I use warne, they are low, simple and affordable, but I've never tested the return-to-zero. I sight in the irons at 50 yards, put on the scope, zero the scope at whatever, and NEVER take it off again. I should try it, but I don't really have inexpensive guns to shoot anymore.
quick detach scope mounts
- Thread starter brybenn
- Start date
OTOH .... You might like these new rings from Weaver with 4 screws on the top strap instead of the older 2 screw set-up. I bought six sets a few yrs ago and am having good service from them.
Thanks, SuperCub, I like the look of those. I'll have to try to find some.
I just ordered a set of steel warne qd rings and steel warne bases from amazon of all places. Warne also makes an extended front base, which in my case is needed to mount a short 2-7x33 over a long action to move the scope back far enough for good eye relief.
Geologist,
the Warne QD rings had an issue and after three sets i gave up.
i lost a spring, one piece broke and a lost again a spring.
each Warnes was great to deal with an i have a lot of spare parts but i wont be able to trust it.
mine were on a Hawkeye 375 ruger with a M-8 3x Leupold..
i use now LLC QD rings on the rugers.
the Warne QD rings had an issue and after three sets i gave up.
i lost a spring, one piece broke and a lost again a spring.
each Warnes was great to deal with an i have a lot of spare parts but i wont be able to trust it.
mine were on a Hawkeye 375 ruger with a M-8 3x Leupold..
i use now LLC QD rings on the rugers.
I'd go with a Leupold QR before the QRW, much nicer system IMHO.
I'll also agree with some here already that one of the best, most often overlooked QR rings are the good old standard Weaver rings. They are light, allow a very low scope mount, and replace just as well an most other more expensive systems. Like any QR ring, push the rings forward to butt-up against the cross-slot in the base and just tighten them alternating each nut a little at a time, like lug nuts and they will be bang on.
I have a Leupold 2.5x20 Ultralight on a 375, and the almost 5" of eye relief would be great on a 458. Phil Shoemaker has the right idea there!
I'll also agree with some here already that one of the best, most often overlooked QR rings are the good old standard Weaver rings. They are light, allow a very low scope mount, and replace just as well an most other more expensive systems. Like any QR ring, push the rings forward to butt-up against the cross-slot in the base and just tighten them alternating each nut a little at a time, like lug nuts and they will be bang on.
I have a Leupold 2.5x20 Ultralight on a 375, and the almost 5" of eye relief would be great on a 458. Phil Shoemaker has the right idea there!
I've always worried about the vertical split Warne rings but so far they have been good and even if they do fail the express sights work so well for me out to 100 yards that I could just go old school most of the time.
Hi, medvedqc,
What are LLC QD rings? Was that an autocorrect from QRW, or something? I like quick release rings, but I only know a few brands.
Regarding the Warne rings, the springs are under the clamping piece, and should never need to be accessed in the normal use of the rings. If I had to guess, I'd guess you were removeing lapping compound?
I had that joyful experience with Talley quick release rings, trying to get all the compound off/out. Otherwise the Talley rings are nice, but indexing the levers is a pain.
And I'll never lapp another set of rings!
What are LLC QD rings? Was that an autocorrect from QRW, or something? I like quick release rings, but I only know a few brands.
Regarding the Warne rings, the springs are under the clamping piece, and should never need to be accessed in the normal use of the rings. If I had to guess, I'd guess you were removeing lapping compound?
I had that joyful experience with Talley quick release rings, trying to get all the compound off/out. Otherwise the Talley rings are nice, but indexing the levers is a pain.
And I'll never lapp another set of rings!
Hello Bartledan,
no i didnt do anything on the rings for Warne their techs investigated and said there is maybe an issue with that specific set. but it happens again.i gave up.
LLC Arms are making rings for CZ and Ruger
w w w .alaskaarmsllc.com/Ruger-Scope-Rings/b/6386255011
enjoy.
Phil
no i didnt do anything on the rings for Warne their techs investigated and said there is maybe an issue with that specific set. but it happens again.i gave up.
LLC Arms are making rings for CZ and Ruger
w w w .alaskaarmsllc.com/Ruger-Scope-Rings/b/6386255011
enjoy.
Phil
Hi, medvedqc,
What are LLC QD rings? Was that an autocorrect from QRW, or something? I like quick release rings, but I only know a few brands.
Regarding the Warne rings, the springs are under the clamping piece, and should never need to be accessed in the normal use of the rings. If I had to guess, I'd guess you were removeing lapping compound?
I had that joyful experience with Talley quick release rings, trying to get all the compound off/out. Otherwise the Talley rings are nice, but indexing the levers is a pain.
And I'll never lapp another set of rings!
Those look like a quality product, but I agree with the earlier sentiment about levers sticking out and snagging on crap. Small ones like on the Euro systems...Blaser, Fabarm, etc...are not too bad, but the levers on the Leupolds and Warnes look like they are intended to get caught up on every fold in your coat or every twig in the forest. I've always had pretty good luck with the standard OEM Ruger rings. They're easy to take off and put back on, and they return to zero usually within a MOA, much like the old Weavers.
Are you planning on taking them on and off a lot, or are they just going to be used in emergency situations to allow quick replacement of a damaged scope? In the latter case, I think the models with sharp, one-inch-long levers sticking out every which way are more trouble than they're worth on a gun that is to be carried for hunting. In the unlikely event that you actually use them, the "good enough" Weavers and Rugers will get you back on close to zero, and you can fire a shot or two to confirm and fine-tune.
Are you planning on taking them on and off a lot, or are they just going to be used in emergency situations to allow quick replacement of a damaged scope? In the latter case, I think the models with sharp, one-inch-long levers sticking out every which way are more trouble than they're worth on a gun that is to be carried for hunting. In the unlikely event that you actually use them, the "good enough" Weavers and Rugers will get you back on close to zero, and you can fire a shot or two to confirm and fine-tune.
Last edited:
The reason I went with EAW is because it is a Sauer 202 with the quick change barrel, This way I can have different scopes each zeroed with the caliber I chose to use rather than having to sight in the scope after swapping barrels. The EAW mounts have always held zero for me and so has the quick change barrel system.
they hold zero satisfactorily for me too ... and one of the reasons is because EAW QD rings/bases have several adjustments that allow a scope to be mounted so that it is not under any tension. You dont need to lap rings to achieve this with EAW. If folks study carefully how EAW achieves this - they will understand why they charge so much and why it is worth it.
