Looking for quick detach mounts for the new rifle, wanted to check recommendations here before taking the plunge. Years ago, I used Talley's and am inclined to do the same again, but so much has changed since then, thought I would see if there is something new I should be considering.

Thanks!

Talleys are my preference, but I've had zero problems with Leupold's QR rings, too.

George

Talley's are great, but depending on the rifle, you might also want to check out pivot and claw mounts:

www.recknagel.de/Joomla/en/products/scope-mounts.html

www.eaw.de/en/products/pivot-mounts.html

www.ziegler-praezisionsteile.d...356bd286fcdebface0d0

www.newenglandcustomgun.com/Gu...ces/Scope_Mounts.asp


Vasa

I like those German mounts! But they are more than a little out of my range, but very beautiful!

EAW swing mounts...best next to a claw mount...about 1/2 the price...still around $600 for the set.

Ed

George,

I like the look of those QR's. How well have you found them to return to zero?

+1 on the Talleys

Chad,

They have been spot on every time I have reattached the scope to the rifle (M-70 .375H&H).

George

Talley's quality has not deteriorated.

What is Rule #2?

If it ain't broke, you can't fix it. Just enjoy it 'til you do, then pay the man to fix it.

Talleys ain't broke...

Talleys might not be broke---but they are pretty badly bent.

Much prefer the Leopold QRW system.

smoother, a more rugged recoil lug, and easier to use.

Talley or Warne, both are excellent.

Nothing wrong with the Leupold QRW or QR systems. In 20 years of international hunting I have never had a set fail and they always return to zero within .5". They work on all my big bore rifles and handguns. Why pay more for no more reliability?

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Russell:
Talleys might not be broke---but they are pretty badly bent.

Much prefer the Leopold QRW system.

smoother, a more rugged recoil lug, and easier to use.

Ditto QRW recommendation.

I have broken Talley rings.
When they break the way I have broken them, you cannot fix them.
You have to get a new one.

I prefer Leupold QRW over the Leupold QR. For several reasons.

I also have not had good results using Talleys on big bores. The EAW swing mounts are as fast as you can get for taking the scope off, flip up a small lever and swing the scope out off the front mount. I use two separate scopes (with their own rings of course) a 30mm and 1 inch, each returns to zero every time. They have several adjustments which allow the scope to be mounted in alignment and stress free. At first they seem complicated but easy to learn. The other downside is they are expensive. I've had good luck with them but some others feel they're to much of a pain in the butt.

In my single barrel days, the Griffin and Howe mount worked for me on a pair of 375s, a .458, and a couple of others I purchased used with the mounts already on them.

Today, claw mounts on my only 'scope mounted double, of course.
Cal

EAW swing off or Recknagel G9 swing off.

Alaska Arms quick detachable rings are great if the have rings for your rifle.

Joseph Smithson mounts out of Utah are first class. I also have Talley's and Leupold's and like them.

I will echo impala#03....

I have several sets of Morris Melani's QD scope mounts for my cz550s & I think they are a great option. Morris can provide bases for your rifle if you don't mind having a smith do some fitting work.

Morris is also a super nice guy and has spent quite a bit of time on the phone talking about his
mounts...proper instalation...and rifle setup etc.

I have a few sets of Talleys with no real bad experiences I just prefer the Melani rings.

Morris' website:

Melani QD scope rings


Dave

Ruger... Euro dovetail (that is what cz uses) pickatinny with proper
, not Weaver, rings ... Warne is too complex for rapid use. I personally don't care for talleys.. But that is entirely my subjective opinion, I don't like the look

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
In my single barrel days, the Griffin and Howe mount worked for me on a pair of 375s, a .458, and a couple of others I purchased used with the mounts already on them.

Today, claw mounts on my only 'scope mounted double, of course.
Cal

I like the G & H and have several

German Claw mounts may be the ultimate.
The other high-dollar ones are pretenders.
I bought a Waffen Frankonia 30-06 with claw mounts for less than the claw mounts alone would cost today,
just to play with those beauties.
For most of us who do not want to pay 4-figure-$$$$s for the scope mounts alone on each and every rifle,
the following are excellent, and just as accurate and strong as German Claws,
and may allow lower scope mounting in some:

CZ integral base with standard 550 Medium/Magnum ring from CZ: Torque to 60-65 inch pounds on the main mounting bolt on the dovetail tab/recoil stop. Any others strong enough to take that?
OK, maybe not low mounts from CZ. A Euro thing.

Ruger integral base and standard Ruger rings.

Latest make Leupold QRW rings and steel bases attached with 8x40 screws and JB Weld: Good as an integral base.

A steel picatinny base also 8x40 screwed, pinned,soldered, or JB Welded, and 3 or 4 rings (Badger, etc.) to fit that base, for tacticool.

Basically echoing jeffeosso, above.
It is great to be able to have more than one scope ready as a backup with the excellent QD-able systems available now, for less than $$$$.

I have been using Leupold QRWs rings and bases for 15 years now, exclusively. Todays QRW is better than it was 15 yrs ago, but I never had issues even back in the day.

Sometimes here with 25 + rifles set up doing various sorts of tests, its very important to have a system that I can easily switch back and forth, efficiently set up one rifle or another with the least down time. I am sure there are many good systems out there, but when thinking 25-50 rifles all set up to receive without issue, then cost does come to bear. I can promise if I had an issue, I would not use it, I hate inefficiency, and strife, keeps me from my main goals.

Over the years I have done various tests, on and off, on and off, to check POI change. Yes, they change, but I have never had one out more than 1 inch at 50 yards. 90% of the time, much closer. For the traveling hunter, I always recommend a second scope, no matter how good you think your scope is, you can trip and fall on it, breaking the mounts, scope or something.... I have seen it happen several times. Nice to have that extra scope, already sighted in, and ready to mount. No down time on a safari that is costing you $1200+ a day!

Michael

I have probably used every type mount ever made for a riflescope from Unertl/Lyman,Stith,Leupold,Warne,Talley,Weaver,Pachmyer Lo-swing,Griffin&Howe,Eurepoean Claw Mounts,MAK swivel mounts,Buehler and some with no name at all and think I still have several sets of Ackely Mounts around somewhere. I have Talley's that I currently use that are good and believe it or not Weaver Steels that I can find no fault with. I always carried a second scope when hunting Africa That would fit both rifles I usually took. It was usually a VariX-III 1.5-5 and usually in Warne mounts.I actually had 2 scope failures in 8 safari's to Zimbabwe. Replaced and resighted in ( I always took sufficient ammunition) and didn't miss a beat of hunting though I did shoot at and miss some animals,as fortune would have it in both cases they were for bait or camp. I have never really been concerned particularly with return to absolute zero as I always took a lasersighter and resighted the rifles. Had to check them anyway so why make such a big thing of it. To me it's a minor feature. I would rather it be substantial than quick release any day.

Smithson mounts are the finest I have ever seen. Then claws. Smithson are more versatile then claws.

If you have a CZ or a Ruger I can recommend the ones made by Alaska Arms highly.. Saw them this fall when I hunted with Phil Shoemaker (458 Win) in Alaska.. I have just ordered some for my Rugers..
Take a look at http://www.alaskaarmsllc.com

Talley.

My choice is steel Weaver bases with steel thumbscrew rings. Quick enough and rezero about as well as any. Cheaper too.

Dave

IMO the best QD mount is the German Claw mount, hands down, also they usually coast as much as a couple of rifles..but they do work and they do leave the receiver clean for barrel mounted iron sights..Last time I priced a set they were $1800 and I think that included instalation.

Many of todays scope bases block the use of barrel mounted iron sights. I have to ask why in the hell make a set of "QD" that don't leave the receiver clean, it makes no sence, maybe the bean counters don't hunt?..I have a favorite set of old Brownells and the bases are thin, low and lean and they return to zero and they leave the receiver clean as can be..wish I had more sets of these. The levers are beautifully shaped, checkered and finished. Lynn Brownell knew his stuff, and he was a hunter.

Mostly I have used Talley, and I use the Talley QD peep for irons, great set up on big bore especially..Tally bases are not great for using barrel mounted sights, they are too high, even the low ones..not sure, but don't see why they cannot be cut lower like the Brownells, they are ver simular. Maybe the rings are not designed for lower bases??

Steel Weavers are also very low and do not block the irons...Also Weavers are dirt cheap and they work great, and if you set the ring screw slots to the same locations, they return to zero as well as the most expensive mounts..I used them as a kid, quit them, but have returned to my roots, because the simply work, and a good smith can add levers..I have been using them on my guns only, more and more lately..I even took a new Weaver scope in trade, a 2.5X and its a damn nice scope, it doesn't fog, its clear and it works and I don't thing they cost much.

I tend to use low power 20 mm exit scopes on my big bores such as the 3X Leupold, 1x4 Leupold or the 1.5x5, with low rings and bases to keep everything down low on the receiver.


We have a lot of good options out there, but one thing I require with QD bases is that the receiver is perfect (mine are surface ground) and I fit the bases with inletting blue and emory paper and stones on a scope that has the adjustments set to the optical center of the adjustments, and I bore sight as I go...then my rifle bore and scope are square to the wold, and that IMO is the secret to "return to zero" on a rifle, along with as much "finger tightness" as I can apply to the levers and keep them vertical to the rings. I wish they could be made to stop in in that position somehow and I think they could.

I don't like the spring on the Warnes, it too light, but I think that can be fixed with a stronger spring, they will jump out and in, changing position and can block bolt lift on a big bore on that side, and they don't work on a Mauser as the left side has a bolt release that interferes, and I use low rings and bases, sooo. I have had this happen with a .338, and a 416 Rem. and at a very serious time as fate would have it.. I very much like the old Warne bases as they were thin and low, the best for irons. I would reshape the ugly levers, add checkering and add a stronger spring, shorten the rear for a Mauser, and they would be an excellent option IMO. Not sure if they still make the old bases, and I think they opted for using weavers, and the weavers probably work fine as they are also low. But the Weavers are not as pretty and don't look as good on the rifle as the old bases.

All this strictly opinnion from an old hunters perspective and may not apply to some. My likes and dislikes don't always coinside with todays gunner/shooter.

Ah a man of my own heart, Ray. I too have found the Weaver steel rings and scope base system works as well as any other and allows mounting scopes as low as the bolt lift allows.

I use this system on all my rifles and have fitted Weavers to several of my German hunting friend's rifles once he discovered the benefit of low mounted scopes and not the infernally high carry handle type European system with their various expensive, albeit, rugged claw mounts. We made short work of getting rid of those off his rifles and getting Weaver bases and rings on. Of course he discovered the failings of the high claw mounts when hunting in our rugged country here in NZ where he eventually immigrated to, but did keep a few of his rifles set up with the claw mounts for when hunting back in Germany, Weavers are just not the done thing old chap when in Germany

On my own Mauser 404 the Weaver base (an alloy one that has never moved) allows a perfect sight picture through the irons in fact the Weaver base profile exactly matches that of the fixed rear blade on the Oberndorf safari rear sight so does not detract at all if using the iron sights.

Eagle 27,
Also Weaver now has a set of rings with windage and they have two screws on each side of the ring making it a heck of a lot easier to mount the scope without cocking the horizontal cross hair off level to the bore...that was the most aggravating thing about the old rings, it took trial and error to get them straight..

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Eagle 27,
Also Weaver now has a set of rings with windage and they have two screws on each side of the ring making it a heck of a lot easier to mount the scope without cocking the horizontal cross hair off level to the bore...that was the most aggravating thing about the old rings, it took trial and error to get them straight..

Yes that was the most annoying thing when mounting a scope in the original Weaver rings but I must admit I got pretty good at estimating the amount of offset needed to allow the scope to 'roll' into position so the horizontal cross hair was level. Many call the Weaver rings (the original style) ugly but scopes never move in them and don't need resin or sugar or any other crap to lock them in place. I go for utility rather than looks everytime.

The best out there is the saddlemount made for Blasers, but then you have to be in the exclusive club to own one. Not everyone can....ask Todd Williams :-)

Best looking detachables are old style Kimbers, Warne Premiers or Burgess, if you can find them.

quote:

Originally posted by McKay:
Smithson mounts are the finest I have ever seen. Then claws. Smithson are more versatile then claws.

+1. I've got these on a couple of my rifles, and they are top notch.

I think the old Kimbers were actually Lynn Brownells design with the slim levers that were checkered on top???..I have a set of Lynn Brownells QD and they will work on the old kimber bases..The old Kimber bases were real nice in that you could see your iron sights over them. Today they usually work with Weaver bases, but don't look as nice.

What bothers me is most bases block the use of iron sights, and I see those kinds of bases on a lot of African DG rifles with the owners proud as punch with them..It obvious that the maker nor the gun owner have ever actually used the irons on game much less sighted them in, they are obviously there only for cosmetics! I see custom gun makers building sky high island sights to clear the bases and/or high combed scoped rifles and thats fine if one likes ugly!

I might allow my square bridges to be molested for Smithson mounts.
It is tough deciding between this



versus QRW cross slots.

Is the standard square bridge on a Mauser convertible to Smithson mounts?
And if so, how much does it cost to get the job done?

I don't know what it would cost to get the square bridge set up for the rings, but each set of rings will cost about $750.

How do you guys get Tallys on and off without tools? Mine came loose, missed a warthog.

Those Smithsons have always intrigued me. If I scope a double I will use them. In the meantime my scopes are bolted on in one piece ring/mount combos with loctite.

quote:

Originally posted by RyanB:
How do you guys get Tallys on and off without tools? Mine came loose, missed a warthog.

Those Smithsons have always intrigued me. If I scope a double I will use them. In the meantime my scopes are bolted on in one piece ring/mount combos with loctite.

They sell levers you can replace the screw with if you are indeed using their quick detach version.