Quick release scope mounts, Do you use them?

Quick release scope mounts, Do you use them?

  • No, I prefer to use a fixed scope based scope.

    Votes: 34 51.5%

  • Yes, I like the option of iron sights as a back up.

    Votes: 32 48.5%
  • Total voters
    66
P

Pblatzz

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
281   0   0
Quick release scope mounts, Do you use them?

The reason why I'm asking is I like the Zrak mounts (Yes I know, blaa blaa a copy). So now I have a CZ550 with the CZ rings, I really don't like
the CZ rings and was going to change them to Warne QD rings. Well anyway, What's your opinion?

Pete
 
Last edited:
I use them because they maintain 100% accuracy.Burgess mounts should be made by someone now as any patents must have expired by this time.
 
No, I don't use them. My hunting rifle does not have iron sights so there is no backup sights if the scope fails. I see scope failure as highly unlikely, and have never experienced it. I prefer to use Burris Custom Zee rings, they are simple, reasonably priced, use plastic inserts to prevent scope damage and alignment issues and very durable in design.
 
nowadays i try to find picatinny spec rails for every new gun that i get (that is suitable for them - ie: i wont put one on a fancy classic rifle). its really convenient that now a large portion of my gun collection uses either Ruger or Weaver rings: makes those times when you decide to swap scopes from rifle to rifle a lot easier. you also end up with a bunch of hardware thats all compatible with one standard mount.

not just for iron sights - quick-release rings are handy to remove the scope during transport, storage, sending out for smithing, have a 2nd zeroed backup scope available on an important hunt, etc. theyre just an all-round handy feature to have on a rifle youre going to USE a lot. the more rifles you have with picatinny/weaver rails and the more scopes/sights you have with them the more useful they potentially become.
 
The only backup scope with me on hunting trips sits atop a 2nd rifle.

Now correct me if I'm wrong on this thinking, but I always assumed that there was some added risk of something more complicated like QD rings failing, loosening, snagging on clothing or a branch or something.
 
Last edited:
Grizzlypeg said:
Now correct me if I'm wrong on this thinking, but I always assumed that there was some added risk of something more complicated like QD rings failing, loosening, snagging on clothing or a branch or something.
Click to expand...

The ones I have, you can re-clock the levers. This means if they are pointed straight forward (for example) when you first tighten them up, you can loosen them back off, slip the lever off the bolt and re-install it so it will point straight back (or other desired direction). I like mine pointed back and down a bit, which seems to make snagging a non-issue. They are made of the same material and the screw size is the same as regular rings, so they are just as strong as a standard ring. The only downside would be that you wouldn't generally lock-tite the crossbolt screw on QD type rings, so there is potential to loosen with Weaver types. I just make sure the levers are tight each time I take a particular gun out.
 
Last edited:
I've had Zrak mounts, EAW mounts, Weaver mounts. I have not had a failure yet on them. I have slipped and wacked my rifle scope bad enough to be off a few inches.

So I'm guessing it's a matter of set up and luck?

Pete
 
Here's a set of Warnes to ogle. I like them.

BRNO002.jpg

BRNO004.jpg
 
I have had experience with only two sets of QD mounts; one on a personal rifle, and one on a friends rifle. In both cases the system failed, allowing the scope to loosen and shift point of impact. Because of this I am leery of the system, although I like the principle.

What has been the experience with QD mounts in terms of reliability?
 
Both My EAW & Zrak mounts will remain close to zero. Within 1" @ 100 yrds. Saying that, it depends on the scope as well. Pinto vs Porsche
comparison.

BTW nice rings "SuperCub" I like the Warne rings for the CZ. I'm in line with what "manbearpig" said about intercompatability. I have two CZ'ds.

Pete
 
Last edited:
Wooly ESS said:
I have had experience with only two sets of QD mounts; one on a personal rifle, and one on a friends rifle. In both cases the system failed, allowing the scope to loosen and shift point of impact. Because of this I am leery of the system, although I like the principle.

What has been the experience with QD mounts in terms of reliability?
Click to expand...

i think when people respond they need to clarify whether theyre talking about a quick release system like Leupold's QR:
290960_d.jpg


or Quick-Release Weaver rings like the QRWs, Warnes, etc:
493217_d.jpg




i cant really see the latter 'failing'. absolute worst case scenario you snag them and they loosen, but generally you tighten them enough that it would take one mother of a snag to loosen them - ie: you would know it.

i think Ruger has the best system though - just pack a coin to loosen them and you are set. they also seem to return much closer to zero than other QR rings.
 
I have a set of Leupold lever QRW's on one rifle, a Savage 99 in .358W. It just makes the irons an easy back-up they're if needed. No complaints so far, but no plans to outfit other pieces similarly.
 
manbearpig said:
nowadays i try to find picatinny spec rails for every new gun that i get (that is suitable for them - ie: i wont put one on a fancy classic rifle). its really convenient that now a large portion of my gun collection uses either Ruger or Weaver rings: makes those times when you decide to swap scopes from rifle to rifle a lot easier. you also end up with a bunch of hardware thats all compatible with one standard mount.

not just for iron sights - quick-release rings are handy to remove the scope during transport, storage, sending out for smithing, have a 2nd zeroed backup scope available on an important hunt, etc. theyre just an all-round handy feature to have on a rifle youre going to USE a lot. the more rifles you have with picatinny/weaver rails and the more scopes/sights you have with them the more useful they potentially become.
Click to expand...

+1 I'm slowly converting a lot my stuff to the Picatinny system. plus moving scopes around gives you an excuse to go sight in ;)

There is a Ruger QD system (Warne IIRC) that uses levers.

Of the two Leupold QR systems, I far prefer the QRW (Weaver) system. On the QD system I've found the tolerances sloppy between the bases and the rings - to the extent that I had one where the locking lever would spin completely around, and I had to add foil to make it tight.

The ARMS system, while pricier than others, is a joy to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom