For a Winchester 70 in 416 Rem mag which quick release mounts

Leupold QRW
Warne
or spend the money on Talley.

Thanks

BigB

I have the warne quick detatch on my model 70 in .375H&H, seem to work fine.
Rodney.

On relatively light rifles .416 caliber and larger rifles, I have had the bar (both second and third generation square ones) in the Leupold QRW rings bend under recoil.

I believe the rings are made by Warne and certainly the Warne ring structure is the same.

The Weaver style base lacks a recoil shoulder that pushes against the face of the ring under recoil. Bad!

I was already committed to that style ring (as I have a number of them and am an old retired guy it would be too expensive to change them all). So, I made my own bases. They came out wonderfully well. BUT very, very labor intensive. Definitely a custom job. The only real benefit from having done this is that I have 7 rifles whose bases fit all my scopes without moving the rings.

If I were starting anew, I'd go with the Talleys and be done with it. They are trimmer and the bases do have the recoil shoulder. The Talleys have a great reputation on boomers.

BigB

I use exclusively the Leupold QRW rings and bases. I have them on some very very heavy recoiling rifles and have never had an issue. I like the new square bars better than the old round bar that used to go thru. I have never had them bend and I have some very light, heavy recoiling guns.

Talley does have a great rep--Like mstarling I was and am heavy committed to the Leupold, and would be a great mission and expense to change.

Michael

The only ones I trust on a big bore are the Talleys.

It took me a while to come around to QDs. I never used to trust them and didn't use them. Too many widely reported problems.

But then I finally broke down and tried the Talleys. Now I use them on all of my heavy rifles - from .375s to .416s to .458 and .500.

They are excellent. They stay tight and return to zero.

The warne "seem" to work fine on the .375 H&H, but I'm thinking anything bigger in caliber/recoil that maybe the Talleys are the way to go. The warne bases are basically weaver in style with thumb screws for quick release.
Rodney.

quote:

Originally posted by BigB:
For a Winchester 70 in 416 Rem mag which quick release mounts

Leupold QRW
Warne
or spend the money on Talley.

Thanks

BigB

All of these are fine.
I have dozens of rifles set up for the newest Leupold QRW bases and rings.
About a dozen rifles with Warne rings.
About a half dozen with Talley rings and bases.

It does indeed look like Warne Makes the Leupold QRW.

The surface area of recoil stop may actually be greater with the Leupold and Warne, utilizing similar square recoil tabs in the same base geometry, than it is with Talley.

Leupolds are split horizontally, Warne and Talley are split vertically.
The Leupold attachment-to-base hardware is distintly separate from the attachment-of-scope-to-ring hardware.
Talley and Warne vertical splits merge the two funtions, at least partially, into shared hardware. Loosen one and you may loosen the other.

The Leupold and Warne recoil tabs on the bottom of the ring are not made integral to the ring, but must be locked in by the attachment-to-base hardware tightening.

The Talley ring leading edge is the recoil stop on the ring, strong as it gets, even if narrower/smaller in area.

It is all a wash.
One is as good as another, among these three makes.

Leupold and Warne have the advantage of lower profile, smoother profile bases when the scope is removed and the rifle is gripped and used with iron sights.

Talley has the niftiest little peep to go on the rear base after it is machined to fit the peep.

But NECG makes a less appealing peep for the Weaver-style base of Leupold or Warne.

I like them all.
It is a wash.
Whatever turns your crank.

My best big bore accuracy has come with the Leupold QRW. Maybe just because I have used them more.

I always go for a QD ring, so as to have ready access to a backup scope.
Finest accuracy is indeed possible with QD rings, and recoil tolerance is fine with all three in question.

Well guys all I can tell you is that I have been using Leupold QRWs for well over 10 yrs on everything from 416 Rem-416 Taylor-416 Rigby-458 Win-458 B&M-416 B&M-50 B&M-500MDM-510 Wells 458 Lott and so forth. Some of my 50s are 7 lb rifles shooting 510s at 2100 many 1000s of round doing load development. I have now put over 100 rds since Saturday with the 500MDM with 550s at 2200 and 510s at 2330 fps-8.5 lb rifle. After many 1000s and 1000s, then many 1000s more of rounds of big bores I only had 1 30 mm ring break on a 416 Taylor about 8 yrs ago, when they still had the round bar. I will stick with the QRWs.

Not to say there is anything wrong with the Talley or warnes--but there damn sure nothing wrong with the QRWs, trust me I would have found it by now!

Michael

QRW's didn't work for me. I now use EAW.

Sure is strange the QRWs didn't work for you! Currently I have over 50 rifles shooting, all set up with them and they all work???

Hmmm?

Michael

I prefer the Leupold QR rather than the QRW. They seem to be a stronger design with less probability of failure to me. I have been using them exclusively on all my hunting rifles up to and including both WInchester and Remington rifles in .416, for over 15 years without issue. They always return to zero.

Because Leupold did not make a QD ring for my Ruger .458Lott, I chose the Warne QD rings. They have also functioned without incident.

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter what the product, nor how many endorse it, someone on AR has had a major problem with it, usually with little attempt to define a failure analysis. I can't help but think it may often be attributable to operator error. Not directed at any individual(s) but rather just my observation.

michael458,
I have had plenty of use of the new QRW too, on rifles through 10.75 pound 470 Mbogo and 500A2, and an 8-pound .458 Lott, and a 6.75 pound .375 H&H.
Even the 12GaFH at 12.5 pounds field ready is depending on Leupold QRW, and doing fine so far!
Never a hiccup. More to come!!! More recoil!!!
Over 200ft-lbs@40fps is possible with the 12GaFH and no brake.
I am hoping the brake will work!

Whatever the recoil, I trust the QRW!

I see that JohnHunt offers no explanation. Just a hit and run.

Allow me to snipe:

I would rather have
Leupold QRW
Warne Maxima QD
or Talley QD
... in that order of preference, anytime, preferred over the EAW pivot mounts.

The only better choice than any of the above is the German Claw Mount.
I only have one rifle with German Claw Mounts, but appreciate it greatly.

However, the cost to fit German Claw Mounts to a rifle is more than the cost of most of my rifles! That just does not make economic sense to me.

LionHunter,
Yes it is amazing!
And I had one of the Leupold QR setups break off a post.
I do not like bare metal rubbing on bare metal with a camlock, and pivoting in the base required if removed and replaced.
And the little floppy cast metal lever doodad that stays with the rifle and base after the scope is removed.

That is worse than an EAW!

I still have one rifle with the QR, just haven't gotten around to switching it to the QRW yet.

Just my opinion.
Yes, everybody has one of those, and another anatomical feature, all of varying perfection.

I am not one who tests for nor even cares about return to zero of QD mounts.

The scope stays put until something goes south.

I just want QD mounts that are more rugged than the scope,
so I can remove it quickly when the scope goes titsup,
quick access to iron sights,
and a backup scope easy to replace in the field, in the same QD rings.

I would not even rely on German Claw Mounts to return to zero, until I had checked them by sighting in to my supreme accuracy standards.
That is just another part of my anatomy.
Yes, I am that good.

LionHunter

Here Here! You know it's almost like an attack or something! I run into it every time I open my mouth for some reason. I said the Talley was good, the Warne was good--I just had a big investment in QRWs and that has worked for me--That's all! I am not trying to be combative!

And no crap buckwheat--over 50 rifles was conservative--probably over 100 that is set up to take QRWs--every scope I own has QRWs on it--literally 1000s upon top of 1000s of rounds shot--in the area of 5000 rounds of big bore a year! I don't get it?

RIP

Hey Pal! I am glad to hear I am not the only chap around having good luck with QRWs. I have a 458 B&M at 6.5 lbs and it hammers the hell out of everything-500s at 2130 fps and 450s at 2200-2250 fps-18 inch barrel about 85 ft lbs recoil. Have had no problems at all. My 50 B&Ms turn up about the same recoil with a 510 at 2100 fps. No problems. 510 Wells turns up a bit over 100 ft lbs, no problems.

If someone is having a problem with them it has to be "operator error"--if anyone was going to have an issue it would either be you, or me!

For BigB putting them on a 416 Rem would be zero issues at all!

Michael

Thanks for all the replies, I have never owned any quick detachable mounts yet. I always had good luck with any standard mounts I have used Burris, Leupold, Warne and Weaver. I only have 4 big bores, 375 H&H, 404 Jeff, 416 and a 458 and they all have Leupold and never any problem but they are fixed mounts.

I think I may try the QRW mounts and see.

BigB

Haven't tried Leupold QRWs, but I have bayonet mount Leupold lever QDs on 2 Savage switchbarrels chambered for cartridges from 220 Swift to 416 Taylor. I also have old style (machined) lever QD Warne Premiers on a Mark X 375 H&H, a set of Talley lever QDs on a Rem 700 Classic 35 Whelen, and a set of the current style lever QD Warnes on a Mossberg single shot rifle.

No significant problems to report with any of those mounts. The machined Warnes and Talleys look the best and the Talleys probably have the strongest engineering. There isn't much metal on the Leupold bayonets and it makes me wonder how they would hold up to impact. I originally bought the machined Warnes for the integral peep sight, which is a feature I still like. Those old style Premier bases are no longer made, but the rings are and now you can get a peep sight with the Talleys. I will agree with RIP that the NECG peep for Weaver bases isn't a very good product.

If money were no object I would buy Talley's, for all of my rifles that I want to switch sights on. I just haven't convinced myself they are really worth the premium price. I will say, that if you want an integral peep sight Talleys are probably the best choice.

I spent the extra $$$ and got Talleys. It's about as much $$$ as taking the wife and two kids to McDonalds difference.

Rich
Buff Killer

Rich,

Where did you buy the Talley rings and bases for such a small difference. Or maybe it is just my thinking of the dollar menu when I stop at McD's

Thanks

BigB

quote:

Originally posted by BigB:
For a Winchester 70 in 416 Rem mag which quick release mounts

Leupold QRW
Warne
or spend the money on Talley.

Thanks

BigB

Have all the above as well as claws, G&H, Yeager, Recknagel and EAW's.

I like the Leupolds the least : fussy.

I prefer claws: expensive. ( with a capitol E $$)

If Warne had not discontinued their "Premier" line, it would be my dollar for reward choice;
now it's Talley.

Love the EAW's (and IOR copies for that matter) and the Recknagels.

But, $ for $ I'll take Talley.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

I like the Leupolds the least : fussy.

So you like the Leupolds least, simply because you are fussy?

Explain your fussiness, sir.
Why are you so fussy?

The Leupold QRW is the least fussy of the bunch, so that means you must be the one afflicted with fussiness.

I have never thought the Leupold QRWs "Fussy"?

In fact I have set up some other types that have been a pure pain in the ass--mainly talking about the ones that screw together on the sides instead of the top! Of course it could be myself too, but that seemed a big pain to me.

Michael

I have Talley's on one rifle and I like them just fine.
I have Warnes on another rifle and like them just fine too.
I would probably have a set of Leupolds if I liked the look for some reason I like the vertical split look on the Warnes and Talley's as opposed to the old school "Weaver" look to the Leupolds, however the Talley's and Warnes are more tricky to assemble the first time than the Leupolds appear to be.
I doubt you could go wrong with any of them. The Warnes have had about 300 rounds of hard kicking 9.3x62 loads in a featherweight rifle (enough to scramble a Nikon Monarch 3-9) and show no signs of shift, loosening or wear. The Talley's have had about 150 rounds of full power .375 H&H with same results.

In December I took what may be my only trip to Africa. I wanted to hunt Cape Buffalo at least once before I get too old. My CZ 450 Dakota had a Leupold 1.5-5X in Talley rings. Marvelous set up!!

Go for the Talleys, and don't look back. I have them on all of my scoped big bores.

Rich
Buff Killer

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
I have never thought the Leupold QRWs "Fussy"?

In fact I have set up some other types that have been a pure pain in the ass--mainly talking about the ones that screw together on the sides instead of the top! Of course it could be myself too, but that seemed a big pain to me.

Michael

michael458,
Absolutely!
I put up with the fussiness of Talley ring assembly
only because I wanted one of these peep sights on my .395 Tatanka:



The back of the Talley rear base has to be milled off to allow the peep to slide onto it:



Much less fussy is the beautiful Leupold QRW,
like on this .375 Weatherby, an accurate shooter,
with which I have shot a group at 100 yards measuring 0.138" for three shots,
a one-holer "in the ones":







(Ancient history updated.)

Riflecrank Internationale Permanente

Another option for all you with the big kickers that like Weaver style bases. Try the all-steel Burris Zee rings. Once set up and sighted in, all you do is pull the screws and slide the scope and ring combo back an inch, and off it comes. It will go back on easily, and the screw thru the base takes up any motion. They clamp tight as hell on the base, and like the the other QRW's only one side flexs and moves.

I have several rifles and muzzleloaders set up this way, and it is a quick and easy way to get them off. They usually come back within one MOA and it is no problem to check a shot or two to make sure.

EAW?

That's what I would use.

Recknagel offer a Low alternative to EAW.

RIP

I can tell you I like that peep sight for sure!

On a good many of my early B&M series rifles I set them up to take nearly any sort of sight. I had JD put T'SOB rails just in front of the receiver for either forward scout scope or Aimpoint mounted forward. Then the standard QRWs bases to take mostly 1.5X5 Leupolds on the 50s and 458s--1.75X6 on the 416 versions. Then I worked with the XS Ghost ring backup Weaver sights for irons. It works well, set up the rifle for nearly anything. The only issue is that on these rifles if you are using a rear scope, then you don't have easy irons if you remove the scope!! I don't like that too good, but if you have forward scope or Aimpoint, then the XS ghost mounts in the rear QRW base for both. I stopped building them that way after a few, now I use a NECG rear sight-and have taken partial to the big flip up/down ivory bead for the front, on the NECG barrel band front sight. Of course QRWs on the rear. On these little guns I never was able to get both the ghost ring on the rear, and the scope at the same time!

Now another big reason I like the QRWs is that if you have the same action and set up the bases the same, then it's a matter of taking one scope off, put it on another rifle, no ring adjusting, nothing.

Big reason is that when I go to the field I always take a spare scope, that has been sighted in on the rifle I am shooting. If something happens in the field, then it is a matter of taking the broke one off-putting the spare on, check it quickly and continue the mission. With the QRWs what I have found is that 90% of the time they are back to within 1/2 inch at 50 yds. Only very few times have I seen them further out than that, and have never ever seen it be more than 1 inch.

I am quite sure if I did not use so many of the QRWs and all systems the same, I would try the Talley system, I am sure they are fine. For the fellows that have just a few rifles and do not have a system in place either or would do fine.

I will stick with the QRWs myself.

M

michael458,
I like the QRW for all the same reasons as you.
If anyone takes issue with the slight hangover of the ejection port on the .375 Wby above,
then note that this allows use of a short scope with no extension rings.
The rear base may be reversed to give no overhang,
but then a longer scope is required, or extension rings.
I don't believe you can do any better with the Talley in that regard.

Hey RIP

Your rifle above has the close hole spacing in the rear, I think .330? Rifles with the close spacing rear are all long actions and all mine have that same tiny hangover. It's no big deal, and allows us to put on the 1.5X5 Leupolds without issues. I have mine set up this way on all the long actions. Most of the rifles in 338-458 Winchester have the wider spaced holes in the rear, and the slot sits in the middle.

I set up the 500 MDM yesterday the same way. It's a Win M70 converted from 300 Ultra. All of those have the .330 close holes. I have used them for many years in the field and under fire with zero issues, the overhang is a non-issue.

Oh and I could not help but notice that fine Win M70 of yours, only thing is I hate you wasted it on such a small caliber????

Michael

michael458,
The .375 Wby is not even the runt of my M70 Harem, but I do have bigger Winchester girls like
.416 Remington twins, .416 Dakota, 404 Jeffery, and a 470 Capstick.

They all have Leupold QRW mounts except the .416 Dakota which has Talleywhacker mounts originally meant for the Dakota M76.
I just wanted one playmate to be able to swap scopes with the Dakota M76 .395 Tatanka.

Yes, the Leupold 1.5x-5x has a long enough scope tube work on the longest actions with no mount/port overhang at all.

And yes, that tiny over hang with the close mount spacing on the .330"-holed bridge is no problem at all.
That is what I always try to do too, as you say.

RIP

All knows I love a Win M70 and the big bores are the best of the bunch! At last count somewhere approaching 50 of them in calibers from 416-500 caliber. Other M70s, a pile of them, Of course all with QRWs. For me, if it don't say Winchester on it, it stays at home.

Sometime we must speak about the 470 Capsticks--I have two of those.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

I like the Leupolds the least : fussy.

So you like the Leupolds least, simply because you are fussy?

Explain your fussiness, sir.
Why are you so fussy?

The Leupold QRW is the least fussy of the bunch, so that means you must be the one afflicted with fussiness.

I should have been more specific; Leupold QR (not the QRW) seem to me to be more fussy mounting and dismounting , hey I know where THOSE responses were going.

I have the QRW's and the "new" Warne Maximas on Tactical rifles.

As to claws, perhaps I'm lucky, but out of my several claw mounted scopes they all hold zero very well indeed.

As to the EAW/IOR pivot lock the several sets of these i have used have also been reliable as were the Recknagels.

I stand by my experience as posted , with the Leupold QR vs QRW explanation.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

I stand by my experience as posted , with the Leupold QR vs QRW explanation.

Thank makes sense! Good judgement !
I do not like the Leupold QR either, and that is totally different from the Leupold QRW!

I am no fan of those QR bases and rings either. I had a friend that had some because he was confused between QR and QRW. These are the only ones I ever had any experience with, but it took a pair of pliers to move the lever, under no circumstances could that be done by hand. But, before anyone goes beserk, this is only one case, and the only ones I ever had my hands on. But it certainly turned me off of them.

Michael

Have used QRs on a .338 Win Mag and two .375 H&Hs. They work fine for relatively light recoil rifles. I'd not use them on anything larger than a .375.

If the levers were hard to turn, the spacing of the rings was not quite right or rings were installed backwards.

Mike

Hard to turn don't even begin to tell the story on those. It took a pair of pliers to do it. They were set up by some sort of gunsmith in Ohio for my friend, so I can't attest to anything other than what I experienced with those. It was quite enough to turn me off them however.

I have never once felt the need for anything other than the QRWs, they have served me well for many, many years, and many different guns, all big bores, and many 1000s of rounds. I am sure there are several other suitable types, I just never had a need for any of them.

Michael

Midaway had the QRW on sale so I tried them. By the way any significance to where the levers go.

BigB

BigB,
You have the levers in correct position.
If the levers are on the left side and pointing below the centerline of the bore,
then recoil forces will tend to move them clockwise and tighten them.
The way you have them is the way I like it.
However you could have them both pointing muzzleward or buttward
or the front one buttward and the rear one muzzleward , whatever you like, as long as the end of the lever is pointing in the downward direction relative to the centerline of the bore.

Straight horizontal or parallel to the center of the bore would be O.K., pointed either way, muzzleward or buttward, but that is an impossibility in the infinitesimal sense of reality. You cannot humanly get them exactly parallel to center of bore and keep them absolutely tight.

If the levers are situated on the right side of the action, then you must have them pointed in the upward direction, above the centerline of the bore.
Then the recoil forces will again be clockwise.
Etc.

Yep, you got it right.

The levers on the left side have no chance to interfere with bolt action operation.

With the front lever pointing downward and "buttward" and the rear lever pointing downward and "muzzleward," just as you have it,
you are least likely to snag your own skin or clothing or brush on the levers,
and all recoil forces will tend to keep them tight.

Good choice.
Best choice.