Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Leupolds QD scope mounting system. Experiences?

Thinking of putting a Leupold quick detachable mounting system on my "new to me" 1981 Remington 700 Classic in 7x57mm and in the summer time using higher power glass for working loads and shooting various ranges and picking up a different set of rings for another scope. Something on the order of a 2-7x for hunting season.

I've never had a QD scope system and to tell the truth, I'm so old fashioned I expect them to not work well but if they DO, and "zero" stays close enough that a shot or two is enough to make sure it's shooting where I like, yeah........I'm in.

Any experiences pro or con by 'Fire users would be much appreciated.

God Bless
Steve

The QR's and the QRW's are a bit different, but i have used the QRW's on a Long Range rig, switching from irons to optics and return to "0", has always been w/in a few clicks. I assume you are talking QR's, though.

Thanks for adding that but yes, the QR is what I had in mind but my mind is not set to ignore any other options just yet.
God Bless
Steve

Not Leupolds but I put a set of Warn QD rings on the CZ Carbine I bought last year.
Like you, I was skeptical but they return to within a click or two of zero.
I like Warn split rings a lot (I have them on three of my four remaining center fire rifles) but I wouldn't be afraid to try the Leupolds.



.

I use Leupold QRW's on some of my scopes. Works for me.

Detached and replaced for 2- 5 round groups at 100 yards for a 10 shot group.

Very nice. I'll look into that option too. Love the CZ 550 and 527. Sold a couple I NEVER should have. Planning to own another too when the funds get turned loose.

Excellent info. My thanks
God Bless
Steve

Been using the leupold QR (not the rail version) on my 416 RM for many years. Scope comes of, scope goes on, stays on zero. Nothing but good for me.

I think the question that comes to mind is, since they seem to work as intended, why in the world would the standard ones be of interest at all?

I feel like I'm missing something somewhere. I can even get extension models. Why in the world aren't the standard ones about extinct?
I've never seen them in person but the QD even look like they would be impossible to put on wrong (torquing the tube of the scope) like I've seen standard can be.

Is it just because of old geezers like me that doubt anything different?

Thanks for the replies.
God Bless
Steve

Yea....Pretty much....

Course the cost, weight, and the fact that most rifles don't come with iron sights these days has a lot to do with it too.

I used the QR system on a rife for 5k+ rounds. It returned to zero within an MOA or so and allowed for a really low mounting height.

It’s a good system.

I like Leupold QRs and have them on a dozen or so rifles, but the levers/paddles are too fragile for me to trust, so I use Warne Maxima QDs on rifles that I take afield on serious hunts.

EDIT: I had both the front and rear levers/paddles snap off a Leupold QR base when a rifle equipped with them was leaning against my loading bench and fell onto the carpeted floor of my gun room. Maybe it was just bad luck, or maybe is was good luck that it happened in my gun room and not while I was far afield. You can buy replacement levers/paddles from Leupold, but you have to remove the bases from the rifle to replace them and it isn't something that I'd want to try doing in the field.

This is why I think that they are a sub-optimal design and too fragile for me to trust when a trophy may be on the line. Warne QDs aren't perfect either, but they are, at least IMO, a whole lot more rugged than the Leupold QRs.

Have used the QR's a bunch. Return close enough to zero to be useful. Never have had a problem with the levers on them.

Two scopes is a cluster F, and that's a fact.

So many of the articles on QD designs is targeting the AR type rifles and I'm glad I asked here on the 'fire.
Thanks again for all feedback. All are filling in information from their experience and great stuff for me to consider.

Thanks again for all feedback.
God Bless

Steve

Has anybody used QR's on a rifle equipped with a receiver sight? I'm assbackwards in that I like to hunt with a receiver sight and carry the scope along as backup or for taking longer shots. To that end I've always put my trust in Griffin&Howe side mount QD's, which leave a clear view over the receiver when detached (and which coincidentally return to zero and lock up like a bank vault)- I'm mainly concerned about the height of the QR bases necessitating abnormally high sights in order to clear them, hence my question.

My experience was with a hard use rifle (700 LTR 308 Leupold Mark 4 M1)—thousands of rounds over several years. It had been banged around just about everywhere, except a reloading room.

Another question since I'm asking them.

On a standard contour factory Remington 700 rifle, how large of an objective (33mm, 40mm?) will clear the barrel with the QR LOW rings?

I'm going to have to order the mounts and rings and even though thinking I'll order two heights in rings, it would be to my advantage to have a clear idea of what will clear in various rings.

Thanks again,
God Bless
Steve

Which goes to show that you and I have experienced contrasting outcomes under different circumstances. Your experience is different than mine, but neither experience is any more and any less valid than the other.

I have low Leupold QRs on Remington 7s and 700s that have Leupold 2-7x33s on them and they clear the factory contour barrels fine. I mount my scopes farther forward than some folks, with the rear of the read ring just a RCH ahead of the magnification adjustment ring on the scope. I you mount your scopes farther back, the scope's objective housing/bell might touch the barrel shank.

I have medium Leupold QRs on Remington 700s that have Weaver V16, 4-16x42AO, on them and they clear the factory contour barrel fine.

I'm at the ranch and don't have any rifles with Leupold QRs on them. If I did, I'd measure the clearance between the scope and the barrel for you and tell you how far that measurement was taken ahead of the action or recoil lug.

I know that Kingston has had better success with these rings than I have and your experience might mirror his rather than mine, I sincerely hope that it does.

“This is a setup that I had used for 6,500 rounds on a 1998 Rem 700 LTR .308 w/ Mark 4 M1 3.5-10x40mm. It served me very well and took quite a bit of abuse.
Leupold QR R .34”; F .23”
Leupold QR 30mm rings .06”
Total = .40” or .99”(OC)”

Copied from:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/11127649

(About halfway through the first post). I only ran 30mm rings. Leupold used to publish ring heights for these. If you can’t find them, I probably have rings I can measure.

My old brain totally blew off how where the scope would be mounted effecting ring height needed. My apologies. To me.......there is only one way that will work and it's been that way so many decades I forget (not a lot of rifle shooters in my neck of the woods) others use different, but correct for them, scope positioning.

I thought about emailing Leupold service or even Midway about ring height since having one in hand to compare isnt an option.

Habitually, my scopes are as far back as they will go and short scopes sometimes require an extension front ring. (Thick shoulders and short arms. #akaFAT. ) It's been this way since I was in my teens and weighed 160lbs though. I'm not a stock crawler either. Short neck. If I can't close my eyes, mount my rifle, open my eyes and see perfectly though the scope........I change it.

Not at all saying this is the "right" way, it's simply the way that works best for ME. I can say that this method allows me to mount my rifle and shoot very rapidly if I desire. Next deer will be No 100 and a good many of those were shot at semi-close range and offhand. There simply is no time to find and use a "leaner". It's also a manner I do considerable amount of practicing.........for obvious reasons. Without giving distances, for fear of those who seem to want to point fingers, I will/can/have shot deer at longer ranges shooting offhand.....than what I see suggested online.

The rifle stock........and scope location has to be more than "close" for me, or I won't hunt with it. (picky old fart, huh)

It wont surprise me at all if with the same 2-7x33 Leupy........I'll need a front extension AND higher ring. I guess if I order a set too low for me........I could post em here on the 'fire though.


All good info, guys!
All of it will help me make a choice.
God Bless
Steve