar to what EAW has done with their cz rings. Rigby used the double square bridge when they used the CZ actions, and do again with the Mauser actions. Their rings are quite expensive and I haven't been able to look at a set to see what they do . Their 450 Rigby is only a single square bridge so it cannot utilize a scope
I would imagine you could order a double square bridge and have them build it.

Does anyone on here run those beauty Rigbys and have any input how their ring system works?

Thanks again

Craig

 

[fourfive8]

Makes sense to me also. Shoot within your limits and spend the time to learn how to shoot the heavy recoilers if your are going to hunt with them. Over time, since about 1969-70, I've slowly learned to shoot the heavy recoiling rifles. I always pad up with a fairly thick, hard leather pad at the range and don't over do any one session. Sometimes I can take quite a few hits and sometimes no more than 4 or 5. I stop on those days when it doesn't feel right... so I won't develop a flinch. I don't flinch with my heaviest recoiler - the slightly larger cousin of the Lott. I don't think I need a bigger caliber anyway.

I hear all kinds of "reasons" for brakes and lead sleds, etc., and some may be legit for some health/medical issues... but I think in many cases it's simply a justification or rationalization for an excuse.... or an excuse for an outlay of money for a gadget

There is no way a rifle will shoot the same comparing an attached heavy mechanical device to only the shooter's mass attached. A hunting rifle is not carried in the field with a mechanical device attached anyway so IMO the shooter needs to shoot it at the range the same way it will be shot in the field. Granted, I think that sometimes the difference in POI or group size may (or may not) be very close between the two (depending of many variables) but then the shooter has to be held accountable when the device is not attached. And an overloaded or rigid attached mechanical device will increase the potential for damage to gun and scope. I've never done it because I've never used one. I have witnessed stock breakage attributed to the lead sled though. And the physics dictates there has to be two directions of force applied to a scope if mounted to a rifle that is held against a rigid barrier to recoil like a heavy lead sled. And the distance of the force impulse doesn't have to be great for there to be potentially damaging force applied- even vibration, if violent enough (enough energy), can do damage. It's well known that the mouse f*rt recoil of a spring airgun can damage some regular high power scopes because of the direction of recoil. I also hear such things as and kind of related to this, "I'm an expert shot, have no problem shooting well for hunting, I don't need trigger time nor practice, so I shoot very little because I just don't like recoil". One of the older members of our morning coffee group comes up with that big "whoee" about every year to two when shooting or an upcoming hunting season comes up for discussion. OhhKay, whatever you say

 

[WAB]

I believe that Rigby offers the Big Game in both single and double square bridge.

 

[fourfive8]

i honestly think drilling and tapping tiny little screws to hold bases instead of using the integral bases would not be nearly as strong.

There should be a recoil lug for the front bridge , or have the base utilize the front of the action opening similar to what EAW has done with their cz rings. Rigby used the double square bridge when they used the CZ actions, and do again with the Mauser actions. Their rings are quite expensive and I haven't been able to look at a set to see what they do . Their 450 Rigby is only a single square bridge so it cannot utilize a scope
I would imagine you could order a double square bridge and have them build it.

Does anyone on here run those beauty Rigbys and have any input how their ring system works?

Thanks again

Craig

I think size 8s are plenty strong. I've never even seen a size 6 fail under recoil. I see no issues with failure of screwed on bases posted in this thread or similar threads around the net, but plenty of issues about CZ integral base alignment and failure of certain QD mounts.