I need to know if standard aluminum Weaver bases are fine to use with Leupold QRW rings? I am specifically wondering about holding the zero when removing and reattaching the scope.

The gun is a pre 64 Win 70 with a 375 H&H with express sights.

Leupold QR bases are too tall to see the sights.

I do not have a set of Leupold QRW bases to check and see how they will work. Standard aluminum Weaver bases have the deep groove that lets you see the sights very easily.

QRW = Quick Release Weaver.

George

Hey George, Having a little reading comprehension problems?

I specifically asked about standard aluminum Weavers, which I have on hand. I know they will fit, but that doesn't mean they are as repeatable as the QRW, which cost 8 times as much.I know QRW rings were made for QRW bases. That doesn't mean that I can see my sights over them.

Also does any one know if steel weavers are solid or grooved?

I have used the aluminum Weaver bases with QRW rings by Leupold, but only with base screws converted from 6x48 to 8x40 and blue LocTited or epoxied to the receiver.
They held up fine on a 10-pound total weight .458 Lott, when all is "kept forward and tight" at all times, and my scope was a light 2.5X Leupold in QRW rings.
Should be OK with a .375 H&H, just not as appealing aesthetically as the steel bases.
I have Warne and Leupold QRW/cross-slotted bases on various rifles, my favorite setup, with QRW rings.
All are flat-topped/cross-slotted and low profile, as is the Weaver steel Grand Slam base.
But the steel Weaver Grand Slam rings are no good, I've broken some of those rings just trying them out, sighting in. Weaver Grand Slam steel bases are suspect.
If you have to have that little bit of extra sight visibility with the channel on the aluminum bases, use them.
Or get Leupold QRW or Warne Maxima bases, to use with the QRW rings.

I never trust any scope mount to QD and return to zero, unless I recheck zero after re-installing it to verify.
I don't remove the scope unless I just have too, in a hurry, but it is good to be able to do that when needed.
Talley is OK too.

Do not use any steel Weaver rings. They are crap. The steel Weaver bases are suspect too, if made of the same crumbly steel castings.

I might add that I also used the aluminum (aluminium to foreigners) Weaver bases on a .375 Weatherby Interarms Mark X rechamber job.
It weighs 10 pounds with a 4X Leupold scope.
I found an extra-long front base of proper contour with two cross-slots spaced far enough apart to allow use of two rings on the front base and the usual one ring on the rear base.
Three rings, the usual spring-steel-strap top with aluminum alloy ring base ... that must be titanium-aluminum alloy "aircraft aluminium," eh?
That held up just fine for 5 years of chasing bears and cutting Sitka deer in two on Kodiak Island.
I would not change a thing on that rifle.
It is ugly for other reasons than just the aluminum Weaver bases, and standard Weaver rings.
They QD with a large coin from my pocket.
There is also a Ruger quarter rib on the barrel that accepts a scout scope in Ruger rings, and has the standard Ruger fold-down rear sight.
There is a pop-up peep on the rear of the aluminium rear base.
There is only one front iron sight.
Its stock is a raw Brown Precision fiberglass standard-weight blank, with mold seam lines showing, that has had some textured epoxy smered on for grip panels,
stock painted crudely with flat black Krylon.
Easy to touch up any scratches!!!


Repeat: All-steel Weaver Grand Slam rings are crap, castings of cheap pot metal (like Millet rings). "Grand Slam" rings by Weaver are not so grand.
I would much prefer the "aircraft aluminium" containing standard Weaver rings and bases,
or steel Warne, or Leupold QRW rings and bases.
Or Talley.

Weaver grandslam and warne/weaver bases are solid.

Airgun

I have on occasion used the weavers with the QRWs and I think up to 416 caliber and I never had an issue with them. On a 375 I don't think you would have much of a problem. Give them a try.

Repeatable???? Don't know?

quote:

I never trust any scope mount to QD and return to zero, unless I recheck zero after re-installing it to verify.
I don't remove the scope unless I just have too, in a hurry, but it is good to be able to do that when needed.

RIP

Spot on, I never would trust any of them 100%. I have conducted several tests--This is one I should do again and actually document results for record. I have on many occasions taken the scope on and off, on and off to check POI at 50 yds with the QRWs. The vast majority of the time they are 1/4 inch out at most, lot's of time spot on, occasionally as much as 1/2 inch, and only a time or two at most 1 inch off. Never have been more than 1 inch. Now that is not too exact, and honestly I need a little better numbers and percentages to be viable. I must set something up to test this and get better numbers for you.

I have used nothing but QRWs since 2000, on everything. Makes life easy switching scopes back and forth between rifles, easy to take a spare scope on a hunt as well.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Airgun

I have used nothing but QRWs since 2000, on everything. Makes life easy switching scopes back and forth between rifles, easy to take a spare scope on a hunt as well.

Michael

Could not agree more.

I will however settle for genuine German claws, Ruger or CZ integral base and ring combos, or Talley where applicable, but that sure blows the QRW interchangeability love affair!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
I have used nothing but QRWs since 2000, on everything. Makes life easy switching scopes back and forth between rifles, easy to take a spare scope on a hunt as well.

Michael

Could not agree more.

I will however settle for genuine German claws, Ruger or CZ integral base and ring combos, or Talley where applicable, but that sure blows the QRW interchangeability love affair!!!![/QUOTE]


Just imagine for a second;

Going on a trip to Africa--50 B&M and 458 B&M, both rifles set up with QRWs, and one spare scope, sighted ready to go. Fall down, bust the scope off the 50, just put the spare on on. No big deal. Now I am a clutz and I fall again, bust another scope, but I can use the other one on the other rifle if I wanted. If you did not take a spare one, the one off the 458 would fit perfectly! Also, not a good practice as I understand, but the bolts are the same as well! I have done this. Interchangeable nearly everything, between rifles and scopes. Crap happens in the field.

M

That's not exactly what it was, airgun. I essentially stopped reading after the first question mark.

Nicely done George.

Can't answer about the Weaver bases, but believe if you check Leupold's web site or call them, they did offer a "not so tall" set of steel bases which would not interfere with seeing your iron sights. I have some set up on a long range match rifle w/ the QRW rings so I can switch from micrometer sights to scope. Do they return to pefect zero, no they do not, but usually within a MOA. Just a suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Airgun

I have on occasion used the weavers with the QRWs and I think up to 416 caliber and I never had an issue with them. On a 375 I don't think you would have much of a problem. Give them a try.

Repeatable???? Don't know?

quote:

I never trust any scope mount to QD and return to zero, unless I recheck zero after re-installing it to verify.
I don't remove the scope unless I just have too, in a hurry, but it is good to be able to do that when needed.

RIP

Spot on, I never would trust any of them 100%. I have conducted several tests--This is one I should do again and actually document results for record. I have on many occasions taken the scope on and off, on and off to check POI at 50 yds with the QRWs. The vast majority of the time they are 1/4 inch out at most, lot's of time spot on, occasionally as much as 1/2 inch, and only a time or two at most 1 inch off. Never have been more than 1 inch. Now that is not too exact, and honestly I need a little better numbers and percentages to be viable. I must set something up to test this and get better numbers for you.

I have used nothing but QRWs since 2000, on everything. Makes life easy switching scopes back and forth between rifles, easy to take a spare scope on a hunt as well.

Michael

Michael:

You need to get a Blaser my friend. Best scope mounting system in the world!

Dave

You must pack up and bring that thing and visit with me, teach me how to use it. I shot one once, and of course not being used to one it was a little....strange you might say.

Have not seen the scope mount system?

M

quote:

Originally posted by airgun1:
I need to know if standard aluminum Weaver bases are fine to use with Leupold QRW rings? I am specifically wondering about holding the zero when removing and reattaching the scope.

The gun is a pre 64 Win 70 with a 375 H&H with express sights.

Leupold QR bases are too tall to see the sights.

I do not have a set of Leupold QRW bases to check and see how they will work. Standard aluminum Weaver bases have the deep groove that lets you see the sights very easily.

They've worked fine on my 404 Mauser for the last 30 years.

BTW, Finn Aagaard used the standard Weaver "aluminium alloy" bases and those ugly old Weaver rings
on his Pre-64 Winchester M70 .375 H&H throughout his PH-ing days in Kenya and beyond.
Maybe even longer than eagle27 has been using them.

eagle27,
I know your scope is not bent, just a "spherical aberration" of your camera lens in that closeup photo above.
That must be a scout scope on your .404 Jeffery?
And you can still make use of all those leaves on the rear sight when the scope is removed,
sighting down the see-through channel in the scope base?
My "Ugly Betty".375 Wby must have the same front base on it as yours, but I cut mine considerably shorter than you did, and I used a standard scope placement with three rings.
I see that you have left yours long enough to abutt the rear sight island, and filed a recess on the base bottom to fit flush there as a support for the extended base?
Nice.

Rip, yes you are correct in all your observations of the scout setup on the Mauser except I did not have to file a recess or touch the rear sight island in anyway other than to drill and tap one hole for a mounting screw. The base worked out exactly level from the receiver to the rear shoulder on the rear sight island. I always epoxy glue scope bases and screws on any rifle and the epoxy took up the small concave gap under the Weaver base in this case. The set up has never moved and with the light Mauser the recoil is pretty stout from the 404 although the little Leupold 2x is very light and made for recoil.

The scout is a compromise that works well as I did not want to alter the bolt handle or fit those ridiculously high rings that are required for many scope mounts on original unaltered Mausers. Better shot of the set up below.

Thanks to all. I am going to go with the plain aluminum Weaver bases. The strength factor never entered my mind as I have seen lots of plain old Weaver bases and rings on lots of big guns.

For repeatability Leupold only advertises 1/2 MOA as their return. This is a hunting rifle and that would be great with 1 MOA not being too bad; I wasn't referring to target range repeatability.

As far as repeatability goes in my case, I don't make a habit of removing the scope just to remove it. The breakage and spare scenario is one in mind as is removing the scope in the field in heavy cover where the irons would be more helpful. A good friend, who has moved from here to Wyoming, had a lot of experience in Africa; he went to Rhodesia as a mercenary under Ian Smith and did a lot of game hunting as well.

He told me his technique in heavy cover: Both eyes open and if the game is too close or cover too thick to see the game in the scope but you can see it with the unscoped eye take the shot. His reasoning was that both eyes look in the same spot and even though you can't see through the scope, you still look through it as if you can and concentrate on the other eye's vision. I have practiced this on the target range and it does show potential. I am not 100% comfortable with that method, but that could change with more practice. The few times I did it I shot within 3-4 inches of point of aim @ 25 yards offhand.