Qr mounts

Shotgun572013

Well-Known Member
Hi guys . Toying with maybe getting one or two sets but would'nt know where to start . Thoughts / opinions on this please ? Thanks
 
I've got Leupold QRW picatinny mounts and they have worked really well with the scope being removed a number of times and it has returned to zero each time. I was told by a good gunsmith/engineering friend that they were about as "cheap" as he would go for decent ones.
 
All so called QR mounts are ugly in that they still leave "pads" or bases on the rifle. The cleanest are IMHO the integral system used by Ruger and BRNO (on the ZKK rifles...or their rimfire models) where the receiver itself is machined to be the actual mount the two rings clamp to.

I've owned or shot rifles with Holland & Holland side mounts, Suhler (German) claw mounts, British No4(T) side mounts, Apel mounts and American Redfield "turn in" mounts.

For smooth lines when the 'scope is detached the BRNO way beats them all and Ruger is second. Next are Suhler claw mounts. Worst are, equally Apel and Redfield "turn in mounts".

Holland's and American and continental side mounts are somewhere below or above Suhler mounts. It is just a shame BRNO's excellent system became obsolete because the dedicated Zeiss Jena ZF4 and ZF6 'scopes ended production.

But for clean lines, true QR ability and return to zero BRNO's system was the best. And the least complicated. Ruger's is the nearest we have today. Enabling TRUE multiple 'scope ability on one rifle.
 
I swap between Yukon xt and day scope on my browning T bolt using leupold QR weaver rings and zero is held well.
 
All so called QR mounts are ugly in that they still leave "pads" or bases on the rifle. The cleanest are IMHO the integral system used by Ruger and BRNO (on the ZKK rifles...or their rimfire models) where the receiver itself is machined to be the actual mount the two rings clamp to.

I've owned or shot rifles with Holland & Holland side mounts, Suhler (German) claw mounts, British No4(T) side mounts, Apel mounts and American Redfield "turn in" mounts.

For smooth lines when the 'scope is detached the BRNO way beats them all and Ruger is second. Next are Suhler claw mounts. Worst are, equally Apel and Redfield "turn in mounts".

Holland's and American and continental side mounts are somewhere below or above Suhler mounts. It is just a shame BRNO's excellent system became obsolete because the dedicated Zeiss Jena ZF4 and ZF6 'scopes ended production.

But for clean lines, true QR ability and return to zero BRNO's system was the best. And the least complicated. Ruger's is the nearest we have today. Enabling TRUE multiple 'scope ability on one rifle.

BSA machined dovetails into the actions of their early rifles but stopped doing so on the later rifles. I understand that their Dovetails were tha same dimensions as the Brno ones. I do not know how ture but was told they stopped machining the dovetails because the American market liked to choose their favourite mountings for them selves. I suspect the money men had much to do with it as it meant cutting out a machining operation. My old BSA 270 Had the dovetails in the top of the action.

One chap in the club had a Zeiss Jena scope intended for the Brno fitted to his BSA 243.
 
Yes. I had forgotten about those BSAs. FWIW the last ones made, the CF2 I think, were profiled to the same top dimensions to accept Remington 700 mounts.
 
Yes. I had forgotten about those BSAs. FWIW the last ones made, the CF2 I think, were profiled to the same top dimensions to accept Remington 700 mounts.

BSA Copied the Rem 700 top profile as the mounts are easy to get in the the US....

25-02-2012, 09:47
Before coming to the thread a thought struck me.. I wondered why people do not bemoan about the bespoke rail sizes used by Tikka on their rifles.

Further to the history of it. BSA introduced their new line and design of rifle, it being the Hunter, in 1953 and that was the first time they machined the dovetails integral with the receiver as market research had indicated that is what the shooter wanted. They also sent one of the prototypes to Elmer Keith for evaluation he made some suggestions to some minor changes which were made and the Hunter was put into production .


So actually American input was sort and incorporated and still the US shooter was not happy so in the 1960's the 2nd Pattern Monarch was introduced which had the receiver machined to the same profile as the Remington 700 just so the Americans could use any type of bolt on base or mount they liked.

So it would appear that the model before the CF2 also had the same profile as the Rem 700. A quick web search led right back to these forums and a post by Brithunter ................... the one copy and pasted here.

I know what a BSA CF2 looks like and I used to have an earlier BSA in 270 that I think may have been a Monarch the safety was on the side same as the CF2. I no longer have any photos of it and it was a long time back now.
 
Back
Top