Title says it all, I want to be able to swap scopes on a Sako Quad rifle that has a weaver rail on it.

Spot

I don't know about "Best" but I have the Warne and the Leupold QRW (who makes some of the Leupold stuff) and they seem pretty good to me. If you put it on right the first time, the come back pretty close (always within 1/2 MOA for me) each subsequent time. Maybe there are better ones? I don't know

I've had good luck with the old style detachable Weaver top mounts returning pretty close to zero on several different rifles.

+1 on the Leupold QD. I torture tested these for years with my 378 B with no failures. Spotshooter I think your asking the impossible. Different companies don't have QD that match up. EVen they have high mounts, med mounts, low mounts.

i've had real good luck with the warnes. On my 375HH over 1500 rds. under them. take 2 scopes to Africa both sighted in I figure the scope is the high mortality part.

Best I've ever seen are Talleys.

For me it's Leupold QR's and from what I've heard the more they wear in the better they return to original poa. I think when new Leupold says they will return to 0.5moa. I've found that to be accurate.

Warne is number one in my opinion. Rings and Bases just don't get any better.

I have run a bunch of tests on various detachable mounts (including the so-called "perfect" German claw mounts, which aren't perfect) and have yet to see anything beat the standard Weaver mount by any significant amount.

The "secret" to any detachable mount that uses some sort of lever/screw system to re-attach each ring is to tighten each ring ALTERNATELY, as when tightening lug-nuts on a car's wheels. If you do that, even the really cheap Weaver rings will replace pretty exactly.

All the other rings so far mentioned use tightening levers or screws, and I have also found them all to work quite well when tightened correctly. If I step up from Weaver rings, I generally go to Talleys, as they are machined from forged steel rather than cast, as are the the Warnes and Leupolds. Thus the Talleys are a little stronger, though for most purposes the others will work fine.

I must also mention that I have used Weaver rings and bases on rifles up to .416 Remington Magnum without a problem. So If you want to use Weaver rings on your rifle I would be hard put to imagine any problem.

Are the Warne and Leupold rings cast, or MIM?

Good question. From my understanding they are cast, but dunno for sure. I have heard of both breaking on heavy recoiling rifles (or when tightened down too enthusiastically, as with extra "tools") but have never heard the same about Talleys.

What I do know, from many tests, is that Weavers will replace quite precisely when mounted and replaced with a minimum of care. Which is why I still use them on some of my own rifles.

The old strap top Weavers may not be pretty, but they sure do work.

I'm sure the Talley QD's are better than the Leupold QR's but I can tell you that I'm very pleased with Leupy's QR's. Have them on both my travel guns and they work great. I especially like their use of small levers that don't seem to get caught up as easily as others with larger levers. Nice streamline look as well.

If he has a Weaver rail, then he can't use Talleys. He can use a host of tactical rings but most aren't set up for quick removal. I do like the Leupold QRW even though I rarely take them off!

I do not know about the Leupold rings for certain, but I think they are machined.

However, the current Warne rings are MIM then finished with CNC machining.

MIM parts are strong (used for piston rods, etc.). However, due to their porous nature (at the microscopic scale), they cannot be finely polished and blued. Warne powder coats them.

I have seen a couple of older Warne rings that had been used a lot, and the powder coating had worn away on the corners. Looked like crap... That, combined with their weight and their big blocky styling that has all the aesthetic appeal of an anvil... Well, let's just say that the current Warne rings a long way down from the older Warne Premier rings

John

Because scopes interfere with getting rifles nested into the gun safes, I've gone to Leupold QR's for all of my rifles.
I suspect that Talley's QR's are excellent, but I originally had two sets of the Leupolds on rifles, and continued with them so I can interchange scopes on all rifles.
I have never done a check on whether or not they hold zero when reinstalling scopes, but I can deal with that if it ever is an issue.
The Leupolds are very well made, nothing cheap about them at all.
When reinstalling a scope, I just make sure the rings are pushed all the way forward in the Weaver base, then tighten the levers.
Scopes mounted on rifles are a real PITA when trying to get as many rifles in the safe as possible, especially if the scope has target turrets.

I want my rifles to be sighted in. I keep records on each of the front line ones as to their impact on what date with that rifles specific load.

I would not remove my scopes and put them over there and then put one on a rifle and go hunting without testing how much the impact changes if any.

To each his own.

Most of my hunting guns wear 1x4x20mm scopes in QR rings so I can swap in a more powerful scope for load development and paper punching. I use Weavers, Warnes, Leupolds,and Durasight. They all seem to work equally as well. I usually take a presighted scope along as a backup on hunting trips incase of a fall so we don't have to waste time trying to resight a rifle, just put the other scope on and worry about it later.

AWS

I tried Leupold QD rings on an Encore 375 H&H Magnum and they shot loose.

I use Talley QD rings on a 458 Lott and Warne QD rings and bases on a Contender and Encores with recoil up to 300 Win. Mag. with no problems at all. The scopes can be removed and reinstalled with no loss of zero.

So, you don't confirm a scope's zero before you go hunting.. That's interesting.

I have several G&H mounts on a couple of vintage rifles,as well as Talley's on later stuff,both work for me.I have one EAW,but a bugger to set up....no zero problem yet!

Perhaps I did not make myself clear when I wrote:

"I want my rifles to be sighted in. I keep records on each of the front line ones as to their impact on what date with that rifles specific load.

What I mean is that I keep records on where the point of impact is for the first shot and then the group when I shoot a rifle at the range. The 'front line' rifles are the ones that stay sighted in and group well.

Understand, but do you confirm a rifle's zero before you take that rifle on a hunting trip? Like a few days or a week prior?

Of course I am going to answer yes.

I do the best that I can. The trip to VT for deer is not demanding shooting. Its woods hunting and the 99F is always on. Of late I have carried other rifles there too and they might be checked at the range before hand if it be a week or a day or so. For sure they would be checked if the scope or stock had been off.

For varmint hunting done here in CT the staying sighted in demands are much higher. The ranges are likely to be longer. Those rifles are checked as well. My old Floyd Butler highwall has been right on forever. Of late I have been shooting a 243 Kimber and thats checked and been good.

I look at the records for the rifle in question and note what the load was and its impact location at 100 and 200 yds.

My point in all of this is, if I have any POI issues with removing my scope from a hunting rifle, I address it when sighting in before the season. And, you sight in before the season also. This makes your issue of me removing my scopes moot.

Have any of you tried the Talbot mounts.

I looked at a set on a rifle a few weeks ago.I was just not impressed for the type rifles I like(blue&wood)maybe something like a tactical? Seem to be built OK!

Are you using the Weaver aluminum bases, or only the rings? Is there any drawback to the aluminum bases?

I have started using the two pc Burris XTB Weaver style bases which are steel and have multiple cross slots which can make mounting your scope easier as far as eye relief, so far the easiest to use when one changes scopes of different size and shape, they work well with their Zee rings, Weavers, Warnes etc,I will be replacing most of my other bases as I go,

Leupold QRW's have behaved well for me.

JD, do you happen to know who made the QD ring and base set-up the old Kimber folks used to sell? They were downright dainty but very strong and tough. I had a set holding a Leupold 1.5x5 on a 460 Weatherby. They impressed me.

Burris Zee rings work as well as the Weaver. Perhaps prettier though.

Contrary to what JB has found, the Weaver rings for me were ok on steel bases but I have had 3 or 4 heavy recoiling rifles that wallowed out the aluminum weaver bases. I won't use aluminum now for that very reason unless it is a one-piece Talley.

I believe the Kimber stup became Warne Premiers. I have a couple of rifles with those on them. Why they quit making them I never did figure out.

ARMS is one option that hasn't been mentioned yet.

I have used warne QD's, I think I'll try Talley's this time.

Thanks MD, and crew good info.

Spot

Thank you sir! I was hoping they were still available but didn't hold out much hope, having never seen them for a long time. Sure were a nice set up, though!