Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics QD vs. fixed mount accuracy

I have been shooting my .375 Ruger Hawkeye, in prep for another Africa hunt. I originally developed loads using the rings that came with the rifle, and found some good, sub moa combos.
Most recently, I decided to try Warne QD's. What I am seeing is that I cannot duplicate the accuracy I saw with the fixed mounts. Have gone back to the fixed mounts, with original accuracy right there. Pretty sure they are installed correctly. Taking the scope off and reinstalling shows repeatability, just not the sub moa accuracy I hoped for.
Is this a problem with higher recoil rifles in general? Warne mounts have a good reputation.

I can't comment on the heavier recoiling rifles, but the guy that made my '06 told me that the Leupold QR/QD rings work well on such guns.
Besides the above '06, I have an older tang safety Ruger that gets it's scopes swapped from time to time. It, like the above 06, are regular, well under MOA for 4 plus rounds at a time. The Ruger is a .280 that runs 7.5 lbs. and the '06 runs 7.25 lbs. I've shot both several hundred rounds if that helps.
One thing I have noticed is that one needs to be very sure Ruger Rings are seated perfectly. They tend not to do that if one is not very careful to make sure they do. E

I use the Warne QDs on my 416. I might suggest that you make certain both rings are touching the forward portion of the "slot" on your base. Otherwise the rings can move forward under recoil (might be related to your accuracy issue). This is not specific to Warne - all weaver rings can do this with enough recoil.

Bighorn,

Actually, the Ruger "fixed" rings work very well as detachable mounts. You just have to carry a screwdriver to take them off and put them back on. I use the screwdriver blade on my pocketknife.

As was noted, the Warnes might be shifting a little on the rifle, but the top of the Ruger action pretty much prevents that--and it isn't happening with the Ruger rings.

With detachable rings, these days I pull the two rings apart as much as possible before tightening the ring screws on the scope, so the front ring is braced against the front slot of the base/action, and the rear ring braced against the rear of the base/action.

I've seen you write that before.

Why push the rear ring to the rear? This seems opposite of what you'd want for the ring to hold firm against recoil.

Because I've found they replace just as precisely as when both rings are as far forward as possible, but the rifle usually doesn't require a shot to "settle in" are the scope's replaced, as they sometimes do even when the scope's pushed forward while retightening the mounts.

Either way works, but I suspect what sometimes happens with both rings pressing forward is we don't have as much pressure on them while tightening as we think. Eventually I decided to try spacing the rings as far apart as possible, and it seems to be the most consistent method.

Mule Deer,
That's pretty much the conclusion I have come to- I have two scopes mounted up in Ruger rings for the .375 now. Detach and re-attach is accomplished in a matter of seconds, with a screwdriver or large coin. Kinda makes me wonder why I fooled with the Warnes in the first place!

I have since heard/read somewhere that the small half-moon lug on the Warnes, designed for the Ruger bases, may be an issue as far as mount rigidity. Don't get me wrong, the performance of the Warnes is not horrible- it just isn't up to my personal standards of accuracy.

Anyway- once back from Africa, I have two sets of Warnes for a Ruger M77 Hawkeye that will go up for sale!