Hi All,

I just bought a Remington 600 Mohawk that came with Williams sights that I really like. It's actually a Williams rear with the a standard Remington front sight. So, standard Remington sight height. I'm considering Talley or Leupold QR rings to keep the sights as an option. Even though we all know in reality, I'll probably never take the scope off. But, humor me... For those with experience with these mounts, how is sight visibility?

On my M70 DGR I use a Talley peep. Required a taller front sight.

Being on top of the base, is your Talley peep higher than the regular rear sight would be?

Sight visibility has more to do with the stock than anything else.


Okie John

True. But, wondering if in the experience of others with QR mounts if they have been able to see the sights over the bases.

Yes slightly but because of the fairly straight stock (not original) it needs to be higher. I left the folding original rear sight on the rifle. The front replacement sight was only about 1/8" taller.

Gotcha. My stock has a slight Monte Carlo comb.

I have a custom Mauser built years ago before QD's were all that popular. The only bases that allowed me to use the open sights (high quality stuff) were standard Weaver's so that's what the rifle wears. Not the prettiest but, as usual, zero issues.

I run Warne bases on 2 muzzleloaders, most of my lever actions, a couple large bore bolt actions, and a 7600 carbine I use for tracking in fresh snow. Pretty much anything on which I might want or need to use the open sights in a hurry gets Warne bases. They are very thin, and with them in place I can still easily see factory sights in all circumstances in which I've used them; no need to modify sight height or arrangement. I typically use Warne QD rings and have found them to be very solid and flawless in zero retention. Since these are generally shorter range set ups for me, I don't mind the vertically split ring. But, there's a lot of options out there for horizontally split QD rings with pic mounts. I do like the fact that Warne rings are 4 screw, as many years back I broke several ring screws on rings with only 2 fasteners on a lightweight .338 - and yes, they were torqued to spec.

One thing I'll add is that, if available, I replace the rear factory sight with a peep or ghost ring of some sort. I have had great luck with Williams First Sight rings that are straddled with 2 fiberoptic dots. They are relatively cheap, and they mount right on the rear sight ramp that comes standard on many rifles. I have them mounted on any rig I own that will fit them. Very quick and accurate aiming, and, unlike some peeps that mount to a scope base, you can leave them in place with the scope mounted so you always have a backup incase some type of adversity takes your scope out of commission or you are mandated to use open sights by law.

When I get home, I'll post some pics of them.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I have to admit I'm not a big fan of the looks of the Weaver bases and also how they partially block access to the action.

I hear you on the weaver or pic style bases. They weren't always my go to. They can give a tacticool look that doesn't fit with certain rigs. However, I do have the Warne gloss rings and bases on some blued/walnut levers and bolt guns, and they look like they fit in well. Additionally, their 2 piece bases don't intrude on any portion of the action opening like some STD and DD set ups do.

I'll add that before i switched away from scope rings with only 1 screw on each side, I had a set of the Leupold post and cam lock style QD bases and rings on a Muzzleloader, and they allowed the use of factory open sights when the scope was removed. But, ultimately, the Warne bases are much thinner and the mounting interface they allow is much more secure.

I do appreciate your input. The Warne rings aren't bad looking to my eye. The Weaver bases wouldn't be my first choice. But, I'll consider it. My only experience with quick release mounts is the Leupolds. I do have them on a Ruger 10/22 RSI with the Mannlicher stock. The original sights were pretty low profile and blocked by the bases. I replaced them with sights from a 10/22 .22 WMR which are higher than the .22 LR ones.

Mine do not "block access" and my choice was either opens and no scope or scope and no opens unless the Weaver's were used. Easy decision. Worked fine nearly 20 years ago.