QD scope ring advice

LeftHandGuy

Well-Known Member
I want to be able to use the open sights on my rifle as well as a scope, and to be able switch "in the field".

In a perfect world I would buy Talley bases + QD rings, or possibly an Apel swing-off bases and rings, but for now, for me, they would eat too much into my limited hunting and shooting fund.

The main options I see in front of me are either Leupold QD rings and bases, or Weaver type QD rings.

Has anybody on here used the Leupold ones? What about Weaver type QD rings?

Weaver GrandSlam bases and Weaver GrandSlam QD rings would give me an all steel QD setup for really very little money - it seems too good to be true. Am I missing something?

The pictures below show the rifle wearing humble but serviceable Weaver bases and quadlock rings. These seemingly held up to full power 375 H&H mag loads OK, but I've had to remove totally in order to use the open sights.

If anyone has any experience at all to share on this subject I'd be grateful to receive it!
Thanks,
Guy


20180607_174855.jpg20180607_172733.jpg
 
There used to be some Ruger Rings that allowed you to see iron sights through large apertures under the scope. Not sure how they coped with really large scopes!
 
There used to be some Ruger Rings that allowed you to see iron sights through large apertures under the scope. Not sure how they coped with really large scopes!

Yes, there are Winchester ones like that as well - my new hunting buddy has them on his 30/30, but given that I have a hogsback stock already, the scope really has to be as low as possible to be practically usable. Thanks for the thought though, it's a pragmatic approach some people have been able to make work!
 
That's cool - so the Leupold QD rings return to zero reliably. How robust are they? and is your rail steel or alu'? Thanks

Aluminium rail. Yes they return to zero, I think they have a guarantee on that but I've been happy. I have them to use the open sights for driven boar.
 
I too have used the Leuopld QR rings on picatinny rails (steel and aluminium) and swapped between day scope and night vision and always had a return to zero that was fine. As long as you follow the same sequence for putting the scope back on the return to zero has been fine and any small error has been less than my ability to shoot as accurately.
 
I have Leupold QR ring and bases not QRW that go on picatinny type rails. They return to zero very well and are very easy to use with a half turn of two little levers.
 
Thanks that's helpful, and encouraging!

I have Leupold QR ring and bases not QRW that go on picatinny type rails. They return to zero very well and are very easy to use with a half turn of two little levers.

Would that be these? I had been looking very seriously at them. How well do they stack up vs. Weaver/Piccatinny style bases?
 
Thanks that's helpful, and encouraging!



Would that be these? I had been looking very seriously at them. How well do they stack up vs. Weaver/Piccatinny style bases?

Yes that’s them I prefer them to weaver etc and they work great on all calibre 243-375 H&H. Also look a lot slicker than the ugly rails.
 
Yes that’s them I prefer them to weaver etc and they work great on all calibre 243-375 H&H. Also look a lot slicker than the ugly rails.

They are exactly what I'd picked out originally too, but then I saw a Weaver mount ghost ring and thought that was more realistically achievable for me (I am definitely not a gunsmith). Combined with the fact that Warne or Weaver GS steel bases are pretty inexpensive then got me to thinking that maybe I should do that instead. But now I'm thinking that whatever iron sight I choose shouldn't be one that I have to take off the rifle at all - so I'm back at square one, except that I'm definitely going to adopt some type of scope mount that is QD'able, and that since my existing open sights work, maybe I shouldn't fuss with them for the moment anyway!
 
This is the issue I had as the iron sights couldn't be seen over the Leupold bases on my BSA CF2 so the option of swapping between iron sights and scope was a non starter.
 
Anyone here care to offer a preference between the Leupolds vs. the Warne rings?

Both are steel, both claim a return to zero capability, both on the face of it fit my needs. The Leupolds don't get such good reviews as the Warnes on sites like Midway - but a couple of you here seemed to have been happy with them.

Maybe I'll toss a coin!
 
I have used Warne QD rings for a number of years. In one instance for removing the scope while traveling by air. Baggage handlers seem to have a knack of slinging rifle cases around. Lesson hard learnt. Also for swapping between a NV scope and a ordinary scope,
In both circumstances I have had no return to zero problems.
 
I run Leupold QR rings and bases on most of my rifle interchange scope and NV find it easier than picatinny types I use warne rings but also on a DG rifle scopes always return to zero and hold zero. Smoother more finished look than angular rails they just work.
 
The benefit of using the rather cheap weaver bases is that they actually have a large cutout in the middle, which gives a good field of view towards your rear iron sight; a lot of other bases are simply too high and you'd be lucky just to catch a view of the notch in the rear sight. It looks like you are already using those!

Hence, on modern or custom rifles, the rear sights (and in turn front), are very high above the bore to accomodate for bases/double square bridges and so on.

On older or classic rifles, the rear sights were always designed as the primary sight, hence the normality of stocks with large drop..but installing bases and scopes then in turn renders the irons virtually useless of course; whether they are apel (now gone bust), recknagel, leupold, talley, warne, smithson, or whatever.

with your zastava action I'd opt for the cheap weaver bases you already have and a set of lever rings...it will never be perfect or ideal, and you'll need to test many times that the rifle returns to acceptable and reliable zero before trusting it.
One of my favourite all time rifles is my brno zg47 with a double square bridge, but it's not raised above the receiver ring, it's set in line with, and then there's STILL a central gulley cutout on the front receiver ring to allow a FULL view of the rear iron sights, and that's including scope bases (as they're integral 19mm dovetails)...

I use Alaska Arms rings which return to perfect zero each and every time as the levers only turn 90 degrees, so it's not a matter of 'how tight' you tighten the levers that affect the zero, it's, ...they come to a dead stop and that's that.

If you had a more desirable mauser action than a zastava, I'd say go for eaw/apel/Rusan/Recknagel/Ziegler ZP and install new higher set front and rear iron sights from Recknagel..that, would be ideal, but that's already talking £1,200 ish..
 
Thanks. That’s interesting. Yes I have bog standard Weaver Bases. Actually they are off right now. They did indeed have the cutout you describe. I also have a set of Warne bases for Rem700 which uses one of the same pieces (M902) for the front base. So I may mount that and see what it does to my view of the rear sight. I did have an issue last year with steel Warne rings on an aluminium Weaver base (different rifle) so I would be more confident with steel bases.

I had never heard of Alaska Arms. I checked out his website and it looks like he makes really cool stuff. Nothing immediately useful for me though that won’t stop me lusting after his single shot barreled actions...

Medium-to-long term plan is to upgrade the iron sight to a ghost ring type anyway. It’s actually quite liberating to ditch the scope!
 
I am a massive fan of hunting with iron sights. It’s a real great way of enjoying purity aspect of hunting and stalking skills of getting in real close.

Do scout eBay and gunbroker daily to find an old husqvarna jakt dioptet,
Which is the finest peep sight ever made for a rifle and has the contour for a Mauser 98 action along with the correct hole spacing.
 
Back
Top