Leupold QRW

16 February 2002, 07:08

Canuck

Leupold QRW

Fellow forumites,

I recently put the Leupold QRW mounts on my 416 Taylor and 375 H&H. After 10 shots with my 416, the channel in the Weaver bases are already smooshed forward. I'm obviously a little dissapointed, as you would think this would have been dealt with in the design.

Any suggestions what is the best way to deal with this? Are the Leupold manufactured weaver-style bases tough enough to handle this (they are about 4X more expensive)?

Thanks in advance,
Canuck

16 February 2002, 11:14

BFaucett

I have the same setup on my Model 70 in .458 Win Mag with a Leupold Vari-X III 1.5-5x scope. I used the Leupold bases and haven't had a problem yet. However, I will say that I've only put about 50 rounds through the rifle so far. Still, that's more than the 10 shots you mention.

My gun dealer advised me to go with the Leupold Weaver-style bases. He said they're made of steel. He also said the Weaver bases were made of aluminum and would lead to the exact problem you described. So I went with the steel Leupold bases.

- Bob F.

[This message has been edited by BFaucett (edited 02-16-2002).]

16 February 2002, 13:37

Will

Why would you use weaver style bases? Aluminum is softer than steel! Throw them away and buy real ones.

Thw Weaver style bases are to compete with the Walmart crowd. It's not Leupold's fault.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-16-2002).]

16 February 2002, 13:44

Canuck

Will, just to answer your question...(1)they are 1/5th the price, (2)I was told that they should be fine, (3)I bought into the logic that if they work with weaver rings on these calibers they should be fine with the leupold rings and (4) the leupold ad says they work fine with any weaver base, (5)the store here does not supply the goofy bases that I need in leupold.

Not that I disagree with your comment at this point, however.

Canuck

[This message has been edited by Canuck (edited 02-16-2002).]

16 February 2002, 13:58

Will

Canuck:

Nothing personal, but the name Weaver should tell you something. My father was a big Weaver base/ring fan. I never could understand this, but his "big" gun was a 30-06.

Of course, I never had the guts to tell him what I just told you!!

Will

16 February 2002, 14:05

Russell E. Taylor

Weaver makes steel bases, so buy some and be done with it. You can buy Warne bases if you desire. I use both brands on my rifles. Don't slam the brand because you picked the wrong metal.

Russ

------------------
"Out here, 'due process' is a bullet!" -- John Wayne, "The Green Berets"

16 February 2002, 14:07

HunterJim

Canuck,

I recall that Leupold makes a crossbolt for the QRW that is square in cross section vice round. I is supposed to fit properly into the square notch of the alloy Weaver style base, and to therby eliminate peening. They designate it the PRW.

From the Leupold web site:
quote
NEW PRW MOUNTS!

QRW/PRW Mounts ï¿½ï¿½
Leupold accuracy in a cross-slot format
Leupold offers a complete line of steel cross-slot mounts - the Leupold QRW and our new PRW mounts. Use the QRW mounts for detachable accuracy. They use an adjustable lever mechanism to lock the rings securely to the base. When mounted, simply rotate the spring loaded levers into the desired position to keep them out of the way. Use the PRW mounts when a cross-slot format is desired or necessary but detachability isn't. Leupold PRW rings secure directly to the base with two screws for rock solid dependability.
unquote

jim dodd

------------------
"if you are to busy to
hunt, you are too busy."

16 February 2002, 17:13

Ken Cline

Since you already have the QRW rings, go ahead and buy the correct bases, and the problem is solved. The Leupold's are steel, and look much better than the Weaver's as well. Your scope will be slightly lower, so hopefully you have enough clearance.

16 February 2002, 20:41

Canuck

My big problem is that I have an older Win M70 express with the close spaced holes on the rear base. I also have a BBR that requires the same bases. They don't stock Leupold bases to fit these in the stores I have access to. I originally wanted the Dual Dovetail bases, but Leupold doesn't even make them in this configuration.

Russell, just for the record, I never slammed Weaver. I was commenting on the design of the Leupold QRW crossbolt (not square like the channel). Also, they don't stock the Weaver Grand Slam's (steel) in our local stores, so I couldn't get them without a lengthy mail order. Refer to my post above as to why I decided to try the standard aluminum ones. I see that they do have the ones I need in Brownells though. And it looks like Warne makes them (Maxima) too, and also for a decent price.

The other reason I was looking for advice on this is because I recall a post recently about Leupold bases doing the same thing (getting "peened" on heavy recoiling rifles). I don't want to spend a hundred bucks on Leupold bases if I am going to end up with the same problem.

Thanks for the tips guys.

Canuck

[This message has been edited by Canuck (edited 02-16-2002).]

17 February 2002, 02:51

sdgunslinger

I suspect if you had used Weaver aluminum rings on your aluminum bases , you wouldn't have had a problem , or at least it wouldn't have shown up nearly as soon . I think the Weaver aluminum bases and rings should be OK on a .375 H&H .

What sort of scope were you using ? A light scope like a 2 1/2 fixed power would also lessen your troubles , and be plenty of scope for a large medium bore anyway .

[This message has been edited by sdgunslinger (edited 02-16-2002).]

17 February 2002, 05:53

<Patrick>

Good morning, I posted a comment here a few weeks ago on the same topic. I have the QRW's on a .416 Rem and .340 Weatherby. Both rolled the slot edges after just a few rounds. I contacted Leupold and was instructed to return the old ones for replacement at no cost and they did it very promptly. The new bolts are square steel and fit snugly in the slot. I don't anticipate any further problem. I can understand some disappoinment of Leupold's designers. These rings are aimed at the big gun market and surely weren't tested very thorougly.

17 February 2002, 07:14

MacD37

The Weaver syle bases are fine for solid mount bases, but are not a good design for Quick Detache bases, even with the square bolts, and steel construction. I've used Weaver rings, and bases, and, in fact, Weaver scopes for years with out a problem, but they will not return to zero if removed. A dovetail base that lets the ring run forward up against a solid shoulder, and made of steel are the way to go. The Tally, and Warne/Kimber/Brownell's are of this design, and I have used these for years without a problem of any kind, they return to zero, as well as even the claw mounts. Luepold scopes are top of the line, but I don't like their so-called Quick Detache rings, and bases. That's just my preference, and in no way obligates anyone else to go that way!

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
also DUGABOY1
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

17 February 2002, 17:29

Russell E. Taylor

quote:
Originally posted by Canuck:
Russell, just for the record, I never slammed Weaver.

True. YOU didn't. You used the wrong metal. The other guy (Will) was slamming Weaver.

Yes, Warne makes them and, as I said, I have them both on my rifles (not mixed, though).

Tell us what you end up doing.

Russ

------------------
"Out here, 'due process' is a bullet!" -- John Wayne, "The Green Berets"

17 February 2002, 17:34

Russell E. Taylor

quote:
Originally posted by MacD37:
The Weaver syle bases are fine for solid mount bases, but are not a good design for Quick Detache bases, even with the square bolts, and steel construction.

I just want to clarify: You mean quick-detach bases??? Yes, I know they exist (though Weaver doesn't make any that I'm aware of), I'm just trying to understand if this is what you meant. I generally don't plan on removing bases, I plan on removing rings. I use Weaver QD-type rings (on Weaver-type bases) and I've never had a problem with a loss of zero.

Russ

------------------
"Out here, 'due process' is a bullet!" -- John Wayne, "The Green Berets"

[This message has been edited by Russell E. Taylor (edited 02-17-2002).]

18 February 2002, 05:01

500grains

No offense to Leupold fans (I am one), but the QRW setup is junk. I toasted some QRW's with a 458 win mag.

18 February 2002, 05:58

Longbob

Canuck,

I know they are considerably more expensive, but I use Talley QD with the levers on my 375 H&H, 458 Lott, and 460 Weatherby. They are still tight and solid, but my brain is loose!

18 February 2002, 18:45

Canuck

500grains, I don't know if they're junk, but they sure weren't designed with heavy kickers in mind.

I am probably going to have to go with standard Weaver rings now, as I need a setup that I can practice hard with over the next couple months before my trip. Mail order to Canada can be such a pain at times.

Longbob, I am a little too cheap for the Talley's at the moment, but I have heard many good things. They are also weeks away via mail order! I know what you mean about a loose brain. I have been shooting a 500A2 and a 470Mbogo quite a bit lately. Having your brain bounce off the front of your skull isn't as bad as I imagined!

Thanks again guys,
Canuck

18 February 2002, 23:27

<Don G>

Canuck, Get the steel Weaver-style Warne rings. They are reasonably priced and stand up to my 416 Rem with Burris Signature Zee rings. They are available in the express-style rear hole spacing (that's what I have.)

Don

19 February 2002, 00:42

Pete E

Canuck,

Living in the UK I can understand the problems your having getting the various parts our US friends take for granted.

Everybody says that steel mounts/rings are stronger than alloy, but I never really grasped why. I now suspect that it's not the actual strength of the units which lets alloy down, but the fact that the screw threads in alloy are more suseptible to to stripping....

Pete

19 February 2002, 02:26

Will

I am not slamming Weaver, but when you are trying to use them for applications they were not intended, using aluminum Weaver-type parts should be a clue.

Seems to me one wants H&H performance out of WalMart priced equipment.

Will

19 February 2002, 05:11

MacD37

Russ, Now that I go back and read what I posted, I see what you mean about confuseing! What I ment was the Weaver type bases, and rings are not the best choice for QD use,IMO, not to mention they are ugly. I think you will find a staight precision machined steel Dovetail with a solid recoil shoulder stop base, will return to zero much better than the Weaver type mounts. The Weaver type QDs from Warne, are called MAXIM, and are the best of this type, but, IMO, their standard Warne dovetail QDs are much better, and Tally mounts are better yet.

The Weaver product is fine, and I own approximetly 30 Weaver scopes about twenty of them in Weaver bases, and rings, but when they have been removed,for any reason, by me, they deffinetly did not return to zero.

As I stated in my first post This is only My preference, and in no way obligates anyone else to go this route!

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
also DUGABOY1
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

19 February 2002, 06:25

<Patrick>

Hey gents, listen up, Leupold has fixed the problem and will exchange out your old rings and bases at no cost. The new ones are all steel, built like a tank, look and fit great.
Even the old ones returned to zero great. If you can't get them locally, Leupold will sell direct. Give them a call.

19 February 2002, 14:48

<Don G>

Will,

Don't confuse "Weaver-style" meaning the base is the same dimensions, with the old "Weaver" products.

I will put the return-to-zero characteristics of my Warne base and Burris Zee rings up against anything on the market.

I used the setup on my 1000 yard bolt gun that I switched between irons and "any" (scope) at several competitions. It worked flawlessly.

Don

19 February 2002, 15:38

Will

Don:

What I should have said, maybe, is that the Leupold and Warne QR rings have always performed well for me.

It seems like there is a never ending pile of problems related on the forum. I guess I'm lucky I haven't suffered from too many of my own.

Will

20 February 2002, 16:01

<Don G>

Will,

As I get older, I tend to want to keep things simple. It seems you learned this earlier than I did!

Don

20 February 2002, 18:59

Canuck

quote:
Originally posted by Will:
I am not slamming Weaver, but when you are trying to use them for applications they were not intended, using aluminum Weaver-type parts should be a clue.
Seems to me one wants H&H performance out of WalMart priced equipment.
Will

Not trying to be argumentative, but for clarity, it was not my intention to use "them for applications they were not intended". It says right on the package that the Leupold QRW rings are "compatible with any Weaver-style base". It also says right on the Weaver Top Mount Base packages that they "can be used with complete assurance on rifles of the heaviest recoil". A couple people I asked figured it should work all right. Thought it was worth trying, it didn't work (hence the dissapointment), so I posted here for advice (as opposed to criticism).

I was also not trying to get "H&H performance out of Wal-Mart priced equipment". Remember, steel bases are not readilly available around here. My intention is to get a rifle shooting better in time for a safari that is only 90 days away, and I tried to avoid mail ordering the Leupold bases or equivalent from the US and having to wait for customs etc to do their thing.

Wow, I must have had a little too much coffee today. I feel a little edgy.

Canuck

20 February 2002, 19:02

Canuck

Don,

Thank you for the advice. I will obviously have to go the mail order route, and will try out the Warne Maximas. Hopefully I get them in time to use them. My Brownells catalogue took 4 weeks to get here after I ordered it!

BTW, the maps are awesome. Thanks again.

Canuck

20 February 2002, 22:40

Will

Canuck:

I sympathize with the customs problems. It seems more of this BS is popping up in the US, in theory to save us from ourselves. But we know better!

Good luck in solving your rifle and mounts difficulties, and during your upcoming safari.

Will

28 February 2002, 08:56

BFaucett

quote:
Originally posted by Patrick:
Good morning, I posted a comment here a few weeks ago on the same topic. I have the QRW's on a .416 Rem and .340 Weatherby. Both rolled the slot edges after just a few rounds. I contacted Leupold and was instructed to return the old ones for replacement at no cost and they did it very promptly. The new bolts are square steel and fit snugly in the slot. I don't anticipate any further problem. I can understand some disappoinment of Leupold's designers. These rings are aimed at the big gun market and surely weren't tested very thorougly.

Well, after posting previously that I had not had a problem with the Leupold QRW rings and bases, on my Win Model 70 in .458 Win Mag, I have now learned otherwise. The subject matter of this thread kept coming to mind so last weekend I decided to pull the scope off my .458 Win Mag and take a look.

Sure enough, the rings have the older round pin. The slots in the bases have started to peen. And this is after only firing about 50 rounds through rifle so far. So, it looks like some repair / replacement is in order.

This is a good example of why I find this forum so useful and informative. I have really learned some things and picked up some good tips and information on here.

Thanks!
-Bob F.

28 February 2002, 09:15

Mule Skinner

Can anyone comment on the Weaver style base made by AO Sight Systems for the 1895 Marlin in 45-70.?

http://www.ashleyoutdoors.com/

It is made of anodized aluminum. They recommend using the Leupold Quick Release Weaver rings. I thought about going with this setup, but after reading this thread I am not so sure. Shark

28 February 2002, 10:40

pertinax

Re: Ashley Mount

If you mean the Scout Scope mount, I have one and it works fine. I have Warne QD rings, on a Leupold Scout Scope w/ German #4 reticle. I have probably fifty rounds through the gun after I mounted the scope; 40 Remington regular rounds, and 10 or so Garretts. No problems yet.

I would recommend their Scout mount. It's easy to install, and seems to be stable enough to handle the recoil of full power loads.

And I'm totally sold on the Scout Scope system. Both eyes open is absolutely the way to go. And on a big bore, you have no worries about getting smacked by the scope...

Pertinax

01 March 2002, 04:54

Mule Skinner

quote:
Originally posted by pertinax:
Re: Ashley Mount
If you mean the Scout Scope mount, I have one and it works fine. I have Warne QD rings, on a Leupold Scout Scope w/ German #4 reticle. I have probably fifty rounds through the gun after I mounted the scope; 40 Remington regular rounds, and 10 or so Garretts. No problems yet.
I would recommend their Scout mount. It's easy to install, and seems to be stable enough to handle the recoil of full power loads.
And I'm totally sold on the Scout Scope system. Both eyes open is absolutely the way to go. And on a big bore, you have no worries about getting smacked by the scope...
Pertinax

Pertinax,

I have a few additional questions.

1. Was the Ashley Scout Scope System very easy to install?
2. I am looking at the Leupold M8 IER 2X scout scope. Is this the scope you have but with a different reticle?
3. What is the German #4 reticle like? Is it better than the standard Duplex that comes with the scope?
4. Where did you purchase the Warne QD Rings? Which model did you buy?
5. Did you buy the low, medium or high rings?

Thanks very much!

------------------
"The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

12 May 2008, 20:47

mstarling

I understand that this is an old thread ... but I do have some new data.

Just took the 2.5x Leupold off of my .458 AR and noticed the cross bar in the bottom of the rear ring is slightly bent. Looks like recoil is taking its toll. Bases are Weaver steel.

Rifle has 90 rounds on it ... mostly cast bullet ammo in about the 4500 lb-ft range.

The problem appears to be the lack of a recoil shoulder on the base that pushes directly on the ring.

I really do not like the way the Talley splits vertically ... so the solution may be to make some bases that have a recoil shoulder at the front of each mount. Will probably try to do that. We'll see what happens.

12 May 2008, 23:17

RIP

mstarling,
Yep, this is old.

The new Leupold QRW bases and rings are like the Warne Maxima, with a square recoil shoulder/tab on the bottom of the ring. It is a square peg in a square cross-slot.

It works.

The original QRW had a "cross-bar" of round cross-section that fit in a square cross-slot on the base. No good. Discontinued. Any old parts such as that should be used on 22RF only.

I am with you in not liking the vertically split rings, but Talley are O.K.

I really like the new Leupld QRW on any hard kicker: Square peg in square hole means the bases don't "mush like dog turds," as 500grains used to say.

13 May 2008, 01:20

500grains

quote:
Originally posted by Canuck:
Fellow forumites,

I recently put the Leupold QRW mounts on my 416 Taylor and 375 H&H. After 10 shots with my 416, the channel in the Weaver bases are already smooshed forward.

Same thing happened to me on a .458.

The QR rings seem to hold up fine, but QRW have not been my first choice for heavy-recoiling rifles.

I have not tried the new QRW rings that RIP described.

13 May 2008, 01:27

mstarling

Golly, should have been more clear ... the rings I'm talking about ARE the new QRWs with the square bar!

The bases STILL need some better way to transfer moment to the rings on a thumper.

The bases I am using currently are steel so the slot is not washing out ... but they need to have a ledge that fits against the front of the ring.

Gonna make my own bases. Started the fixtures to hold bases in progress this afternoon. Have some cutters that I did not have on order. We'll see how it works out.

13 May 2008, 04:44

RIP

Well, that is peculiar.
I think someone let something get loose and get a run at it.
I have never had a problem with the QRW. Recoil shoulder tight up against the forward wall of the cross-slot, QD levers tightened, and kept tight, and the scope glued into the rings with silicone adhesive at least a few molecules thick.

I have broken the silly little posts off the Leupold QR's and will not use those again. May have been a "cast metal" defect in the Leupold QR, but one bad experience ruins me on a set up.

My QRW's when properly applied have been zero problem on rifles up to 500A2.