QD rings you like for a .375

[Scott CWO]

I tried several and just didn't have great luck. The best I tried were the Alaskan QD ring but they don't make one for Winchester it seems. I went back to regular rings on my .375. The R8 is the only system I can get to be reliable.
I say try some quality QD rings and see if you have better luck than I did. Just don't get caught in the trap of thinking it is mandatory to have them.

Perhaps you didn’t follow the same exact procedure I outlined in my previous post?

Shot this target off the hood of a truck (not exactly the best rest) in Cameroon after putting scope back on. First shot was the bullseye. Second shot was several days later when checked the zero after a deflected miss in the field.

 

[MacJenkins]

Claws are my favorite, then Smithson’s, swings next and then Talley. And Talley’s are great for the low cost.

 

[coreydb]

Warne QD scope rings.

 

[The Engineer]

When a post failed (Post broke through the notch.) on a Leupold QD ring on one of my 300 Win rifles I went to Alaska Arms QD rings. Absolutely secure and return to zero.

With stout rings like the Alaska Arms the next point of failure becomes the mount base to receiver screws. Most of the production rifles use 6x48 screws which are not very stout. One of the reasons I went to the Heym Martine express for my 416 Rigby is they have integral dovetail bases which avoids screws. The CZ- 550 also has integral dovetails and they are the same dimensions as the Heym with the CZ having an "arm" on the rear ring to take fore-and-aft loads and the Heym having a shoulder. My Heym actually uses two CZ front rings.

On my 416 I have two scopes pre-sighted in Alaska Arms rings. I can switch or remove/replace a scope and I have never been able to detect a zero change. On that rifle, I was also able to mount the scope about 0.10" lower with the Alaska Arms rings than any others I found.

 

[MacJenkins]

When a post failed (Post broke through the notch.) on a Leupold QD ring on one of my 300 Win rifles I went to Alaska Arms QD rings. Absolutely secure and return to zero.

With stout rings like the Alaska Arms the next point of failure becomes the mount base to receiver screws. Most of the production rifles use 6x48 screws which are not very stout. One of the reasons I went to the Heym Martine express for my 416 Rigby is they have integral dovetail bases which avoids screws. The CZ- 550 also has integral dovetails and they are the same dimensions as the Heym with the CZ having an "arm" on the rear ring to take fore-and-aft loads and the Heym having a shoulder. My Heym actually uses two CZ front rings.

On my 416 I have two scopes pre-sighted in Alaska Arms rings. I can switch or remove/replace a scope and I have never been able to detect a zero change. On that rifle, I was also able to mount the scope about 0.10" lower with the Alaska Arms rings than any others I found.

Completely forgot about leupold QD mounts. Tried two sets of them 25ish years ago. Complete garbage.

 

[Safari Dave]

I use Leupold QD rings on my .375 & .416.

Never a problem.



I shoot right-handed.

On my Winchester (.375), I had to put the levers on the left side, because of the way the bases are made.

On my CZ (.416), I was able to put them on the right side.


I prefer to leave the "port" side clean, in case I'm forced to put the rifle on the ground.

I don't like to risk dirt or mud in my threads.

 

[62flint]

talley

 

[Philip Glass]

Perhaps you didn’t follow the same exact procedure I outlined in my previous post?View attachment 684095
Shot this target off the hood of a truck (not exactly the best rest) in Cameroon after putting scope back on. First shot was the bullseye. Second shot was several days later when checked the zero after a deflected miss in the field.

Scott you know as well as I do that when something goes wrong on an important hunt we look for something to blame. On all my hunts I've never had a scope off significantly except with QD rings. I'm blaming the QD rings because I had trouble many times. Namibia and AK were the worst.
Operator error? Sure that's a possibility. But you see I've found a better system. I have the best QD mounts now!
That reminds me I need to sell all these QD rings. (AK, Talley, & Warne I've got them all)

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

Operator error? Sure that's a possibility.

I admit that when re-mounting scopes on my bench, I too of have been guilty of Operator Error. As my electronics instructor would say way back in 1978, "Works fine when properly adjusted", or in this case, mounted.

For me, when I looked through the re-mounted scope with quick release ring and could not see the grid pattern in the collimator, I was baffled for a minute. Backing up to think through the problem, I checked my mounting to discover my front ring was clamped to the base, but the back ring was tightly on top of the rear base.

I have done the above at least twice. Operator Error. Guilty.

The above is from a technical type who started maintaining equipment as a farm boy, at 19 years old, I was a Corporal of Marines in charge of a Radar Course Directing Central fire control system ensuring ensuring bombs would be on target from 50 miles away. That was long before GPS and onboard fire control computers in aircraft. Later in life I managed fleets of equipment and resolved designed-in technical problems. Often the problems were resolved with published changes in procedures. We can all screw up at times.

Heck, the US Army published PS Magazine for decades which often provided guidance in the proper procedures. Why, because most equipment isn't "Soldier (or Marine) Proof! Let's face it, quick release scope rings are not hunter-proof! Sometimes Keep it Simple, Stupid (KISS) is a very good rule. Whatever process and mounts work for you!

 

[Scott CWO]

Scott you know as well as I do that when something goes wrong on an important hunt we look for something to blame. On all my hunts I've never had a scope off significantly except with QD rings. I'm blaming the QD rings because I had trouble many times. Namibia and AK were the worst.
Operator error? Sure that's a possibility. But you see I've found a better system. I have the best QD mounts now!
That reminds me I need to sell all these QD rings. (AK, Talley, & Warne I've got them all)

What are the “best” QD mounts you are now using?

 

[Javaman]

I’ve broken Leupold so have abandoned.

Have had good luck with Talleys and Alaska Arms.

No better service than from Morris at Alaska Arms.

 

[Philip Glass]

What are the “best” QD mounts you are now using?

The Blaser R8 of course!

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Even with a rail it is possible to misalign QD rings when reattaching. Of course, one should always drop the scope back into the same set of rail notches used for zeroing the rifle. But even then the rings need to be in the same spot WITHIN those notches. I don't know about Warne's one-piece base but the SARRCO base I first installed had spacious notches that allowed for the scope to move backwards and forward on the rail before tightening. Unless the rail is perfectly aligned with the bore (essentially impossible) this allowed the scope to be reattached in a different spot and thereby changing the zero. The usual solution is to make sure the scope is pushed forward in the slots before tightening the rings onto the base. A better solution I think is to mount the rings on the tube so that the forward ring is up against the forward side of its notch and the rear ring is against the rear of its slot. This is no longer a potential issue for me because I changed to an old Weaver 1-piece base with only two slots that were machined for Weaver rings with round bracing screws. Warne rings have wider square edged braces. I simply rounded them slightly and now my scope ALWAYS drops into the base EXACTLY in the same spot the same way every time.

I would be curious to know how tightly Warne QD rings fit on Warne bases. Perhaps they machine the slots in their bases to be a precise fit for their rings?

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I’ll echo Scott. A rail is great for some rifles, just not a DG bolt action. A PH friend commented on both the rifles we took asking why I hadn’t used them on PG setups. I laughingly told him I needed access to put in more “bullets”. He be proceeded to agree and relate his issues with the target rifles with full rails and chassis’s showing up on the savanna.

I agree, a FULL rail would not be advisable for a dangerous game rifle. But I have found a 1-piece base with cutout for loading does not impede my ability to load the rifles. My 03A3 wears 1-piece base because its scope has a short tube. With one extended ring forward I found it was interfering slightly with loading. Then I went to QD rings for the option of switching to iron sights. No one makes QD extended rings so I switched to 1-piece base with multiple slots and cutout. Works great. My 404 on 98 Mauser also has 1-piece base with cutout due to circumstances beyond my control: the action had already been tapped for it (i.e. only three mounting screws). Loads fine scope on or off. Admittedly, the cutout on this particular rail could be longer but still does not seem to cause any problems loading. I think the only credible objections to 1-piece bases are aesthetics. They are stronger and less potential for misalignment when mounting rings and scope.

 

[KJE81]

Thats one good thing with both claw mounts and swing mounts, they are both impossible to missalign when reattatching.

 

[Scott CWO]

Even with a rail it is possible to misalign QD rings when reattaching. Of course, one should always drop the scope back into the same set of rail notches used for zeroing the rifle. But even then the rings need to be in the same spot WITHIN those notches. I don't know about Warne's one-piece base but the SARRCO base I first installed had spacious notches that allowed for the scope to move backwards and forward on the rail before tightening. Unless the rail is perfectly aligned with the bore (essentially impossible) this allowed the scope to be reattached in a different spot and thereby changing the zero. The usual solution is to make sure the scope is pushed forward in the slots before tightening the rings onto the base. A better solution I think is to mount the rings on the tube so that the forward ring is up against the forward side of its notch and the rear ring is against the rear of its slot. This is no longer a potential issue for me because I changed to an old Weaver 1-piece base with only two slots that were machined for Weaver rings with round bracing screws. Warne rings have wider square edged braces. I simply rounded them slightly and now my scope ALWAYS drops into the base EXACTLY in the same spot the same way every time.

I would be curious to know how tightly Warne QD rings fit on Warne bases. Perhaps they machine the slots in their bases to be a precise fit for their rings?

I would respectfully disagree a bit. The force on the scope rings under recoil is towards the muzzle as the rifle moves in the opposite direction towards your shoulder. @rookhawk and I believe that the best way to take up the slack and to ensure the most strength is to have both rings in contact with the muzzle end of the slot as you tighten them. Otherwise, only one ring is taking the most recoil energy. In your setup, your rear ring is taking some recoil energy but it is not supported as much by being in direct contact with the muzzle end of the base slot. To each his own.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

I would respectfully disagree a bit. The force on the scope rings under recoil is towards the muzzle as the rifle moves in the opposite direction towards your shoulder. @rookhawk and I believe that the best way to take up the slack and to ensure the most strength is to have both rings in contact with the muzzle end of the slot as you tighten them. Otherwise, only one ring is taking the most recoil energy. In your setup, your rear ring is taking some recoil energy but it is not supported as much by being in direct contact with the muzzle end of the base slot. To each his own.

I'm quite sure that the wide clamps on Warne rings if tightened correctly create enough tension to keep the scope from moving under any amount of recoil. I don't believe scopes weigh enough to develop sufficient inertia from recoil to overcome the resistance provided by the clamps alone. Seems I have proven it. The "braces" for Warne rings are actually more or less free floating in the ring. In fact, they can fall out easily when installing the rings on the scope. I lost a brace somehow during installation and my 404 held zero just fine with only one brace on one ring. I sent Warne an email asking for price of a replacement brace and they sent me three at no charge. The "braces" I believe are more important for repositioning in the same location than adding any significant resistance against movement.

 

[Scott CWO]

I'm quite sure that the wide clamps on Warne rings if tightened correctly create enough tension to keep the scope from moving under any amount of recoil. I don't believe scopes weigh enough to develop sufficient inertia from recoil to overcome the resistance provided by the clamps alone. Seems I have proven it. The "braces" for Warne rings are actually more or less free floating in the ring. In fact, they can fall out easily when installing the rings on the scope. I lost a brace somehow during installation and my 404 held zero just fine with only one brace on one ring. I sent Warne an email asking for price of a replacement brace and they sent me three at no charge. The "braces" I believe are more important for repositioning in the same location than adding any significant resistance against movement.

My point remains. In addition, it is impossible to take out all the slack the way you do it or you wouldn’t be able to get the rings into the slots on the bases before tightening them. Your way still provides for a bit of slack, even if it is just mere thousands of an inch. I want a quickly repeatable system every time and with both the rings in direct contact with the load bearing bases.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

My point remains. In addition, it is impossible to take out all the slack the way you do it or you wouldn’t be able to get the rings into the slots on the bases before tightening them. Your way still provides for a bit of slack, even if it is just mere thousands of an inch. I want a quickly repeatable system every time and with both the rings in direct contact with the load bearing bases.

On my 404 Mauser the "braces" of Warne QD rings are pulled down into round bottomed narrower channels in the Weaver base. I cannot see how thousandths of inch of variance can exist once the rings are tightened. If this rifle is putting bullets in the same hole at fifty yards before and after being reattached, I presume zero is retained and the scope has been reattached exactly in the same location on the base.

 

[Scott CWO]

On my 404 Mauser the "braces" of Warne QD rings are pulled down into round bottomed narrower channels in the Weaver base. I cannot see how thousandths of inch of variance can exist once the rings are tightened. If this rifle is putting bullets in the same hole at fifty yards before and after being reattached, I presume zero is retained and the scope has been reattached exactly in the same location on the base.

Round bottomed channels that narrow down like a funnel sound good. Talley slots are square so we push the scope/rings to one end in contact with the edge of the slot and tighten. Different system.