Working loads in my 458 B&M I had a Leupold QRW ring failure, it was the front ring that was mounted to a Leupold 3-9 scope.

I'am getting ready for a up coming bear hunt and needed to work up a load for some 250gr. CEB's. Not having any H-4198 that Michael has data for, but a good supply of IMR-4198 I loaded 6 rounds with 70gr. to get the scope dialed in. It only took 3 rounds to get centered on target, with the next 3 a nice 1" group. Now I could start adding a grain at a time to find a load. After two more shots bullets started landing all over the target. Checking the ring levers the front one was loose so I snugged it up, fired 2 more shots they are all over the target, checked levers again front was loose, called it a day for the 458 B&M.

Getting it on the work bench taking the scope off I was shocked when the lever and screw came off in pieces. I'am not a mechanical engineer but, could have come up with a better design.




Threads stripped out

Where is the square tab recoil shoulder from the underside of the QRW ring?
I am on the iPhone mobile and need to get a better look at this concerning issue when I get home.

That's the reason I like the PRWs. Lots of rings these days are made of crap and non heat treated screws. What's the deal with the stepped threads? I will have to take the QRWs I have apart to see what is going on there.

Warne and Talley QD rings and bases.

Larry Sellers
SCI(International)Life Member
Sabatti 'trash' Double Shooter
R8 Blaser
DRSS

Were these steel or aluminum? Have you solicited feedback from Leupold?

Coyote....

Has to be a flaw in that ring of some sort.........

I run nothing but QRWs here and have for many years, and 100s of 1000s of big bore rounds down range with them and only one time did I have a ring bust up..... This was using a Single Ring on a Aimpoint on a 470 Capstick, the Aimpoint was too heavy for only one ring and single point. I have never busted another one. I Have broken a few myself, by turning the lever too much... with a screw driver, not my thumb...

How was that IMR 4198 doing with the 250s?????

Eleeton... Steel....

That's a good reason to use Talleys.

You really need to contact Leupold. Aluminum rings, if that is the case, have no business on a large bore rifle - I've seen them fail before. I have QRW or QR Leupolds on all my large bore rifles and have never had an issue. If they are mounted correctly - I do it myself - there is no reason for a failure. However, any mechanical device made by a man can fail.

On the regular 'puter now, I can see that all the ring parts are there on the failed QRW ring.

Here is a little better picture for seeing the parts, not busted:



I can only say there must have been a materials defect in the ring that failed,
such as poor quality steel screw or not properly heat treated, assuming not simply over-torqued to strip the screw.

I have never had a problem with scores of rifles using QRW rings, including 12Ga From Hell and lesser recoilers.

I have destroyed two sets of Talley rings that broke similarly to the catastrophes someone else has documented here on at least three different sets of Talley rings:











There is nothing needed stronger than the CZ standard ring on integral base, with main clamping screw that can be torqued to 65 inch pounds as recommended by CZ.
You can even use the levers off of QRW rings to add on to the CZ with a replacement hexhead bolt,
or just use the hexhead bolt without the silly lever,
and carry the hex wrench in your pocket.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
That's a good reason to use Talleys.

The Talleys are a flawed design. Look at the large recesses for the ring clamp screw heads below in the photos RIP has posted. Much of the strength of the fixed dovetail has been compromised by these large recesses and the photo shows exactly what can happen. Have seen other examples like this posted elsewhere.

coyote wacker's busted ring seems to have the small diameter thread broken off short when compared to the part posted in the photo by RIP? Maybe the small diameter threaded shank has worked loose. I assume it should be tight and fixed in the ring base? I would use loctite to stop it loosening and fretting the thread in the alloy base.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Coyote....

Has to be a flaw in that ring of some sort.........

I run nothing but QRWs here and have for many years, and 100s of 1000s of big bore rounds down range with them and only one time did I have a ring bust up..... This was using a Single Ring on a Aimpoint on a 470 Capstick, the Aimpoint was too heavy for only one ring and single point. I have never busted another one. I Have broken a few myself, by turning the lever too much... with a screw driver, not my thumb...

How was that IMR 4198 doing with the 250s?????

Eleeton... Steel....

Michael...100's of 1000's of rounds you are modest...IMR-4198 I'am just starting to work with it...no numbers yet forgot the tri-pod for the chronograph last trip to the range...

RIP...looking at the picture of your rings Leupold has changed there design...they put a larger cut in the silver lug piece leaving more metal to thread into and making the threads longer...is that a set screw on the opposite side...none of mine have that

eagle27...the small diameter threaded part is not broken off...RIP's is a design change for the better...my guess double the threaded length

What type scope? A large bell optical on that thumper might be tough to handle -- inertial thing. That's why my Rigby has 1.7x5 Leupold in Talley's.

quote:

Originally posted by coyote wacker:


Michael...100's of 1000's of rounds you are modest...IMR-4198 I'am just starting to work with it...no numbers yet forgot the tri-pod for the chronograph last trip to the range...

Coyote..........

Humble to say the least........

FORGOT THE CHRONO??????

Let me know when you get something..... Please.....

Speaking of Chronographs...... I have been keeping up with the "LabRadar" folks, and latest news is "THIS FALL".... Suffering some setbacks, not so much in equipment issues, but one of the MAIN GUYS has been very ill the past few months, and this has set them back some on delivery dates..... Man, I have to say, I am having great visions of not shooting through screens, lining things up and blah blah blah.......... Have already told them I will test the first one and if all goes well I will have a second one on the range as well.................. This thing could be a real leap in Chronograph TECH.......... Waiting............

OK OK... Back to the RINGS............ Sorry...............
M

Made a call to Leupold today talked to a young man named Michael...he was very surprised at the type of failure I experienced...it was the first time he had heard of that happening...he told me to sent it back and it would be replaced...I asked him if I could send back all the rings that were made the same as the one that failed he was sorry he couldn't do that unless they were broken also

During our conversation Michael instructed me on the proper placement of the levers

Install levers on the right hand side of the scope
Leave levers in the up position or forward

The reason is under recoil it will tighten the levers

I love Leupold scopes, but Rube Goldberg could have come up with a better scope mounting system than the QRWs.

Talley is the only system for me.

quote:

Originally posted by coyote wacker:

RIP...looking at the picture of your rings Leupold has changed there design...they put a larger cut in the silver lug piece leaving more metal to thread into and making the threads longer...is that a set screw on the opposite side...none of mine have that

eagle27...the small diameter threaded part is not broken off...RIP's is a design change for the better...my guess double the threaded length

Ah so!
Now we know.
There have been 3 generations of QRW rings ... at least.
I never noticed before.

Yes, the latest version has a locking screw, or set screw, on the side opposite the lever, that locks the recoil tab in place.

Your rings were an older version.

The first QRW rings had a round bolt on the underside of the ring that rested in the square cross slot of the base.
Banned member 500grains used to complain about those first QRW rings smashing the QRW bases like "dog turds" underfoot, and he was right!

I have some of both second generation and third (latest) generation QRW rings.
All my old first generation, dog turd, QRW rings have been discarded to a parts bin for cannibalizing screws and levers.

I have learned something here.

Whether second or third generation rings, I will Loc-Tite the screw(s) where they lock the recoil tab in place.
Heck, I might just J B Weld them instead. No worries then.
That will be better than any Talley dog turd.

Yes, any QD lever that tightens clockwise should point upward if it is on the right side of the rifle,
as viewed from the right side of the rifle.

That will use recoil to inertially keep levers tight.

Of course it is fine to put the same levers on the left side of the rifle, but then they must point downward, as viewed from the left side, to inertially tighten with recoil.

The closest position to neutral is to point the levers parallel to bore axis either forward or rearward pointing,
but this is impossible to do precisely to the infinitesimal.

After I got rid of the first generation QRW dog turds, I have never had a problem with the later two versions.
Just keep everything tight.
I try to check all screws after about twenty shots, any screws that are not Loc-tited or JB Welded.

Talley Turds.
Yep, I am stuck with some of those on a few rifles, but no more if I can help it.

Leupold QRW anytime over Talley.

Besides the flaw pointed out by eagle27,
any vertically split ring cannot be as strong as a horizontally split ring:

Leupold QRW
Ruger
CZ

Those are best.
Standard CZ is best of best for strength.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Ah so! . . . .

I have learned something here.

I doubt it.

Although I understand there is a first time for everything.

Grasshopper.

There are different versions of the Talley rings too.
I do not care enough about those to learn more.
Maybe someday Talley will be as good as Leupold QRW,
but that would take some really radical design changes ...

Another Talley fail:

quote:

Install levers on the right hand side of the scope
Leave levers in the up position or forward

The reason is under recoil it will tighten the levers

That's interesting..... Of course I always put mine on the LEFT SIDE........HEH.....

They will work loose if only thumb tightened, at least my thumbs... Which are not all that strong anymore.....
To solve this I take one of my bit screwdrivers (without a Bit of course), insert the lever into the end, and give
the lever about 1/10 inch turn further than my thumb can tighten! Just enough to lock it in...... Never go much further than that, you WILL BREAK IT if you do! I know this, as I have broken a few!!!!!!!! But doing so, I have never once had one loosen up..........

I believe this ring of Coyote's had some flaw in it....... Anything and everything can fail, hell that's its destiny, its our job to do our best to sort these failures out on the range, before going to the field....... Our hopes are this reduces the amount of failures we have in the field, it won't eliminate all failures, but it does in fact reduce the amount of failures!!!!!!!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by coyote wacker:

eagle27...the small diameter threaded part is not broken off...RIP's is a design change for the better...my guess double the threaded length

I have never had anything to do with any of the lever release scope rings so perhaps in this case you could explain how the adjustment works for positioning the levers?

I'm presuming the screw is adjusted in or out slightly on the small diameter threaded part so when the lever on the larger diameter screw is actuated it cams the movable dovetail tight against the base?
If this is the case it means the small threaded part of the screw is never tightened fully home and should also not be loctited in place otherwise you would lose the positioning adjustment for the levers?

It is pretty standard practice in mechanics or engineering to screw a threaded stud fully home and tight before apply any pressure from a nut screwed on the other end of the stud e.g. engine exhaust manifold or head studs. To do it different is just asking for stripped out threads.

Probably got it all wrong, perhaps I can learn something about these rings?

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:


That's interesting..... Of course I always put mine on the LEFT SIDE........HEH.....

They will work loose if only thumb tightened, at least my thumbs... Which are not all that strong anymore.....
To solve this I take one of my bit screwdrivers (without a Bit of course), insert the lever into the end, and give
the lever about 1/10 inch turn further than my thumb can tighten! Just enough to lock it in...... Never go much further than that, you WILL BREAK IT if you do! I know this, as I have broken a few!!!!!!!! But doing so, I have never once had one loosen up..........


Michael

Michael with all due respect and recognising we do lose strength with age or injury and don't I know it, what is gained with having lever QR rings if needing to use some other form of leverage to tighten them on the bases.

A screw type QR ring can quickly be tightened or released with a knife blade or coin and the slotted head tightened to the same position each time as you would with levers?

I've never really seen the point or felt the need to have lever release rings and particularly in some of the thick bush I've hunted in they would be sure to be another thing to get hooked up with.

Maybe I've been missing out on something for years

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

quote:

Originally posted by coyote wacker:

eagle27...the small diameter threaded part is not broken off...RIP's is a design change for the better...my guess double the threaded length

I have never had anything to do with any of the lever release scope rings so perhaps in this case you could explain how the adjustment works for positioning the levers?

I'm presuming the screw is adjusted in or out slightly on the small diameter threaded part so when the lever on the larger diameter screw is actuated it cams the movable dovetail tight against the base?
If this is the case it means the small threaded part of the screw is never tightened fully home and should also not be loctited in place otherwise you would lose the positioning adjustment for the levers?

eagle27...the small part of the thread locks the recoil lug in place...it is use as a stud rotating a nut inside the lever tights the base

I'am going to J-B Weld the lug and small threaded portion to the base

quote:

Michael with all due respect and recognising we do lose strength with age or injury and don't I know it, what is gained with having lever QR rings if needing to use some other form of leverage to tighten them on the bases.

Eagle.... One of the main reasons here using the QRW system is that at any one time I may have 50 big bore rifles set up with QRW Bases, and 15 or so suitable rifle scopes for big bores. Instead of having to start from ZERO setting up a scope on a test rifle, all I have to do is put it on the rifle, tighten up the levers couple of shots to sight in and go to work, loosing no time moving rings back and forth to fit this or that..... For instance, all the standard B&M rifles are Win WSM actions, all bases the same, remove one scope from one rifle, put direct on the other without adjustment of rings, and very little adjustment needed when sighting in...

In the field, same thing, levers are not so tight you cannot get them loose. Spare scope set up for that rifle is very easy to put on the rifle should you break the scope somehow. Recently I had a fellow set up with a spare in this manner. He fell, scope hit a big rock, and broke half way off the rifle. Quick trip back to camp, put his spare on, and continued his hunt with the loss of about an hour...... Good money spent when on a very expensive hunt, where one day lost would equal a couple of scopes, or more.....

The small amount that I tighten up beyond thumb strength is just enough to keep them from loosening up during recoil......

M

quote:

Originally posted by eagle27:

I have never had anything to do with any of the lever release scope rings so perhaps in this case you could explain how the adjustment works for positioning the levers?

I'm presuming the screw is adjusted in or out slightly on the small diameter threaded part so when the lever on the larger diameter screw is actuated it cams the movable dovetail tight against the base?
If this is the case it means the small threaded part of the screw is never tightened fully home and should also not be loctited in place otherwise you would lose the positioning adjustment for the levers?

It is pretty standard practice in mechanics or engineering to screw a threaded stud fully home and tight before apply any pressure from a nut screwed on the other end of the stud e.g. engine exhaust manifold or head studs. To do it different is just asking for stripped out threads.

Probably got it all wrong, perhaps I can learn something about these rings?

eagle27,
Since you have never used these QRW rings, your confusion is understandable.
It is not intuitive from looking at the first picture i posted above.
Here is another picture with the lever parts assembled and disassembled:



You see that the underside of the lever is a 12-pointed socket that fits over a six-sided/six-pointed hex-nut.
There is also a second spring inside the socket that is threaded over the main clamping screw/bolt that goes through the lever.
You pull/retract the lever out from the ring and then rotate it and let it down again over the nut.
This allows 12 positions around the clock to set the lever angle.
You can do this after the lever is fully tightened down to lock the ring in place.

You MUST have the main clamping bolt's smaller diameter portion of threads tightened securely down at all times that the ring is in use on the rifle.
The larger diameter portion of the threads merely function in tightening the hex-nut down.
It is the hex-nut that clamps the floating mounting bracket (with that other spring under it) to the side of the scope base.
The QD lever is merely a socket wrench that tightens the nut.

The socket of the lever is then free to be adjusted to position without any loosening or tightening of the clamping of the ring to the base.
The spring inside the socket keeps it lightly snug, not floppy, and allows retraction and spring return of the lever to "battery."

Get a set of QRW rings and give it a twirl and it will be obvious:

Indeed it would be ideal to Loc-Tite or epoxy the main clamping screw smaller diameter threads in place,
fully tight, for best strength.
Same goes for the set screw on the other side of the ring that locks the recoil tab from that side also.

I do not overtighten the levers.
Thumb tight only.
I always place them so recoil keeps them tight or tightens them more.
Then I might have to have a piece of aluminum arrow shaft (the Ray Atkinson tip) to use like Doc M uses his socket-screwdriver handle,
to get them off!
They get tighter than my finger tightening,
but will not strip themselves from recoil.

I prefer the levers on the left side of the rifle pointing down, one forward and one rearward,
so there is no way they can interfere with the right hand operating the bolt,
or encroach anywhere near the ejection and loading port on a righthand rifle.
Opposite would apply to a lefthand rifle.
That is the only case I know of that a leftie rifle might be more aesthetically pleasing AND properly functional.


I bet I can find a picture to illustrate proper lever positioning ...

Proper left-side lever positioning to make finger tightening even tighter with recoil, the levers can be pointed forward or rearward as long as they point down:



Above are the 2nd generation QRW rings like coyote wacker whacked.
Never a problem for me so far.

With Talley rings, you do have to loosen the main clamping bolt to reposition the levers, and you only have eight positions around the clock to position the levers:
Octa-nut



A set of 30 mm Talley rings I have not broken yet, levers in position for recoil-tightening instead of recoil-loosening:



Some obsolete Warne Low rings for CZ with levers on right side of rifle, for recoil tightening, they don't make them anymore.
Levers pointed up, that was the only way these Warnes mounted on the CZ, levers had to be on right side:



I left that scope and rings with the Appy PH in Tanzania, 2010, a young black man named Augustine, working with Saeed and Alan's outfit.
It quickly got installed on his .458 WinMag CZ.

Those rings are so low that they will only work with an ocular bell as small as that of the Leupold 2.5X,
to allow the bolt to be worked!
But that is a sweet setup with that scope.

RIP
Thank you for taking the time to explain the workings of the lever rings (with photos too), very much appreciated and I have learned from this.

I must admit I have occasionally thought about putting a set of these rings on my 404, not that I need them as my low Weaver QR rings have served me well, but it seems to be an accepted practice on DG guns where the open sights might need to be used. Problem is I would not know which ones to get now when I see some of the failures of these sorts of rings.

I just received two new sets of QRW's from Midway... They have the longer small threaded screw like RIP's but don't have the set screw into the recoil lug...