The Accurate Reloading Forums
Is there a QD mount equal to the Talley but not as high?
03 February 2003, 07:52
<JJohnston>Is there a QD mount equal to the Talley but not as high?
I had Talley bases & rings (low) put on a .375, and they're way too high. I can't come remotely close to getting a cheek weld. Does anybody make the equal of the Talley in a quick disconnect that's about 1/4" to 3/8" lower?
03 February 2003, 10:09
DeBeeI'm having a similar problem working out a sighting solution on a FN Mauser .270 with a sporter barrel- I can't seem to get the iron sights high enough to be seen over the Talley bases... What is the point of QD if you cannot see the iron sights?
I may switch to Warne bases and rings which may be just low enough...
Anyone else have a good QD/iron sight solution?
03 February 2003, 10:17
GeorgeSI use Leupold's QR system on my .375, and the Brownell/Kimber system on my .470 Capstick.
Both work well, but the Leupold system is a little quicker when I ro-install the scope.
George
03 February 2003, 11:40
<JJohnston>George, could you take a measurement for me? Something convenient that will tell me how high the scope is on your .375 - like, bottom of scope tube to top of bolt body, bottom of tube to top of receiver ring, or whatever. I believe you said yours are M70, which is what mine is.
03 February 2003, 11:49
D Humbarger& the other reason that I do not use Talley is that the bases footprint is too narrow. I prefer wider footprint of the Leupold or Warne Maxima QR bases. Either is a much superior system than Talleys.
[ 02-04-2003, 02:29: Message edited by: Bear Claw ]03 February 2003, 12:27
RIPDitto Bear Claw. The new and improved Leupold QRW rings have the square recoil shoulder in the cross slot of the base and will work well. The bases are as low and smooth profile as it gets. I like to 8X40 the screws and JB Weld the bases to the Winchester M70 receiver. Almost like an integral base then, for the big boomers. Good as it gets, and as unobtrusive and low as it gets for a QD mount. Return to zero? I don't care. The scope will be a low power one, and if it ever comes off, it will most likely be because the scope gave up the ghost. Then is when the QD feature and the backup sights shine.
[ 02-03-2003, 03:28: Message edited by: DaggaRon ]04 February 2003, 15:49
<JJohnston>BTT
George, would you make that measurement for me, please?
04 February 2003, 16:28
GeorgeSquote:
Originally posted by JJohnston:
George, could you take a measurement for me? Something convenient that will tell me how high the scope is on your .375 - like, bottom of scope tube to top of bolt body, bottom of tube to top of receiver ring, or whatever. I believe you said yours are M70, which is what mine is.
JJ,
As near as I can measure it, there is .694" between the bottom of the scope tube and the top of the bolt; approximately .383" between the eyepiece and the top of the receiver.
George
05 February 2003, 05:12
GeorgeSbtt for JJ
05 February 2003, 13:41
<JJohnston>No kidding! I get 0.91" from bottom of tube to top of bolt - 0.22" higher.
Couple more questions on the Leupold mounts, George. Can you turn the rings so the quick-release lever is on the right side?
You have a VXIII 2.5-8x on yours IIRC (and so do I)? Was there any problem with the length of the scope (too short)?
Does the rear base stick forward over the ejection port?
Edit - Was that 0.694" from the bottom of the TUBE, or from the fatter part where the adjustment mechanism is?
[ 02-05-2003, 04:42: Message edited by: JJohnston ]05 February 2003, 15:32
GeorgeSquote:
Originally posted by JJohnston:
No kidding! I get 0.91" from bottom of tube to top of bolt - 0.22" higher.
Couple more questions on the Leupold mounts, George. Can you turn the rings so the quick-release lever is on the right side?
I suppose, but I am lefthanded, so I want them on the left side.
quote:
You have a VXIII 2.5-8x on yours IIRC (and so do I)? Was there any problem with the length of the scope (too short)?
Yes, that is the scope I use. No problems with the mounting length whatsoever.
quote:
Does the rear base stick forward over the ejection port?
Yes, and it does not affect ejection at all, even under the stress of shooting at buff repeatedly.
quote:
Edit - Was that 0.694" from the bottom of the TUBE, or from the fatter part where the adjustment mechanism is?
No that measurement was taken from the bottom of the tube, not the turret.
Hope this helps,
George
06 February 2003, 13:18
<JJohnston>Thanks, George. Actually, I shoot lefthanded, too, and that's why I want my levers on the right - so they don't get in the way. Different strokes...
06 February 2003, 13:30
GeorgeSJJ,
They haven't gotten in the way on three separate DG hunts. They lock in position away from the ejection port.
Think about it. You hold the fore-end with your right hand while working the bolt with your left; it's your left hand that would be free to release the levers.
George
06 February 2003, 13:47
<JJohnston>Call it personal preference, then. The ones on my Talleys are on the left, and it just rubs me the wrong way.
06 February 2003, 17:31
AtkinsonThe Talley so far outclasses the other rings and basis that it is pathetic IMO, and the opinion of most of the Custom Gun Guild members, check it out....
If you want them lower then cut off the bottom of the bases or have custom bases fitted..which one should do on a rifle anyway, with QD units....
06 February 2003, 22:51
1894Ray,
I agree their rings aren't bad but I have to say I'm much more impressed with the Warnes which seem a lot stronger due to the increased base area. With Warne rings it is possible to have custom bases made which can be silver soldered to the action.