QD vs Fixed for repeatability

[gixer1]

I swap barrel’s and scopes - no issues.

 

[finnbear270]

No idea really but would think a cam locking mechanism is more consistent reparability wise.

The Dentler "BASIS" system is cam lock, simple thumb & forefinger twist & the whole mount comes away from the base plate .. don't know if they do them for the rifle in OP though.

 

[welshwarrior]

Whilst I’ve not been using them long I’ll second what Gixer says regarding Leupold QR’s for the 202.

Leupold claim a sub 0.5 variation when remounting, which from what I can tell seems about right.

They where better than 0.5 moa on my 243/308 and 375

 

[Koenig]

That’s reassuring to hear. I personally didn’t notice any variation at all, but then I was meticulous with the torque when remounting and haven’t used them much. I presume Leupold must have tested these mounts to come up with sub 0.5 as something they’d stand behind. So far so good with my 202 and I was sceptical at first.

 

[enfieldspares]

Back maybe now forty years ago I had a German 8mm Mauser stalking rifle with claw mounted 'scope and since then a Belgian 8x60S with claw mounted 'scope. Both also having iron sights. In each case removing the 'scope and replacing it later there would be no change to zero.

This was the same for all intent with the Churchill .270 rifle I had with a sidemounted Pecar 'scope, the No4(T) I had and the two BRNO ZKK in .270 with the made for the gun BRNO and Zeiss Jena 'scope system and my Bennie Laubscher 7x64 with Prechtl copies of a Holland and Holland sidemount.

The key thing being that well designed and well executed and correctly fitted up 'scopes on ditto detachable mounts and bases don't change zero. As the things lock up to the exact same position and tightness 100% all of the time. It is BADLY fitted...nay..sloppy...detachable mounts and bases that see a change in zero.

 

[tarponhead]

Point taken - many thanks all - I’ll see what’s available locally before I resort to online

 

[fizzbangwhallop]

I’ve been using the Recknagel poly lever QR mounts on picatinny rails for years without a worry on repeatability… all my rifles live in the safe without a scope on. Once they’re tight, I’ve set the lever to 2 O’clock for ease of repeatability.

The other big advantage of them is the wide choice of heights.

Cheers
Fizz

 

[Scarpa]

Today I took my rifle to a range (Corinium) and although my Hexalock QD mounted scope had been on and off over ten times since I last used it my zero was still spot on. Any good quality QD set up should be able to be trusted but as with travelling with a rifle, a zero check is pretty useful if only for your confidence.

 

[Woodlander]

I would be tempted to a set of quality non-QD mounts, or mono mount on a pic rail. I just feel that torquing a bolt would be more repeatable than twisting a lever.

 

[tarponhead]

I would be tempted to a set of quality non-QD mounts, or mono mount on a pic rail. I just feel that torquing a bolt would be more repeatable than twisting a lever.

Good point - given I’ll have to spend time in swapping the barrels over, resetting and torquing the mounts back onto the rail doesn’t sound so hard. I wonder how much difference different torque applications would make over a max 150 yd target. I might try it and see!

 

[Woodlander]

Indeed. I can understand QD mounts, if someone’s needing to change scopes in the field, otherwise, well made mounts and a quality torque driver, (which we should all own), would be as repeatable, or more so than QDs

 

[devon deer stalker]

I’ve used Warne QD mounts on my ruger for well over a decade and never questioned zero

I've just fitted them to my 6.5, 8x56 s&b, the other is pulsar C50.....there was an acceptable shift....but in my own mind I would have to recheck zero after a swap.
I just look at it as saving ammo.