Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Quick Release Rings?

LOL, sorry to let you down Matt!

For me, unless a rifle has open sights, I'm not especially interested in detachable rings. And a rifle I own with open sights is going to be a "utility" or "practical" rifle, which really goes to pure function, with nothing superfluous added. Granted, any of the rings mentioned in this thread will work admirably for such a rifle, but I think you know my penchant for weight savings, and the Weavers are the lightest of those mentioned... and the lowest. And are beyond proven in terms of durability, at least to myself, so that's where I hang my hat.

I'll put up a picture of my 270 Win "practical rifle" when it's done, and I'll bet you see the beauty in it. If not I'll buy you a beer next time you're in Bozeman. Deal?

Here's my old, heavier 30-06 version... I think it has a sort of beauty, no?

I know of other guys breaking those levers George... I think they're a cheap casting.

Your'e right it was qrw i did have one set of qr's that never had a problem with

Ive used the Weavers alot over the years , but the last couple of sets I used , it felt like the cross bolts were soft...when tourqing the rings down it seemed like the nuts never bottomed out...like the bolts were stretching

and after some shooting the nuts felt loose again

so I have starting using aluminum TPS rings , they are much stouter , but probably weigh very little more. made to a much higher quality standard IMO , and WONT cant the scope when you tighten down the screws....only disadvantage is you will need a small hex wrench or pliers to detach the scope

Of the quick release variety I have used Talley's, Leupold's and Warne and they all worked fine. Talley's being the priciest of the three I wouldn't say they were any better than the others.

Here is a pic of my 375 H&H with Talley's

I hate mounting Warne quick release rings. I've got a bunch of them and will not buy more. They work fine but a pain.

Never gave the old school Weavers a look until I needed some extended rings and I see why they have been around so long. Recon most people who use the Weavers don't play musical scopes. Nice thing about them is you can use the coin you save from buying the Weavers to take them on and off.

I totally agree...

I'll offer to trade used 1" Weaver rings for your used 1" QR Warnes, 2 set of Weavers in return for 1 set of Warne QRs.

The Talley also offers a Peep sight that attaches to their base.FWIW

I use the Leupold QRW bases on a travelling 375HH and have had no issues. I have a pair of identical scopes for the rifle and swapping back and forth they retain their accuracy without adjustment - a nice piece of mind when far from home. Personally, I think all of the quick release mounts are a bit ugly, it's just what degree of ugliness you can tolerate. Granted, aesthetics are part of the package, but I can overlook that aspect as long as they function as designed. I think what has been missing from this discussion is repeatable accuracy when swapping/replacing scopes.
Cheers

To have had two sets of QD (Warne) mounts in use since the early 90s. Bottom line is they work at the range, but I have never used the QD feature while hunting.


The regular ugly Weavers return to zero really well. No lever, you need a quarter, washer, or multi tool to remove/replace them.


Jack

I don't have the experience with the different brands that many on here have commented about. I've used only the Leupold QR mounts on a Model 70 and a 700 Remington.

I was quite amazed with the return-to-zero capability. I checked both rifles and scopes at 100 yard targets; zero was maintained. I swapped scopes on the Remington at 300 yard targets; still worked fine.

I've had no problems with the levers, but, according to posters on this forum, they may be a source of weakness.

There is no "may be" about it. The QR levers just aren't very robust and are the Achilles Heel of the design. Snapping them off on my gun room's floor was a PITA, but not even close to the degree it would have been if they had snapped off in the field.

Of course, if you don't want those "ugly" Weavers, or "fragile" lever releases, and you can bear the cost, there are some other options. I have been very happy with a scope on a claw mount, for example: near enough to instant on, and off, and excellent return to zero. There are other designs such as EAW's pivot too. NECG has a selection of these.

Pricy though, especially as compared to the Weavers I have on some other rifles, or even the lever-release rings on a couple of others.

Good point. I think a lot of us think about this, but fail to mention this in our posts. I will add that the QRW rings that I used on my 375 returned to zero very well... However, I still did not like the long sharp levers. I opted to just go with the PRW rings instead....:

Good looking rig BSA, hopefully those PRWs won't 'splode on you.

A guy at work was bragging these up, seriously. That's what's cool with an uber-company like Weavmart, there's something for everyone, and the 'limited' warranty is noteworthy t'boot.

Like I said, "ugly is as ugly does"... Finn Aagaard's PH rifle, a pre-64 M70 in 375 H&H, that has seen more actual hunting than all the rifles on this thread combined.

And I notice, like me, Aagaard mounts the ring removal apparatus (knobs/levers... especially levers) on the side that actually makes sense... the port side. All the "pretty" rifles on this thread have the knobs/levers mounted on the "wrong side." Curious that the aesthetic elitists can't manage to figure out the most fundamental of concepts...

Leupold QR levers are on the left side and integral to the base(es), rather than in the rings, so due to the design they can't be reversed in most, if not all, applications. When I install Leupold QRW, Warne QR, or the Weaver rings that you've pictured, I install them with the QR levers, or the Weaver "nut", on the right side of the rifle for both practical and aesthetic purposes.

I'm aware of that, which is why I said earlier in the thread they're "uni-directional." I've had them, and their inability to be mounted with the levers on the port side is just one more reason I won't use them. The levers are somewhat fragile, and if Leupold had been thinking they'd have made them so the levers are port side, not the side where they will get rubbed and potentially moved or broken when slung.

As to weight's:

Leupold LOW QRW's: 4.8 oz's.
Weaver LOW: 2.3 oz's.

But at least the QRW's are higher... if you're going to have more weight, may as well get it up in the air