My gunsmith told me that quick detatch rings will cause an accuracy loss because they move. Is that true or is it an old wives tale?
Thanks.

Get a new gunsmith.

Although I think my QD rings are ugly, they have not caused any issues with accuracy or POI changing, at all. If installed properly, they do not move. I believe mine are Leupold.

I use Talley Q.D. rings on very heavy recoiling double rifles and have not had any trouble with accuracy. When mounting them on the top rib, you do need to incorporate a recoil lug in front of the front ring though, so the whole assembly doesn't slide off the rib.

Some QD mounts are a rat trap and require attention off and on to keep them working correctly. Most of the German claw mounts and rings like the EAW systems or any system that uses cams to tighten them that pass through my shop are usually so loose when they come in that I can feel play in them from being neglected over the years. Newer styles with leavers like the Kimber and Warren style rings are just a Weaver style ring with a leaver to tighten them instead of a thumb screw. For all intent and purpose those new style QD rings are as bullet proof as any non quick detachable ring. The only complaint I have ever heard is that on some, the leaver can dig into your back when packing it around and they have a nasty habit of snagging on clothing. I have a couple customers that work as PHs and they swear that they would never again use them for that very reason. But they are sort of odd ducks anyway and I think they sort of over play everything just a bit to sound better for the tourist crowd.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Get a new gunsmith.

The cross slot type mounts are used on accuracy rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:
Some QD mounts are a rat trap and require attention off and on to keep them working correctly. Most of the German claw mounts and rings like the EAW systems or any system that uses cams to tighten them that pass through my shop are usually so loose when they come in that I can feel play in them from being neglected over the years. Newer styles with leavers like the Kimber and Warren style rings are just a Weaver style ring with a leaver to tighten them instead of a thumb screw. For all intent and purpose those new style QD rings are as bullet proof as any non quick detachable ring. The only complaint I have ever heard is that on some, the leaver can dig into your back when packing it around and they have a nasty habit of snagging on clothing. I have a couple customers that work as PHs and they swear that they would never again use them for that very reason. But they are sort of odd ducks anyway and I think they sort of over play everything just a bit to sound better for the tourist crowd.

I've never really understood the need for levers on QD rings, as I imagine nobody is going to remove their scope while facing a charge. If a scope needs removing in the field it is just as easy and simple to remove one with QD rings having the knurled and slotted thumb screw. A flick of a knife blade will loosen a thumb screw if it is tighter than can be loosened with the thumb and finger.

I would have thought that most would mount their QD scope rings with the levers or thumb screws on the same side as the bolt handle, right hand side. Most including lefties such as I carry our rifles on the sling on our right shoulder so the bolt handle does not dig in.

I would expect that levers do present a catch point if hunting in bush or possibly if the gun is held across the chest when wearing loose clothing.

The scope on my Mauser 404 is in Weaver rings with thumb screws (on the right hand side of the action) which by chance actually index their slots the same when tightened firmly with a small coin. The detach/reattach feature of these QD rings is very repeatable and does not shift the POI noticeably.

I don't feel naked without levers and never have but I guess they might look the part to some.

Get a new gunsmith; all my rifles have detach rings, with levers too. Without issues. Both Weaver type and the old Kimber/ 13mm DT type.
The little levers don't cause any problems; they are too small to do so.

I personally use the Warren QD rings on my own stuff and I have no problems with them. They are one of the heaviest of the QD leaver type. The only beef I have with them is the funky screw size which if memory serves is 6 X 40. It's a very weak screw and I can break them even with my old arthritic mitts. They should have been 6 X 48 or even 8 X 40. But, as long as I keep my super powers in check, they work just fine.

Speerchucker, what was your impression of the old B&L QD 'Custom' mounts?

Waffen-Frankonia advised removing the scope every time you travelled, in 1964, but I notice full-length hard cases nowhere in their catalogue. If you did that often enough I bet claw mounts would wear. They were great for gunsmiths, though. Try putting reticle-movement scopes on straight at home, esp. when the base has to be soldered on. Steel scopes also had to be stripped down to solder on the preferred demi-rings. Full rings were only good enough for .22s, it seemed.

What JTex posted, plus one more...

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Speerchucker, what was your impression of the old B&L QD 'Custom' mounts?

I take it you mean the ones with the 4 big-ole windage dials on them. I haven't seen a set of them in probably 25 years.

quote:

Get a new gunsmith.

plus however many I need to be current.

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:

I take it you mean the ones with the 4 big-ole windage dials on them. I haven't seen a set of them in probably 25 years.

I'm thinking either the plunger or daisywheel mounts, if the latter were also instantly detachable. Numrich still sell some and you see -em on ebay.

Was there another interation? Did you you like them in their time?

quote:

Originally posted by speerchucker30x378:

I take it you mean the ones with the 4 big-ole windage dials on them. I haven't seen a set of them in probably 25 years.

I'm thinking either the plunger or daisywheel mounts, if the latter were also instantly detachable. Numrich still sell some and you see them on ebay.

Was the one you mention another interation? Did you you like them in their time?

Since decades, I've been using take off mounts that were 100% reliable. Still, I've restricted my choice to :


Sühler claw mounts. Here you need a real experienced and skilled craftsman to hand fit and solder them on (+ expect a rebluing job). This being said, they are the most solid and reliable mounts I know of. The only reproach is their very high cost.


Blazer saddle mounts are the most ingenious.





2 examples of Ernst Appel Werke (EAW) swing-outs. They've become a classic in terms of reliability but they must be mounted AND remain stress free. In time, one must keep an eye on the little locking lever which must remain about 1 mm (.04") short of bottoming.

I use Talleys and buy all the old Len Brownell Lever QR mounts I can get..I also like the old pachmyer flip overs but most of all I like the true claw mounts for return to zero. The very expensive Griffen and Howe are also excellent..

If you don't mind the cheap Weavers, they work real well if you keep the screw slots in the same position every time you reinstall them..

As to your gunsmiths advise, he is correct up to a point, as most folks just stick the QD on and call it good so accuracy return is about 3 or 4 inches of exact zero, and many never know the difference and some don't mind..

If I use Talleys or Weavers, I always start of with a surface ground action so its square to the bore and the world for that matter, then I hand fit the bases, and tighten the screw with a lot of g's and with 8/40s screw as a rule set in glassbed juice!! to remove them I would have to heat a screw driver red hot let it cool in the slots and twist the screws out..

I set the levers straight up on the off side of the action real hand tight or even with a 4 inch section of arrow shaft for leverage..I do this on big bore DG rifles that I don't want to be off zero...This normally has a 1/2 to 1 inch return to zero zone, and that's fine with me..To claim exact return to zero is being delusional, it don't happen everytime.

If I want a rifle to remain exact zero I would use double dovetail permanent mounts, but I need to have access to iron sights on any DG rifle, and for that matter I like irons on any rifle..I only have one rifle without irons, my new Kimber wood stocked 5.2 oz .308...I will probably correct that with a barrel band front and a shallow V on a ramp in back after my upcoming elk and deer hunt..

I use the Warne QD rings and they seem to hold zero just fine. I put the scope on, run the levers down until they just start to tighten, then I slide the scope forward and tighten them. If you clamp some sand in there or something I'm sure you could have a problem; they work great for me though.

I have Griffin & Howe detachable mounts on 7 rifles, and Warne on 2, and none have lost poa. And I fiddle with them shooting open sight/peep sight back to scope.

Edited to add: On a G & H, they cut the base/side plate to the scope. You may not be able to use another size scope without a new base/side plate or whatever it is called.

It all comes down to acceptible accuracy.

Do you ever see QD's on a BR rifle?

Are they good enough for 99% of hunting out there?? Yep