Hi Andy,
I think the Talley being, vertically split, suffers here because when you loosen the QD lever to detach, it affects the tension across the split.

I use adhesive between the ring halves and the scope tube, and hope this stabilizes things a bit. I use silicone adhesive from the auto parts store. It is removable without damaging anything.

Being horizontally split, I feel the Leupold QRW is superior in return to zero. Working the QD lever on a QRW does not affect the tension across the split of the rings.

I don't know if this helps any. It may just be considered by some.

Gotta love those New QRW's from Leupold, even if they are made by Warne.

have to disagree `100% RIP. When you install the talleys, you tighten the lower part of the rings with separate screws than the screw on the lever. The lever has absolutely nothing to do with holding the halves together, the lever only affects the moving part of the clamp.

_BAxter

It may be minute, but when tightened, that QD lever screw does put some tension across the vertical split at the top, and some compression across vertical split at the bottom, of the Talley ring. It stresses the split oppositely when the QD lever screw is loosened. There is always a bit of gap in the vertical split of the Talley ring, and this is set by the four other screws independent of the QD lever screw. This set of four other screws will have their loading affected slightly by tightening and loosening the independent QD lever screw.

At least with horizontal split systems, the QD mechanism is totally independent of the split of the rings.

If I can't have German claw mounts, or an integral base and a horizontally split Ruger or CZ ring, on all my rifles, give me QRW's.

Leupold has a new quick release set of rings and base: the New! LX Rapid Relocking Mounting System.

The latest in super high-end rapid release/remount systems.

• Incredible zero retention, to retain its point of impact even after being removed and replaced

• Uses a locking lever to cam into place more quickly and securely than ever

• Ideal for dangerous game situations, when the need to use iron sights can come at a moment’s notice

• Exceptional system for traveling, you can remove and replace it quickly

Has no one used these?

NOT EITHER one but for another option...
I have had the Griffin & Howe side mount on my .375H&H for almost 30 years and have never had a scope move or fail to return to zero.
just a thought.

I always put blue Loktite on most screws on a gun or a scope mount.
Loctite

Be sure and use the blue kind so you can get it loose later if you need to. I know a gunsmith that swears by Crazy Glue and he says a soldering iron will heat it up so you can get it loose, but I am leery to try it myself.

This should negate any stress issues with the scope mount.

Cheers,

Alan

quote:

I have had the Griffin & Howe side mount on my .375H&H for almost 30 years and have never had a scope move or fail to return to zero.
just a thought.

You're lucky. I had a new one move on me. I lost a 14 point Red Stag in 1999 in Scotland because of it.

I have an Echols Legend in .300 Win Mag now. D'Arcy won't put a QD scope mount on one of his rifles. Ask him.

WPN,
Yep heard that. Not even for Allen Day will D'Arcy do the QD mounts of any sort.

I have always considered Loctite in the ring screws verboten, though Loctite or epoxy on the base screws is desirable. The ring screws have to be step-wise sequentially and carefully tightened in a balanced manner, properly torqued, and tested frequently to maintain they are all staying snug, under changing temperature and barometric pressure where disimilarities of the rings and scope tube materials produce varying expansion and contraction. Not cool to Loctite your ring screws.

I am all for adhesive between the ring and scope tube, like silicone, as this prevents any sliding of the scope if it gets loosened a bit in the ring. It also seals out any penetrant oil or moisture from getting between the ring and scope tube.

After the ring screws are properly tightened the slow setting silicone adhesive is squeezed out to leave only a micro-layer between ring and scope tube, that grips and seals. The excess goo is easily wiped off. The ring screws still require frequent checking to assure they stay snug and balanced.

The scopes by Zeiss with integral mounts built into the scope tube are nice, but not available on Leupold scopes.

quote:

Posted 16 December 2006 10:58
There is just a huge amount of BS on this thread.

[quote]RIP

And the question was Talley system vs the Leupold system. It was asked on December 15, 2006.
Not one person suggested that Woodmncrty think of the Leupold Mark 4. It is very much a "detachable ring/base combos on a DG rifle"
There are quite a few PHs with Mark 4 Rings on Leupold bases at work in Africa. They are placing their lives on the line. They are not playing armchair/mouse pad thinking.
FYI, the US Military has a few ideas on the subject of detachable scope mounts, and Talley is not in the list of approved options.

quote:

Originally posted by Virginia Creeper:
[QUOTE]Posted 16 December 2006 10:58
There is just a huge amount of BS on this thread.

quote:

RIP

And the question was Talley system vs the Leupold system. It was asked on December 15, 2006.

Not one person suggested that Woodmncrty think of the Leupold Mark 4. It is very much a "detachable ring/base combos on a DG rifle"
There are quite a few PHs with Mark 4 Rings on Leupold bases at work in Africa. They are placing their lives on the line. They are not playing armchair/mouse pad thinking.
FYI, the US Military has a few ideas on the subject of detachable scope mounts, and Talley is not in the list of approved options.

Thanks for the observation on the Mark 4 tactical system -- however --- it appears that they do not offer "low" rings and also the system is designed for long range stuff as the rings are built with a one degree slope -other wise this would be a viable option. I am not exactly sure how the detachable screws/ levers operate?

Neither Talley nor Leupold. Warne QR mounts.

One of the things I use with my rings and mounts is clear nail polish (funny looks when I buy it). It will keep screws from moving and, if there is any difficulty in turning the screws, a little nailpolish remover (even funnier looks from clerks) will allow movement after sufficient soak time.

Virginia Creeper:

I consider the Leupold Mark 4 as O.K., but not available in the 34 mm rings I have to go to Badger for.

Hey! They are all cross-slot Weaver styles that fit a picatinny, including the Warnes.

That is why I am requesting Stuart Satterlee to machine my square bridges into integral QRW.

I apologize in advance if I'm going too far astray from the original topic.

The entire issue of mounting a scope can be very subjective which makes it hard to find clear lines between objective rights and objective wrongs. RIP in my opinion made an excellent point, reference it being "verboten" to put stuff on the ring screws. I agree, others may not. Some express great faith in one particular QD system while others proclaim the same system to be an utter failure.

Much of my subjective opinion is based on empirical evidence in addition to theoretical evidence from certain sources whom I trust. One such source is from a personal life long friend who is also a gunsmith, a gun maker and a guild member. He has explained to me his subjective opinions on scope mounts which gives me a better understanding as to why someone like D'Arcey Echols refuses to put his name on anything w/ QD mounts:

There have been tests involving high-speed film showing tremendous vibrations and movement of not only a rifle barrel but also scope mounts upon firing a cartridge. This first person data dovetails into why floating a barrel can change barrel performance, why 8-40 mount screws may be preferred on heavy recoiling rifles, etc. It was explained to me that even a one piece scope base mounted w/ 8-40 screws with separate standard fixed rings has considerably more movement and vibration than an integral one piece ringmount that mates a dovetailed reciever. Much of this along with tests performed by Leupold is the basis of why having clean and lightly oiled scope ring screws that are routinely checked for tightness is prefered over using any form of dope or glue during initial mounting.

Back to the original topic. The current LEU QDW system that uses square recoil lugs mated into square base slots are head and shoulders above the older version. If the bases were properly mounted w/ 8-40 screws. If the rings were lapped for alignment and maximum mating w/ the scope tube. If both recoil lugs mated squarely against the bearing surfaces of the base slots. Then, the LEU QDWs will have as much if not more bearing surface than the Talleys. This also applies to the Talleys, if care was not given during initial mounting they can be greatly compromised.

Other systems to be considered are:

- Talbot. He makes an excellent QD system that has met requirements for use on military rifles. I've spoken to him personally and he has mailed me results from the military trials that vetted his system. Prior to him being awarded the military contract, he made a two-piece base system that I wanted for an M70. Since, he has retooled for the military contract and now only has the one-piece base system. He assured me that the one-piece system can be made to give unobstructed access to the loading port when the scope is removed, but, I prefer two piece bases for this reason.

- LEU LX system. This new system is LEU's answer to the Talbot system. LEU claims the new LX system is stronger and more repeatable than the other QD systems they make. I've yet to see empirical evidence of this, but, time will tell.

In the end, everything has give and take. The bigger the optics, the higher the mounting, the more convieniece of QD, the lighter the mounting system weight, then, the more problems you may experience w/ repeatability and durability.

good luck,
GVA

Can anyone explain that if the Leupold QRW's are made by Warne -- it appears on the Warne web page that their rings are "side screw" and on the Leupold page the QRWs are top screw. What am I missing here??

GaryVA,
Thanks for the lowdown. I am so satisfied with the LeupoldQRW/Warne/Badger/LeupoldMark4/Weaver/Picatinny versatility that I really don't want to change, for reasons besides dollars.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodmnctry:
Can anyone explain that if the Leupold QRW's are made by Warne -- it appears on the Warne web page that their rings are "side screw" and on the Leupold page the QRWs are top screw. What am I missing here??

QRW rings are split horizontally, Warnes are split vertically.

The square tab on the bottom of the QRW is identical to the Warne.

IMHO the vertical split is inferior to the horizontal split for a side lever activated QD ring. Warne can make them either way, one is the Leupold way.

Some think the vertical splits are prettier I guess.

Do the Leup QRW rings top half still span more than 180 degrees and do they have a tendency to scratch scope tubes?

In the style of Pondoro
AUCTOR:

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Do the Leup QRW rings top half still span more than 180 degrees and do they have a tendency to scratch scope tubes?

LECTOR:
Yes the top of the QRW ring is still a wee bit more than 180 degrees, barely.

You must pry slightly with thumbs and index fingers (to spread slightly the springy steel by a micron or a few) when placing down onto the scope tube that is sitting in the lower portion of the rings that are mounted loosely on the QRW bases.

This will not mar the scope tube if done properly and assuming there are no surfaces requiring lapping that have not been lapped. The need for lapping or not lapping is no worse or better with Leupold or Talley. I usually do not lap and use silicone adhesive between the degreased scope tube and rings at this point. I do not mar scope tubes.

There are other rings, such as Badger that do not feature the +180 degrees of the Leupold QRW ring top "half," but fit the QRW base, or custom Weaver profile steel base, or Badger steel base, etc.

One can even get 20 minute or 50 minute tilt bases for long range shooting applications utilizing QRW, Mark 4, Badger, or Warne rings.

QRW rings are "Triple Purpose Rings" that will go nicely with a "Triple Purpose" rifle such as the upcoming .395 GSC and .395 Tatanka. Such a rifle deserves 3 scopes, each complete with QRW/Mark 4 or Badger rings.

I've used the Talleys and the EAWs. The Talleys sit lower, but the EAWs are a lot faster to remove/install.

Just flip the lever and rotate them off.

The EAW suffers from steel rubbing steel, pivoting in the front base, and expense, but cheaper than the German Claw Mount.

If I had my druthers I would have two sets of German claws for every rifle ... a chicken in every pot ... and let them eat cake.

It is nice to have the occasional EAW to look at and fondle, but I would not be off-and-on-ing the scope unless it was a "break-the-glass" emergency situation, or if the scope just died.

Woodmnctry writes....

quote:

Thanks for the observation on the Mark 4 tactical system -- however --- it appears that they do not offer "low" rings and also the system is designed for long range stuff as the rings are built with a one degree slope -other wise this would be a viable option. I am not exactly sure how the detachable screws/ levers operate?

No "low" rings means that the scope is just a small bit high. This amount of high is less than one bullet diameter out to 100 yards if one is shooting a 458 caliber. So, no "low" rings needed for DGR.
As for the "one degree slope", please remember that one minute of angle is 1.047 inches at 100 yards. There are 60 minutes of angle per degree. Thus no scope base maker would ever make a base with "one degree of slope". Thus, what your write about Leupold scope bases is just false.
Pray tell, where did you ever get that idea? Or do you just make it up as you write?
As for your comment of "I am not exactly sure how the detachable screws/ levers operate?", please remember that for the direction of these controls - LEFT IS LOOSE AND RIGHT IS TIGHT!
Also see....
http://riflestocks.tripod.com/moa.html
for further details as per minute of angle and degrees.
Sincerely, Virginia Creeper

I've had two different sets of Leupold rings screws to break under recoil. If you use the Leupold rings, I'd recommend replacing their factory screws.

I have never broken a Leupold QRW screw in all my days of thumpin'. There are 4 screws in each ring top. My scope is glued to the rings with silicone adhesive/sealant, and I never over-torque a ring screw.

Maybe some of those 2-screw-ring's? Not a QRW! Tell me it isn't so!

I tried some Millett rings, in my young and stupid days, and broke those screws more than twice, and the broken screws looked like powdered metal castings. They only had 2 of the 8x48 screws holding down each ring top. Milletts are fit enough for .22 rimfire only.

I have had a dove-tail break on a Redfield JR fixed mount. Don't use them anymore. No dove-tail plus windage rear, nor the dual-dove-tail type.

Bill C has broken the bottom tab/recoil stop on a Warne QD-Lever mount for a Ruger RSM.

Shite happens now and then, I reckon.

For a hard kicker, give me Leupold QRW ... Talley's are good too.