Yeah I have the levers.

I have not had that problem with Talleys, I use finger tight with the levers set to position up.

I had a 505 Gibbs and recoil was awesome so just in case, I carried a short length of arrow shaft with a wooden knob insert for my hand, a cheater bar of sorts. It was about 4 inches long and I put it in my cartridge belt with the ammo..I't gave me a lot of leverage on the levers...It worked but I'm not sure I had a problem in the first place..

I suspect it would also depend on how much strength a person had in his hand as to how tight he could snug the levers..

Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the purpose or usefulness of quick detach rings as opposed to rings which are tightened to the base with a slotted nut arrangement, such as Weavers or CZ rings etc. Most of us carry a knife on our belts when hunting and a quick twist with the blade will undo these style of rings. They return to zero as good as any other as it is the fixed side of a scope ring that references to the base

How often if ever would a hunter have to remove his scope in such a hurry that levers or other so called QD rings are required? I'm sure nobody would be attempting this when facing a charge or on the run after a wounded animal, and where a scope is used on a DG rifle it should be suitable for close shots.

It seems to me the lever type rings can be a PITA, with debate as to which is the best way up for the levers when locked, how to keep them tight, etc, etc. Ray here has alluded to carrying a cheater bar of sorts to get more leverage on the levers, no doubt this is a solution to the problem Ray was experiencing or trying to avoid but immediately this seems to take away the so called QD feature of this style of ring?

I have never felt the need for any other style of ring other than the slotted nut type which I tighten by hand and/or with a small coin when setting up the scope on the rifle. I have only once removed a scope in the field due to internal fogging (a Kahles) while at other times I have because I preferred the iron sights when hunting in wet thick bush. A quick twist of my knife blade has done the deed.

Perhaps I'm missing something here with QD rings?

eagle27,

You are, of course, spot on.
Absolutely correct in all your points.
The QD levers are basically aesthetic touches.
Like pin stripes on the race car.

I found myself using a small piece of rigid plastic tubing on my levers, like Ray's arrow shaft cheater pipe.
Might as well carry a quick-detachable-quick-detachable lever in your pocket,
and not have the protruding levers on the rifle to fuss with alignment, to snag brush, etc.

Well I suppose there is more than one way to skin a cat, and we all call our own shots..

Personally I like the QD option and would not own a rifle without iron sights. I use them otherwise I would not have them and I don't consider them cosmetic...I like my little do-dad that I carry in a cartridge loop, it's pretty and it works.

For DG I normally use iron sights, and have the scope handy in case I see a world class Kudu or whatever...

I like packing a gun without a scope on it, and I like shooting iron sights. I also like the option of having a rifle in hand that if the scope fogs, breaks or whatever, I can just take the scope off and continue hunting, and that does happen contrary to what some folks claim. I have not snagged my levers on brush, maybe they don't snag in the upward position, but that's a pretty lame reasoning in the first place.

Fortunatly I don't have to please anyone but myself on that count.

Here is one of the best Quick-Detachable scope ring systems possible, my favorite:



All that is needed is to replace the slotted-head main mounting bolts of the standard CZ 550 Magnum ring,
with a hex-head, metric, automotive screw/bolt of proper thread and length.
A perfect one can be bought in bulk or by the pair at an automotive parts store,
available as blacked or stainless,
requiring no fitting,
just remove the factory bolt and screw in the replacement.
Then carry the proper Allen wrench in your pocket.
Torque to 65 inch-pounds with a torque wrench.
Then practice reproducing that degree of torque with the pocket tool.
Nothing beats this for strength, accuracy, repeatability, AND least dollars spent to equip dozens of different rifles for interchangeability with scores of different scopes.

Even the most expensive systems in the world cannot beat this for strength, accuracy, and repeatability, never mind expense.

The only drawback: Not a really low mount, though not excessively high.
It is possible to get lower scope height with some more fragile and more expensive systems.
Oh, yes, one other thing: The CZ QDQD-Lever rings lack "extended-pinky-finger" appeal.

One outstanding feature of the CZ QDQD system: "Blue-Collar Appeal." They have this in spades, like the TV series JUSTIFIED on the FX channel.

"What would Elmore do?"

When the "QDQD" lever is in your pocket, there is no way it can inertially facilitate loosening under recoil because of improper set location,
nor can it snag on brush when it is in your pocket.

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on the purpose or usefulness of quick detach rings as opposed to rings which are tightened to the base with a slotted nut arrangement, such as Weavers or CZ rings etc. Most of us carry a knife on our belts when hunting and a quick twist with the blade will undo these style of rings. They return to zero as good as any other as it is the fixed side of a scope ring that references to the base

How often if ever would a hunter have to remove his scope in such a hurry that levers or other so called QD rings are required? I'm sure nobody would be attempting this when facing a charge or on the run after a wounded animal, and where a scope is used on a DG rifle it should be suitable for close shots.

It seems to me the lever type rings can be a PITA, with debate as to which is the best way up for the levers when locked, how to keep them tight, etc, etc. Ray here has alluded to carrying a cheater bar of sorts to get more leverage on the levers, no doubt this is a solution to the problem Ray was experiencing or trying to avoid but immediately this seems to take away the so called QD feature of this style of ring?

I have never felt the need for any other style of ring other than the slotted nut type which I tighten by hand and/or with a small coin when setting up the scope on the rifle. I have only once removed a scope in the field due to internal fogging (a Kahles) while at other times I have because I preferred the iron sights when hunting in wet thick bush. A quick twist of my knife blade has done the deed.

Perhaps I'm missing something here with QD rings?

One I like them for travel. Easy to remove. But most important I like hunting dangerous game with irons and sure is nice to be able to slip in a scope for that occasional long ranger range ahoy at plaingame. I see no reason not to have them.

I have Talley's on 3 of my rifles,358 Norma Mag,425 Express, and my 458 win Mag. The scopes are taken off when packing game , sport fish boat gun, and family outings mainly. Not so much for hunting as that's what the scopes are on there for. Talley's go on and off without noticeable change in zero from what I can see.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
I might allow my square bridges to be molested for Smithson mounts.

Post of the decade.

Smithson's are the best, imo, and they are good looking as well. I have one set of Smithson rings and bases on an Abiatico & Slavinelli double rifle in 375H&H. Perfect for the application.

All of my other rifles with detachable set ups have Talley's. They work fine but return to zero is imperfect. I would hunt buff, deer, hogs, lion, kudu, almost anything without re-sighting, but I wouldn't hunt leopard without re-sighting.

JPK

I've said this before, but I'll say it again..Return to zero with any mount has a lot to do with mounting the rings and bases.

I surface grind the action, hand fit the bases with lamp black or whatever, much like inletting. I use a hone, file and wet or dry paper to do this. All the time I'm doing this my scope is set at the center of the focal plane or the adjustments if you will, and I am bore sighting constantly as I work. I try to sight in the rifle without touching the adjustments or as close as possible. When I go to the range I expect to move the adjustments only a few clicks up or down..My scope is now shooting in the middle of its focal plane and that makes a difference in return to zero I have found..I expect my rifles to return to exact zero give or take a half inch, and I can probably get that much letting them sit in the gun cabinet. I also tighten the levers to very snug with my little cheater bar. I suspect that even a fired case would work as a cheater bar btw, but mine is a 4 inch section of heavy arrow shaft with a very small but cute exhibition grade rounded turkish walnut knob glassed to it, that I keep in my cartridge belt, jacket pocket or pants pocket and the levers are in the upward position. Its critical to return those levers to the same position every time. Mostly I'm talking about Talleys, but I have had good luck with Weavers also, and on one Redfield one piece base with that single lever option (Pilkington??) It worked very well, and I like those early Redfield rings.

Over the years of doing this it has made the difference in a return of 2 to 3 inches to around a half inch..I think Jack Belk initiated me to this process, but wouldn't swear to it. If not it would have been Tony Barnes, another great gunsmith.

I have a set of steel rings, similar to those RIP shows, on my Brno 600, they are not branded but are slimmer and well finished, nicer looking IMO to the CZ550 rings RIP shows. They are really as low as can go with a 40mm objective scope clearing the chamber end of the barrel by only a few mil (maybe 5mm) and also not much left for clearance between the bolt handle and ocular end of a scope. I image there may be just enough room for a 50mm objective scope. These rings have a slotted knurled nut for attaching the rings to the Brno bases but uses four Allen headed cap screws for the split rings so I do carry an Allen key in my belt pouch just in case I need to fit a spare scope which we usually carry if on an extended hunt in the mountains.

I most definitely agree with Ray in that care should be taken in mounting bases to rifles. As I have mentioned in other posts on this subject I always use a two tube epoxy glue on the underside of the bases and on the attaching screw threads when mounting scopes. The epoxy takes up any small discrepancies between the base and receiver profiles and provides a waterproof barrier to moisture seep between the base/s and receiver.
When mounting an aluminium Weaver bridge base on my Mauser 404 for a scope in a semi-scout position I attached the front of the base to the small ledge at the rear of the safari sight using only one small screw with epoxy filling the void between the concave underside of the base and the flat ledge. I discovered that the outer lips of the concaved underside of the Weaver base bore perfectly onto the rear sight ledge when the base was screwed to the receiver so the single small screw did tighten the front of the base firmly. This base has not moved in over 30 years of use.
The epoxy I use (Araldite) can be softened with judicious application of heat to bases and screws and a sharp tap with a small hammer will break bases free if needing to remove them. Other than that bases and screws fixed with this method are there to stay.

I don't go to quite the same attention to detail as Ray in terms of surface grinding the receiver etc, but I respect what Ray does and I'm sure this attention to detail has stood his workmanship in good stead over the years.

Perhaps I should clarify my idea of QD rings. I think the term QD is applied to any rings which can be removed from a rifle without dis-assembly, using a lever, screw or spring loaded claws etc. The question I was asking was if anyone could enlighten me of the benefits of lever style rings or expensive claw mounts in terms of return to zero or the need to remove the scope instantly, or maybe a few seconds quicker than the common cap screw, knurled slotted screw, or slotted socket type ring attachments?

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
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?

Now that is a fair dinkum detachable mount system!!

Thanks for the pics, Ron.

The double rifle version, or I believe and Smithson mounts that need to be retro-fitted are opposite. The male portion is on the rifle the female in the ring.

Like this:









JPK

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Here is one of the best Quick-Detachable scope ring systems possible, my favorite:

[url=http://s770.photobucket.com/user/Ron395/media/49-10no2/100_3793.jpg.html]

Mr. RIP sir,

Where did you purchase the rings?

The Smithson's are nice. Anyone know how much they go for? Do you send the rifle to Joe for an install?

Eagle27,
The advantage of a claw or a lever QD for one thing is time, the claw comes off instantly for what its worth, and not much in the real world of DG hunting because only an idiot would pop off a scope in the midst of a charge!

On the positive side, the claw will return to zero closer than any lever based scope mount, or I would bet any mount made today. They are exact, but one should always use a claw that can be adjusted to allow for wear from time to time or send them to a good smith that can take up the wear slack every 20 years or so I guess! I have been told that, but never had one wear??

I like the old European claws best of all mounts, particularly the lower mounted ones. Perhaps its the way they are precisely mounted or perhaps its the design, and the fact that I use low power scopes with 20 mm objectives such as the 3X, 1x4 and 1.5x5 Leupolds. I don't really know, but I know what works best of all.

There used to be a fellow at SCI Vegas that built a set of claw type mounts with a single bar from the front to the rear base and it popped off like a claw and folks that used them swore them to return to exact zero..I can't recall his name or the name of the mount, but I sure was well built and not nearly as expensive as a set of true claw mounts. Anybody know this guy?

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Eagle27,
The advantage of a claw or a lever QD for one thing is time, the claw comes off instantly for what its worth, and not much in the real world of DG hunting because only an idiot would pop off a scope in the midst of a charge!

On the positive side, the claw will return to zero closer than any lever based scope mount, or I would bet any mount made today. They are exact, but one should always use a claw that can be adjusted to allow for wear from time to time or send them to a good smith that can take up the wear slack every 20 years or so I guess! I have been told that, but never had one wear??

I like the old European claws best of all mounts, particularly the lower mounted ones. Perhaps its the way they are precisely mounted or perhaps its the design, and the fact that I use low power scopes with 20 mm objectives such as the 3X, 1x4 and 1.5x5 Leupolds. I don't really know, but I know what works best of all.

There used to be a fellow at SCI Vegas that built a set of claw type mounts with a single bar from the front to the rear base and it popped off like a claw and folks that used them swore them to return to exact zero..I can't recall his name or the name of the mount, but I sure was well built and not nearly as expensive as a set of true claw mounts. Anybody know this guy?

Thanks Ray, a good reply and obviously experience with the claw mounts. I certainly concede they are all very well made and strong or certainly the great variety that I saw when in Germany many years ago were. I can't recall seeing many low claw mount setups but then most of my friends and their fellow hunters tended to use large objective scopes so needed the height. Some of these scopes had the front claw directly soldered to the scopes large objective lens so did at least sit as low as possible but then one was stuck with that one scope.

In the scheme of things where one was living amongst or close to all the famous optics and firearms manufacturers and with the style of hunting in Germany and neighboring countries, the idea we have here of changing scopes and rings and making rifles look like well honed killing machines wouldn't quite fit the mantra.

quote:

Originally posted by Quick Karl:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Here is one of the best Quick-Detachable scope ring systems possible, my favorite:

Mr. RIP sir,

Where did you purchase the rings?

Hi Quick Karl,

They are regular CZ 550 Magnum rings, so won't do you much good on your FN Mauser 404 Express F.N.Barnes ...
unless some square bridges milled for CZ rings could be added on to your FN.
Might as well get Smithsons if you want that much expense and trouble.

I have decided I would rather have Smithson's than German claw mounts, for that kind of expense and trouble.

But anyone with a CZ 550 Magnum needs nothing more than a 5 mm hex key and a pair of socket head screws purchased for pocket change at the hardware store,
to convert their rings into the QD best!

The slotted head screws to be replaced are 16mm long.
The replacement metric socket head screws come as either 16mm, 20mm, or 25mm:
Class 12.9 M6-1.0x16mm, 20mm, or 25mm.
You can actually use the longer-than-standard 20mm screws and have more threads engaged inside the ring base. That does not hurt strength.
You only need the 25mm length if you want to add on a QRW lever tapped to fit the screw.
Not necessary.
The Quick-Detachable-Quick-Detachable lever in your pocket is better.