Ontario Hunter
AH legend
Care to elaborate. The only real difference I can see between permanent rings and QD rings that attach to a rail is the lever used to tighten them down. I submit that even if QD rings are not precisely snug when dropped into the slots before tightening, if the rings are still position in the same spot before tightening (e.g. pushed forward in the slots before tightening per instructions from Warne), the likelihood there will be any difference in zero is negligible and the potential difference would be miniscule, especially for a 458 DGR which is not designed to be a long range tack driver in any event.I don’t use QD rings with the exception of the blazer R8. I have had too many issues over the years.
Incidentally, I did not follow Warne's instructions. I positioned my rings on the scope tube so the crossbrace for forward ring was against the forward edge of its slot in the rail and rear ring positioned on scope tube so its crossbrace is against the rear of its slot in the rail. That way the scope is by necessity always dropped into the rail at the exact same spot every time.
The one piece base for my 404 is different. The slots are not typical pic thickness. It's a discontinued Weaver base designed for their permanent rings. It only has two slots, rather shallow in depth, and round not square like pic rail slots. That's because Weaver permanent rings have round crossbolt/braces. I slightly rounded the square edges of Warne crossbraces and the rings drop into the slots very snugly and at exactly the same spot every time. The slot depths are just deep enough to allow the rings to be tightened flush against the top of the base. At fifty yards my 404 repeatedly puts bullets close enough to touch, whether iron sights or scope. My 30-06 wears a more conventional pic-ish base with thicker pic style slots. With rings mounted on scope as described above, it consistently retains MOA at 100 yards after scope is reattached ... which is about the best a half blind shaky 72 year-old guy can expect.