all,
I currently have a set of Leupold QRW 2 piece bases/rings (levers on the bases) on my model 70 Safari Express in 416 RM. The rear reciever has the 0.330" hole spacing and with my current set up, the base extends over the magazine opening. Primarily, I am concerned that this may slow down reloading process. Secondly, I don't like the way it looks.

Can anyone recommend a QR base/ring set up that doesn't extend over the magazine? What scope are you using. Will a 1.5x5 VX or Vari X scope fit in your arrangement?

Thanks for your help,

I think I used the Warne bases with my QRW. I think the rear extends slightly over the loading port, but it has never bothered me in the slightest.

I will check when I get home.

I used the Warne bases because they were steel and the Leupold QRW bases used to be aluminum.

Are your Leupold bases aluminum?

Also, check to make sure the QRW rings have square "crossbolts" in them. The originals (circa 2001?) were round and would smear the slots on the aluminum bases.

i am using talley QD's and a LEupold VXIII 1.75-6. I would highly recommend the talleys as i feel they are the best in the world. be careful with that 1.5-5 though, you may end up with the frint ring over the objective lens and I have heard that is not a good thing. Perhapos some, more knoweldgable, folks here can illuminate. Congracts on your gun, I just saw one on gunbroker go for 3 grand. I paid 875 this past year. crazy stuff..

_BAxter

I put weaver bases on my winchester 416 .I used burris signature ZEE rings with clear finger nail polish on the screws.It has stayed on there 1600 rounds no problem.Besides rugers rings this is the second strongest.

The rings/basses I have are the one with the levers on the bases, the rings have stud that is locked in place, I thought this was the QRW, possibly I am wrong. They are steel bases and rings.

Baxter, if I go with the Talleys you would recommend the 1.75x6 due to its being slightly longer. Thanks.

Right now I have 2.5x8 Vari-X III and am told this may be too much scope for buffalo.

Yeah, I have had my 416 RM for about 2 years and paid about the same as you, just now getting it ready for its first buffalo hunt.

dr416,
Do you have a quick release capability on those rings? I do like the Burris rings and use them almost exclusively on my other rifles.

quote:

with that 1.5-5 though, you may end up with the frint ring over the objective lens and I have heard that is not a good thing.

Think Baxter has it right. I am using the same set up on my M70 416 Safari Express. Loading is not an issue, but if you don't like the way it looks, best do something about it

If you go to the 1.5 X 5, I don't think it is long enough to allow the bases and rings you want without causing some issues with the rings over the front lense. I am using the 1.75 X 6 and it would barely fit using bases that clear the mag opening.

You can also have a gunsmith install a "standard" (non-.330" spacing) base on the rear receiver bridge. It involves drilling and tapping one hole in the action.

This does make for a fairly long ring spacing and while I know a 2.5 fixed Leupold will fit, I don't know what else will work.

I agree that the overhanging base just looks "wrong".

BigBullet,

That's not a QRW (W stands for Weaver-style).

I think that's a QR.

Don

Big Bullet:
Let me make this real simple for you. Been there; done that!
Here's what you need:

Talley QR Low Rings in Matte finish
Talley Bases in .330 (rear) spacing and Ext. Front (Extended front).

This will look beautiful on your rifle. These bases look like someone actually did some measuring before they milled them, unlike the Leupolds.
You can order them from Talley or from other sources. I just ordered some from Jim Brockman, a gunsmith in Idaho. Great service; a real gentleman.
If you have any further questions just P.M. I'm not an expert, but I know what works on my M70 and it is an excellent set-up.

Whoever told you the 2.5X8 is too much scope for buffalo might want to ask Saeed what he used on his scores of buffalo on his rifle...a 2.5X8!

ScottW

DonG, thanks for the correction "w"=weaver style base; that makes sense.

ScottW, I will give Talley a call.

Thanks guys for all your input, I appreciate it!

BigBullet,

I have a 416Rem M70 with 330 rear spacing.

My Warne rear base extends about 0.1 inch over the port. I had never noticed it until now.

It has never affected my loading.

My bases are Warne 2 Pc Maxima, M902M, M802M.
My rings are QRW LOW.

Very good return to zero. Very stout. Easy to take the scope off. Good vision over the low bases with iron sights.

I like 'em.

Don,
Thanks for the picture. Do you use the low rings?

Yep! QRW LOW rings and Warne bases.
(That's a Leupold 1.75-6x32 LER, it has about 0.200 clearance with the low rings. )

This shows the clearance:

You can take off the scope with a screw driver.I have taken mine off and it slides right back on the gun zeroed in about the same.It is very srong and has not moved in 1600 rounds .I have a nikon 3x9 monarch that fits it tight.I like the scope and its clear as a bell.I have not changed it in 8 ywars.

dgr416,

I used the Burris Signature Zee rings on all my rifles for several years. I am in the process of changing them all to QRW.

The offset Delrin eyeballs are the only feature where the Burris rings win over the QRW.

I don't believe that anybody thinks they are going to take a scope off while a buff is charging, so speed of removal is not that big an issue to me. However, removal without any sort of tool (and especially avoiding having to find small slots with aging eyes while the PH is tapping his foot) is a useful advantage.

I used the Burris offset feature to enable using standard bases in a 1000 yard rifle. They are also good if you run out of adjustment range. The Burris rings and bases are reliable and well made, but for a DGR the QRW wins in my book.

I disagree with Don G, I think that quick release feature is a very good idea for dangerous game and the quicker and easier the scope goes on or comes off the better. I want it to be repeatable as well. Often when we are hunting in thick stuff, were a scope is usless, I have had to take a scope off. Talley rings and bases are the best commercial equipment for that other than EAW's which might be their equals. I, over the years have gone through the Leupold, Kimber, and Talleys. All of my SEVERAL rifles wear Talley stuff. It doesn't get much better. At times I have been forced to have Mark Stratton make custom bases for a rifle that had drill and tap issues. These look beautiful and are fully functional. Call Gary at Talley Mfg. and he will get you on track.

lb404,

Yes quick and easy is important. My point is that there is no practical difference in a one second removal time and a ten second removal time - assuming both are performed without recourse to tools and with no loose bits to hang onto.

I have been using the Leupold QR bases and rings on my Win 70 416 RM for years. I too dislike the 15 mm overhang of the back base, but one can live with it.

I take the scope off quite often: To clean the rifle, to transport it or to change scopes from a 1.5-5 VXIII for DG to a 2.5-8 VXIII for plains game.

Although the system works and is quite sturdy, I believe that the fastening mechanism wears out with recoil and general use because the levers tend to close at a greater angle with the passing of time.

Has anybody noticed a similar wear effect with the QRW or the Talleys?

Antonio

I would stay away from the Leupold QR's. I had the lever break off on one of mine, and low and behold it was pot metal. I don't know if Leupold has changed it since then (two years ago), but I called them on it and they sent me a new set of QR's. Suffice it to say, I have not put them back on the gun. I would go with Talley's if doing it again, for sure.

Another vote for the Talleys. I have had great luck with them and IMHO the only thing better might be claw mounts. I had not so good luck with the Leupolds having the lever snap off also and having the bar that fits in the base slot snap. My gunsmith has had to replace a couple big bore failures with the Leupolds. I know it is asking for trouble criticising Leupold but I think their mounts have gone downhill quality wise.

I know how the Leupold QRW work. They are basically Warne mounts.

How do the Talleys function? Are they a better Warne-type system or a totally different one?

Antonio

quote:

Originally posted by ScottW:
Here's what you need:

Talley QR Low Rings in Matte finish
Talley Bases in .330 (rear) spacing and Ext. Front (Extended front).

This will look beautiful on your rifle. These bases look like someone actually did some measuring before they milled them, unlike the Leupolds.

ScottW,
Can you get someone to post a pic of your M70 Talley setup? Does the front extended base and or ring stick back over the loading port?

I was going to try the Brockman/Talley peep setup w/ a LEU 2.5X but would like the option of using either a 1-4X or 1.5-5X in the future. Would think that this extended front would give a bit more room to work with.

Thanks,
Gary

Sorry, I meant Weaver, not Warne, in my post above---

Antonio

Just use the Leupold QRW bases and rings and you won't have the overhang. I wonder why it takes 236 posts to say that?

Hate to admit it, but I agree will Will again

The Leupold QRW's are the way to go.

I'm going off memory from 5 years ago when I had Talley's on a M70 Safari Express in 458 WM. I belive the Talley bases seemed a bit too high and you could not see the iron sights very well with the scope removed. Also, I cracked the front lens (twice) of my Leupold 1.5-5x scope because I could really only mount the Talley's to where the rings were wrapped around the objective lens. I do not like the Leupold QR system for the same reason.

The QRW's have worked very well for me on two 458 Win Mags (a Pre-64 M70 and a M70 Safari Express). The bases are very flat and don't really hurt the view of the iron sights.

YMMV

Tim

Antonio,

When getting ready for a Safari I mount and dismount the scope every day, as I practice dry firing, cycling the action at the shoulder and reloading with the scope on and with iron sights every day. Sometimes twice a day. (Some day I will actually get the iron sights sighted in!)

So my QRW-mounted scope has been on and off literally hundreds of times. No visible wear after all that. This will be my third African trip, the second with QRWs. When I go to the range after two weeks of mounting and dismounting the scope my zero is unaffected in any measurable sense.

The major issue I have with the Leupold stuff is it is made out of soft steel. They and the Kimbers wear out fast and rarely go back to near zero like the Talley mounts. Most of my collection of customs are in 9.3 and greater calibers. These can wreck lessor mount systems. Use what you feel is best, my vote is for Talley!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey lb404, I know you like the Pre-64 M70's. I have a set of EAW Quick Loc bases and two sets of rings (1" and 30mm) that were on my Pre-64 M70 300H&H. I had a bug one time to try out the EAW's but now I don't really shoot that gun and it stays in the safe. Do you have any interest in buying them for one of your Pre-64 M70's in either 300 H&H or 375 H&H?

If so, send me a PM or email.

tim.helgeson@yahoo.com

Thanks.

Tim

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
Just use the Leupold QRW bases and rings and you won't have the overhang. I wonder why it takes 236 posts to say that?

Sorry Will, but the LEU QRW rear base for a post-64 Safari Express is drilled .330" and overhangs the loading port. A standard post-64 is not opened up and therefore uses an .860" rear base w/out overhang. Winchester opens up the Safari Express requiring the different spacing. If you redrill the rear for a standard .860" mount w/out the overhang, you'll increase the ring spacing and have trouble mounting the shorter tube scopes.

Tally is the only mount I'm aware of that does not overhang. I guess it shouldn't matter about any overhang, as the small loading port opening in the M70 obstructs loading a 416Rem cartridge more than the bases.

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:

quote:

Originally posted by ScottW:
Here's what you need:

Talley QR Low Rings in Matte finish
Talley Bases in .330 (rear) spacing and Ext. Front (Extended front).

This will look beautiful on your rifle. These bases look like someone actually did some measuring before they milled them, unlike the Leupolds.

ScottW,
Can you get someone to post a pic of your M70 Talley setup? Does the front extended base and or ring stick back over the loading port?

I was going to try the Brockman/Talley peep setup w/ a LEU 2.5X but would like the option of using either a 1-4X or 1.5-5X in the future. Would think that this extended front would give a bit more room to work with.

Thanks,
Gary

I have the Brockman-Talley peep on a 376 Steyr(MRC) and it works. Scope is a 1.1x4x30mm European Leupold which has too much FOV as I see the barrel on lower powers.

GaryVA:
I'm travelling now but will try to post a pic of my M70 Classic Stainless .375 H&H with the Talley QR's. If I remember correctly, the rear base is almost a perfect fit. The front (extended) base comes barely past the front of the ejection port (may 1/16 or 3/32"). Nothing you'd notice unless you were looking for it.
When I get back I'll try to remember to post a pic of it.
I know this ring and base situation is difficult for most folks because unless you've ordered that setup before it's kind of a crap shoot. Believe me when I say short of a custom job this works and looks great!

The next time I go to the range I will shoot a three shot group with my M70 416 Rem with QRW rings.

Then I will shoot another, taking the scope off and putting it back on before every shot in the second string.

Sounds like a valid test to me!

quote:

Originally posted by Don_G:
The next time I go to the range I will shoot a three shot group with my M70 416 Rem with QRW rings.

Then I will shoot another, taking the scope off and putting it back on before every shot in the second string.

Sounds like a valid test to me!

Don,
I have three rifles w/ the LEU QRW rings. Two have the LEU QRW bases and a third uses Warne bases because LEU does not make one to fit the new M7 receiver.

What I've found w/ all three rifles is that the ring/recoil lug in the base slot will always have a small amount of forward to rear slop due to production tolerances. When I mount/install my QRW rings, I always ensure that both rings are pushed forward and sqaure against the slot/recoil lug prior to tightening down the scope tube. This way when you replace the scope, push it forward against the lugs then tighten the levers. You will then have both recoil lugs against the bearing surface of both slots and you eliminate all the slop maximizing the repeatability.

I've seen some persons push the rear ring back and the front ring forward to eliminate slop when installing a scope. This method is no good as you would only have the front lug engaged.

Gary

Gary, You are exactly right, and that's exactly the way I do it. Forward so it can't hammer under recoil.

Great minds think alike!

Gentlemen,

Thanks for all the great info here. I realize that now there are a lot of us in the same boat on this one.

I use the Brockman/Tally peep on my Czech Brno Mauser in 416 Taylor with a Leupold VXIII 1.5 x 5. Being an ex-military action with the stripper guide still there, I had to mount the rear base bassackward for the thing to work, but it works. Of course the shorter action isn’t a problem with the VXIII 1.5 x 5.

I was going to use the same set up on my 416 Winchester, but since I hear the price is up to 3k, I may leave it in the box. I gave $920 each for the 416 and a 458. I just checked gunbroker and they had another listed for $1325, with 2 days left. Shoulda bought more. Whodathunkit?

quote:

Originally posted by Paladin 56:
I was going to use the same set up on my 416 Winchester, but since I hear the price is up to 3k, I may leave it in the box. I gave $920 each for the 416 and a 458. I just checked gunbroker and they had another listed for $1325, with 2 days left. Shoulda bought more. Whodathunkit?

I was searching for a stainless M70 375H&H shortly before the plant closing announcement. One of the wholesalers I checked had just recieved a shipment of 416s. I was given a tip to grab one while available. I took the advice and bought one thinking it was a sales pitch. I payed less than dealer cost from Jerry's and didn't realize how good of a deal it was until the word got out and the prices went up. Every M70 Safari in the warehouse was gone w/in two weeks after the announcement. Many of those have turned into the "$600 Tickle Me Elmo".

Had a friend looking for a 416 shortly after the announcement. He left his name with Sheels in Rapid City as they said they didn’t have anything Winchester. They called him last week and said they received a shipment in from their distributor, but the price had gone up – to $1600. He seems to think they shelved all they had at the announcement, waited a bit, then re-stocked the shelves with the same guns at a higher price. Wouldn’t surprise me if they did, but who knows?