Now that the Talley discussion is complete, I would like to talk about Leupold Mounts.

I have stayed away from them for years because in my experience they were made out of pressed powder and very weak.
I have heard yes and no that they are now made out of steel, is this true?
Also, what do you think about their QR system where the ring is sucked down onto the base?

I would post on the Optics forum, but they tend to be very huffy and I liked the responses I got on this forum from the Talley thread.

-Spencer

I have had the Leupold QR mounts on my M-70 .375H&H since 1997, through hundreds of rounds fired, three safaris, and numerous flights.

I have no complaints whatsoever as to their strength or RTZ capability; they are inelegant, though.

George
P.S. If you think the Optics forum guys are huffy, you're going to LOVE this crowd.

I had a set of Leupold QRW on a .458 and the bases mooshed under recoil - too soft.

I broke the little lever off a set of Leupold QR. The levers are flimsy in my opinion.

I have used the Leupold Dual Dove tail mounts a great deal and since they were introduced.

I have had them on very accurate larger calibres and found them to be excellent.

The QR ones you are referring to I assue are the ones with the peg on the bottom ring and the lever cams them down.

I had a set on a 60 Wby not long after they were introduced. This 460 with a bag of lead shot behind it would regularly shoot 3 shot groups of 1/2" to 1" with 115 grains of IMR 4350 and 500 grain Hornady. This was one of the earlier models that had the Pendleton Dekicker which were next to useless at reducing recoil.

The rifle maintained its full accuracy. On those ery big rifles I glue the scope to the rings and at same time achieve a stress free situation as if they were bedded.

If the scope was detached and put back on the first shot was usually about 3 inches high altough windage was OK. A couple more shots and tightening the lever and everything would settle and it was usually around inch change in point of impact.

On a switch barrel bench gun with both 358 STA and 375 H&H barrels that were .72" at the muzzle the accuracy was comparable to when Dual Dovetals were used.

Removing and replacing the scope produced similar results to the 460 but on a smaller scale, about half. In other words the point of impact was about 1.5 to 2" high for the first shot and then after a couple of shots and tightening the levers the point of impact was witin about 3/4"

I did not try them on any smaller calibres.

I thought Leupold mounts were investment cast.

I think the problem with the QRW bases being "soft as dog turds" is a bit of exaggeration due to the OLD QRW Leupold rings that had a round bolt that fit into the cross slot. This was just stupid. For a few years now, the NEW QRW's have had a "square peg in the square cross slot." This prevents the battering of the base caused by the former bad pinging of a "round peg in a square hole."

New and improved is better. If the square recoil shoulder on the bottom of the Leupold ring is set up against the forward face of the square cross slot, and tightened adequately, there will be no squished dog turds.

Broken levers must be from the occasional lemon or use of pliers, as Ray said.

I have used the QRW's on twenty different rifles at least, up to and including the 500 A-Square.

Even Talley could make a faulty lever occasionally.

I'm using the Leupold QR mounts on a .375 Model 70 and a Remington model 700 .300RUM. Both are holding up well. Both hold zero through taking the scope on and off.

On the Model 70, the rear base overhangs the ejection port more than I care for: I'm afraid it might be difficult to reload quickly.

I'm considering swapping to QRW's if the rear base is a little shorter, as my scope tube's plenty long enough to slide the ring back an inch or so.

Steve

I have never had a problem with anything that Leupold made, but I have seen two sets of the QDs that the levers broke on..The inside looked a little crumbly to me, like its was cast or something...I really like the Dual Dovetails on a permenent set up..I use them on my varmint rifles...I have used the Leupold QDs in the past with no problems except I wasn't satisfied with thier return to Zero....

I use Talley QDs today and so far I am more than satisfied...I can only fault them in that the bases are a tad high for use with some iron sights, most makes have that problem...

Have a set of Leupold QRWs on a .375H&H Magnum and on a very light .338WSM. Both have held up to over 100 full loads plus a large number of lighter loads my grandsons shoot. Both have steel Weaver-style bases rather than the aluminum ones. I agree the levers seem flimsy, but so far, no problems.

So I gather that the levers sometimes break, OK.

But are they steel?
That is really what I wanted to know.
Years ago, I received some that had a bastard bluing job so I spent alot of time buffing them out, but when I dropped them in the tanks, they turned nice and red.

Are they different today?

-Spencer

quote:

Originally posted by ShopCartRacing:
So I gather that the levers sometimes break, OK.

But are they steel?
That is really what I wanted to know.
Years ago, I received some that had a bastard bluing job so I spent alot of time buffing them out, but when I dropped them in the tanks, they turned nice and red.

Are they different today?

-Spencer

Yes!!

I have leupold qr's on my last 375 (A-bolt), and my current 375 (model 70), 416 rm and 458 wm. No problems with levers breaking or rtz, same with the qrw's on my 300wsm. On the qr's the bases themselves are machined, but the levers are cast. I think they are good mounts but not quite as aestetically pleasing as talleys.

For the price, I think they are hard to beat. I have them on my .404 & the only complaint is the sharp edges, easily remedied w/ a dremel & some cold blue.