I've been looking at detachable rings to put on a model 70 Safari in 375 H&H. The scope will be a compact scope with a one inch tube. Do you guys think that the Talleys are the way to go?

I looked @ Tally & Warne & went w/ the Leup. QRW on my .404. After more than 250rds, I have no complaints.

I think both are good rings. I have the Leupold on a 416 Taylor and the Talley on a 450 Dakota....both have held up fine. I find the release levers on the Leupold dificult to use because they are small, that said they are much less apt to catch on clothing and brush. I like the looks of the Talley better but they cost more. In terms of customer service, I have had great results from both Dave Talley and the folks at Leuopld. To sum it up...can't go wrong with either!

All my guns have talleys on them except a few with the old Brownell/Kimbers which are about the same as Talleys in every way...Been using them for years now...

Heck, I been using mostly Weaver rings and mounts all my life and still can not find fault with them. Light, inexpensive and they hold the scope. They flat out work.

I agree with everybody above except Ray! Those old Kimbers are not as stout as the others mentioned.

As Snowwolfe says, the old Weaver is as good as any and better than most. They are just ugly and have no snob appeal. They are a bit fussy to install without canting the scope, but that is not much of a drawback. They are easy enough to square up before the silicone adhesive (which I use in all rings) sets up.

My personal favorite, like Fred, is the Leupold QRW, the new ones with the square recoil shoulder on the bottom of the ring, and I bet they are made by Warne, which features the same style stainless recoil lug in the bottom of the ring. Square peg in square hole is a good IQ test. Geniuses use Leupold QRW's.

I'd like to know what you base that on other than your opinnion? Mine were made by Bob Brownell and your the only one that has ever made such a comment on them...Mine have been going strong for about 30 plus years on 416s, 458 Lotts and 404s...that should be grounds to dispute your post...I opine.

Next to hand fitted claw mounts, I think the Leupold proprietary QR system is the sturdiest and has the best repeatability. I have never been a fan of clamp on rings such as Weaver, Warne, Talley, etc.

Talley's are the best-known and they are widely-available, but I'm not sure about them being the "best". Personally, I don't think so.

From a strength and engineering standpoint, Leuopld's QR system is incredibly tough, simple and stronger than Talley's. The fact that the QR rings are split horizontally rather than vertically is a strong point in their favor in and of itself, as is the precise, repeatable, incredibly strong fit of its locking system.

Some of the true custom quick-detachable systems are also better-engineered, better-built, and better finished than Talley's. Tom Burgess' ring and base system is incredible well-designed and finished, and Joseph Smithson's new and very innovative mounting system is one of the best as well. For a custom project, I'd take either one of these systems over Talley's...........

AD

Ray,
The old Kimber bases are just tinier in their bearing surfaces and cannot possibly be as strong as some others. I also just don't like any system that does not lock up with recoil stops in both the forward and rearward directions of bore axis.

As to Leupold QR: This one works by camming metal against metal, and it is going to wear and loosen with any significant use. It will be fine if installed for use in removal for emergency only. I would look at it as a non-QD mount that is QD for emergency. That is fine. I use one set of these on a .416 M70 with a 2.5X Leupold. That scope will probably never come off until it is non-functional.

Leupold New-QRW's are the best.

The horizontal split ring is definitely a plus versus the vertical, IMNSHO.

I have used a variety of rings and mounts over the years, including the Leopold QRW and Talley. I don't know of any cases where either allowed a scope to depart the rifle, excepting cases where the rifle was blown up -- and a lot of stuff departed.

I like balance as a first principle, and balance applied to your need for a let of mounts and rings for your M70 .375 H&H would indicate the QRW or the Talley would suffice.

Thos. Burgess does really wonderful work, and any metal work he has done fetches high prices. The last set of his rings that Allen advertised here on AR was for $500 IIRC. I have examined the Smithson rings at the Custom Gunmakers Guild show, and they looked great (if you are not bothered by the high-speed, low drag angles used).

"The excellent is the enemy of the good."

I had occasion to call Talley on a customer service matter this week, and they solved it on the spot and at no cost to me. Leupold is pretty good on service too. Everybody and his aardvark make rings and mounts for the Model 70,some are not as well supported as others.

I am this week screwing a set of Talley steel bases on a commercial Mauser action, they look great. I expect I would go with Talley on your rifle too.

jim

I agree with ROSCOEs comments.

I just wanted to add; have the screws taken out to 8X40 and base holes sized and countersunk accordingly.
No I do not have personal knowledge of a scope coming off with 6X screw but have read about it and it seems like reasonable advice to me.
I do this in magnums of .30 and up.

Good luck.

Sam

I like to 8x40 the screws on any scope bases too, and also epoxy the base and screws to the receiver.

Actually, the 6x48 screws are fine for anything if the bases and screws are set down with epoxy like JB Weld. They are easily removed with a torch and do not mar the rifle in the process.

Using epoxy on the bases and silicone adhesive in the rings, just about anything will hold up if installed properly, except the Millet crapola.

I am one who has sheared some 6x48 base screws and even some 6x48 ring screws with the likes of 7.5 pound bare-weight .458 Lotts.

I will never use another set of Millet rings or bases on anything other than a .22LR.

Standard Ruger rings and factory CZ rings are about as stout as it gets on their integral bases.

Leupold New-QRW and Talley have been my favorites for something like an M70 or M98.

A picatinny rail and four Badger or Weaver rings is hard to beat on the right type of action, but ugly as sin, and no snob appeal.

Remember the other part of the "shearing off" problem is scope size. If you keep the scope size small, less weight, you lessen the chance of the scope leaving the rifle @ the wrong time. A rifle of .376 & up really doesn't need much more glass than 5x or 6x IMO.

Good point Fred. A reason to snag those 2.5X Leupolds whenever you can.

The Talley design is not a very good one in my observation. The ring is split at the top in a sloppy way and water and crud will pile in there.

The Talley bases are too high and irons cannot be seen in some installations.

It's been stated that Talleys are the best known??? I would say that they are the least known. I have two rifles using Talley mounts. As soon as I can get Weaver style bases for those guns the Talleys are history.

Look at the gap between the rings! Maynard Beuhler made spacers to fill that gap on his rings.

My 425 Express has Talley's and 2 other guides at the lodge we hunt for. 5 years and taken on and off often and it's never needed to be adjusted. This is a working rifle not an armchair or once in a while type thing.

Taking everyone's advice, and getting some information from Leupold, I have decided to go with the Leupold QRW system. It looks like a good strong low profile system, and I will be using a Leupold scope, so I know that the rings and the optics will fit just fine. I don't remember if I mentioned this, but the scope will be a nice VXIII 1.75-6x32mm. Thanks for all of the valuable input.

quote:

Originally posted by TomFromTheShade:
Taking everyone's advice, and getting some information from Leupold, I have decided to go with the Leupold QRW system. It looks like a good strong low profile system, and I will be using a Leupold scope, so I know that the rings and the optics will fit just fine. I don't remember if I mentioned this, but the scope will be a nice VXIII 1.75-6x32mm. Thanks for all of the valuable input.

Great pick.
Leupold NEW-QRW and any Leupold scope you like.
I like them better than Talley.

The only reason to hold out for a Talley would be the Talley Peep, if it will work with your setup.

NECG makes a peep that goes on the Leupold QRW for a backup iron sight.

This may not be as chic as a Talley, but thanks to everybody for confirming my feelings that Leupold QRW is better than Talley.

I will use Leupold QRW's here at RIP Ams and DOA ammo.

The smallest .375 Weatherby group I ever shot used Leupold NEW-QRW's on an M70 Classic Stainless: I 8x40-ed the base screws AND epoxied the bases to the rifle with JB Weld. It will release easily with a torch.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Leupold NEW-QRW and any Leupold scope you like.
I like them better than Talley.

What is the distinction on the "New" QRW's? I bought a set of Leupold QRW rings last year. How do I determine if they are "New" or old?

Charles,
When Leupold first came out with these they were inferior in having a round cross-section crossbolt under the bottom half of the ring ... this was what mated with the square/flat-sided cross-slot in the QRW base: BAD!

Now they have a stainless steel recoil shoulder with flat sides that mate with the flat sides of the cross-slot: GOOD!

No more "mashed like a dog turd" QRW bases.

You likely got the good ones as the "OLD" ones are long gone for several years, unless some old inventory is gathering dust and gets passed along to the unsuspecting.

The NEW-QRW rings look like Warnes on the bottom, and may well be made by Warne, but the horizontal split rather than the vertical split is superior.

Keeping the rings tight on the scope is completely separated from keeping the rings tight on the bases. Always a good thing for a QD system.

Also the low and sleek profile of the QRW bases is the best there is for beauty and function with the scope off and switched to iron sights. Unobtrusive. And they are as good as integral when properly screwed and glued.

Just looking at a rifle so adorned makes me want to grab it and go huntin'.

RIP --

Thanks for the information. Low profile + iron sights = good.

A good choice. Sometimes I think guys buy this or that brand because it cost more & "everyone" uses it. I looked @ Warne, Talley & Leop. for my .404jeff. & went Leup. I haven't regretted it. The only thing you might want to do is take a stone or sandpaper wrapped dowel & smooth the rather sharp edges on the levers, you can nick your knuckels when reaching for the rifle & helps reduce snagging abit. The VXIII 1.75x6 is also my choice for the .375h&h. My .404 has a 1.5x5.

Fred,

What reticle do you have in your 1.75-6x???

Did you go with the regular duplex or the heavy duplex???

Tom, I don't really care for the hevy. dup. so all of my VXIIIs have std. dup. The heavy jsut gets a wee bit thick on shots for smaller game out past 200. There may be some merit for the DGR out to 100, but for general hunting I would stay w/ the std. dup.

Savage 99,
Install them correctly and you won't have that problem...back of the bottom screws a tad and they will close at the top....

Hell RIP if 30 years of hard hunting use won't satisfy you, then nothing will...I will take proof over observation any day, how many have you used, c'mon be honest with me.

The only problem I have had with Weaver is aluminum for one, and thats been solved and the rings on one side will tend to turn cross hairs in time or with rough use, and now you can get Weaver rings that screw on both sides so that should solve that problem...

I had a guy come over and he had broke an ear of his Leupolds QDs with his bare hands, I know this guy and he wouldn't lie about it I don't think and it could have been defective as casting does that from time to time...

No body makes a really proper mount IMO, one that works, projectionless, low enough bases that any iron sight will show clearly...Perhaps Griffen and Howes side mount is the closest or the old claw mounts and at a price of $400 and up...but the old Brownells come closest to that in a conventional top mounted system as they are thin, but they are hardened and don't break, at least I have not broken any and never heard of anyone that has.

Now, only if Burris would start making their Premier Rings (with the inserts) in detachable.
those things are great. They hold great, and no ring marks.

Ray,
The sharp edges on those skimpy little bases that you like are just too rough on my soft hands when I grab and go. You must be one of those "horny handed sons of toil" like Ol' Elmer.

BTW, what is an "ear" on a "Leupolds QDs" that is so fragile?

Whatever the heck that is, I suppose that quality control goes awry occasionally on any of the mounts under discussion.

Do you refer to a QR or QRW?

You can scrap the QR's but give me a QRW anytime.