Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
one of us |
Hello Have any of you had or have any experinence with the Leupold QRW rings that are quick detachable utilizing the weaver bases. Do they hold point of impact? Thank you Mark | ||
|
Moderator |
They hold POI just fine; the ones I had weren't all that great in the RTZ aspect (on my rifle, anyway), though. George | |||
|
one of us |
My CZ 550 Safari Mag in .416 Rigby has a steel rail with weaver slots milled into it installed across the bridges of the receiver. The rail has recoil lugs on it to make sure it moves with the rifle. I use Leupold QRW rings with it. Have a 2.5 Leupold Compact and a 1.5-5 Vari-XIII that have been used on the rifle. Have not had a scope move and the two scopes can be interchanged with very little change on impact point. I like the rings! | |||
|
One of Us |
I used the Leupold QRW system on a 458 and the bases were not sturdy enough - they mooshed. Maybe they are better these days. The QR's (not QRW) worked fine though. | |||
|
one of us |
The QRW rings have been upgraded and work fine on my 416 Rem Mag. They have added a hardened steel tab within the last three years that fits tight in the slot and won't MOOSH. You want to use the steel bases with these. The Leupold steel bases are good if they make them for your rifle. Several other manufacturers make steel Weaver bases, if the Leupold bases are not available in steel for your rifle. (But I think the QRW bases are all steel now.) Mine returns to zero within 0.5 MOA or better, but I bedded the mounts and lapped the rings. Don | |||
|
Moderator |
I concur with Don. I had a set of QRW's that "mooshed" the bases on both my 375 H&H and my 416 Taylor. The were the old style that had the round cross bolt. Leupold replaced them with the new style with the square cross bolt and they have been great since! I have to take part of the blame for the original "mooshing" as well, however. I was using cheap aluminum bases instead of steel. The steel ones were not available, I was in a rush to get shooting, and I was too cheap. Although it is not recommended, even with the cheap non-steel Weaver bases, the QRW's have been working well on both rifles. No "mooshing" and RTZ has been pretty good. Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
one of us |
Who is that handsome cuss anyway. Oh, yeah, it's the chicken fancier! | |||
|
one of us |
The thing I don't like about them compared to Talley's or the Warne's, is the way the top of the ring is shaped. It makes a "C" shape that covers more than 50% of the radius, It's very hard to the ring on the scope without maring the finish of the scope. I don't have this problem with other rings. Terry | |||
|
one of us |
You might want to try Leupold Q D rings & bases. They work great, repeat well and the lever is on the BASES, not the rings. | |||
|
one of us |
To clarify , Allen , which rings did you have the good luck with ? The QR (weavers) , or the QR with the levers on the base ? | |||
|
<allen day> |
I had good luck with the QRs - the version with levers on the base. The only trouble I ever hear of with these is if someone tries to over-tighten them by pounding on the levers. According to Leupold, and my experience bears this out, once the ring studs are seated, move the levers ahead (by hand) until they stop. Don't tap them with a screwdriver handle or anything else. Because of the design, recoil will keep them perfectly snug. Really strong and precise system, and at least with my rifle, repeatable to within a half-inch every time. AD | ||
one of us |
Allen, I have a question about the QR's: When the scope is off how do the levers behave? Do they lay in place or flop around? That is my biggest concern. I'd hate for them to be loose and floppy when using Iron Sights. Thanks, Mike | |||
|
one of us |
The levers are loose but they do not flop around. They are snug enough to stay in place and short enough not to cause any problems. Joe | |||
|
Moderator |
I prefer my chicken at KFC, but I must endure. For every chicken on display I figure I deserve at least one more big-game head on the wall! Canuck | |||
|
one of us |
I didn't mention before that I've also used the QD rings on a .338 WM and a .375 H&H. I like them very much. The reason that I didn't use them on the .416 is that it was already set up with this steel Weaver slotted rail. The QRWs I used with it are the newer type with the square rods that fit very tightly. I gather from the above posts that if one can use the QDs that may be preferable. If one cannot, it is important that the rail be steel and that one use the newer QRW rings with the square rod ... else recoil will wallow out the rail groove into which the rod fits. Now makes sense to me. (I'm a difficult teach.) Thanks, | |||
|
one of us |
I have both versions of Leupold on various rifles. I prefer the QR (over the QRW), but, the QR bases are a bit higher in profile and nearly (not quite) interfere with the rear sight. | |||
|
one of us |
Matt, Why do you prefer the QD? Not trying to start an arguement, just trying to learn. Don | |||
|
One of Us |
I like the QR's (not QRW) because they seem to be sturdier, at least in my experience. | |||
|
<Timberghost> |
I have 1" QRW's on a model 70 .375H&H, .458 Win, and a Remington .450 Ackley. I have 2 scopes per gun with the QRW's so I am sighted to different bullet weights. All scopes have always returned to POI. All rings are the newer type with the square block. I just purchased a MeOpta 1.5x6 30mm tube for the .450 ackley. I will report how the 30mm QRW rings work with this heavy steel scope on a pretty good kicker. I am sure that it will work as good as the others have though. Ghost | ||
one of us |
Gentlemen Thank you all for your input!! Mark | |||
|
one of us |
Thanks to those that replied about the floppy levers. I really hate finding out these tings the hard way. I'll have to pick up a set soon. | |||
|
one of us |
Don G, As mentioned by other folks here, the QR's seem stouter. I once spent a long range session with a scope I hadn't locked down on one ring and it still held as tight a groups as ever. I've mounted/removed scopes 10 times at the range, and not had any detectable shift in POI at 100 yards. The QR levers seem less obtrusive and do not require several turns to tighten up. I have both mounts (I used steel bases on the QRW's) and would not want to live off the difference between the two. However, as I mentioned, the bases of the QR's are higher. On a .375 that I have with it's comb configuration, the bases block the view of all but the top third of the rear sight. While it's true that only the top third of the rear sight counts anyway, I would prefer the lower profile of the QRW's where the sights are there for a reason. | |||
|
one of us |
I use Warne... but when I was putting my DGR together, I was told there are times when you will need to take off the scope and use the express sights. Sounded good?....talked me into parting with 80 bucks for rings.... | |||
|
one of us |
Matt, I've never had the QR's so I can't compare directly. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!", so I'm not trying to change your mind. I hear almost universally good reports on the Leupold QR system. I like the QRW because I can see and inspect the mating surfaces, and because I've been using high quality Weaver-style rings for years. The Burris Signature line of rings has the advantage of offset inserts to solve long range or alignment errors. I started using these for 1000 yard competition and really liked them, but they don't come in LOW heights. (They have all steel bases, and are made for most rifles.) When I needed quick removal capability it was just natural to keep using the steel Weaver-style bases. They are more commonly available, and all my scope rings and bases are compatible whether QR or not. So I guess the commonality, availability and cost made the QRWs seem good to me. Until I have a problem I won't change, either! | |||
|
one of us |
Not to belabor this but the Leupold QRW's are much easier to use. They come off and back on much easier than the QR's, which is the whole point to QR rings in the first place. | |||
|
one of us |
This is for those that use a Remington 700 ( yeah, I know --- all 3 of us! ) : For my 700 Police / .308 using a Leupold Vari-X III 4.5-15x40 Tactical Mil-Dot scope with 1" tube, I chose to use steel on steel for the mounting system. A Leupold Mk4 1-pc. base with Weaver Grand Slam medium rings (QD) worked very well. The clearance with the bull bbl. was 'CH' tight. My 700 BDL in .375 Ultra Mag should be arriving in the next couple of days. For this rifle, I chose to use a Mounting Solutions Plus 'B' (full ejection port opening) 1-pc. steel base. I'll be using the same rings for mounting the gloss standard version of the Leupold 4.5-14x40 scope, thus allowing for use of a back up scope for either rifle by changing the location of the front ring to fit either the short or long action. The QD feature is nice to have and works well between these two setups. | |||
|
one of us |
A neat thing about the weaver bases is that you can put a peep sight on the receiver when the scope is off. | |||
|
Moderator |
Quote: Short-action 700 in a long-action stock? Did that involve a lot of work? George | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia