Best detachable scope rings for holding zero

[Akjaq]

I have always been a Leupold guy and want to know if there is a reason for me to break that mold. I bought a 375 HH and have not scoped it yet but want quick detachable rings so in a pinch I can remove to make use of the irons that came on the rifle. I am thinking about putting a Leupold or Swaro(cant spell the rest)ofski on but Ive got to have the best zero reapeatable rings. Have heard alot about Talley but have no experience with that brand. I got set in my ways as I grew older being a Ruger guy all my life....I finally broke that mold a while back and bought a Kimber and it was NO mistake....I love that rifle So Im all for trying something new. I believe most of the time you get what you pay for so price isnt to much of a concern. So makes the best detachable rings?

[.338 mag.]

Talley, Warren, Weaver...

I have had good luck with Talley, Warne and an old set of Weaver detachable rings. To me the Talley and Warren are the better looking ones on the market. Some day I would like to see the Smithson rings.

[3-509_JWO]

I have had good experiences with LaRue when price has been no object. Expensive-ish mounts, but I have run the quick detach mounts and rings with EO Tech, Trijicon and Leupold Mk2 optics on 4 different duty weapons for the past 5 years.

You could try one of the ring mounts out with your rifle to see if the mount gives you proper eye relief.

[tboehm]

talley

I used them on my 375 h&h and they worked great. I had a small problem with a stripped screw and the customer service was GREAT. The owner stands behind them. Can't say enough.

[Doc]

I have Leupold detachables on my 375H&H, and they have not failed after several years of on and off. They come in three different heights, so you can match-up the best fit for you and your rifle.

Leupold used to make (maybe still does) two different models of detachables. One model had a short, flat lever to tighten the ring to the base...that model I didn't like because it just didn't seem to torgue tight enough for my preference and the lever reportedly had broken for some guys who cranked on it.

The model I use now has a longer, stouter lever that you can torque tightly...sorry I don't recall the exact model designation. I've had them for some time now (firmly anchoring one of those scopes that is hard to spell).

Doc

[Murphy]

Talleys are great and R2Z is very good even for heavy recoiling rifles. Leupold QDs are as well and I like both of them, good designs and fit and finish. To me the Leupolds QD (not the QRW's) are a little nicer looking but I have twice run into a problem with the Leupold levers. I've seen them broken off and leave only a stub in the hole (the actual latch that turns) I don't know how they were broken exactly but one was broken when the rifle fell when leaning against the kudu horns for the picture of man/beast/rifle.

This kind of breakage presents a big problem in the field. The Talleys have the added advantage of using just one big screw in place of the lever if you don't want levers sticking out to get in the way. This big round head torx screw leaves no protrusion and still allows full QD with R2Z.

Another consideration is the height of the bases that are left on the rifle. They must be low enough to see the sight clearly when the scope is removed. Both Leupold and Talley should allow that.

I want to also mention others that have, for me, been very good with a small sacrifice of R2Z capability. The Warne Maxima bases and rings as well as the Leupold QWR mounts. These are the Weaver style bases or similar to the 1913 Picatinney rail type mounts, even the demensions are different for all. These steel flat top bases, low profile bases are very strong and the rings for them are good mounts. The 70/30 split Leupolds and the vertical split Warnes present there own problems to mount but are very good and if you match base brand to ring brand they R2Z very close. Both Leupold and Warne use a hardenen peice of railroad iron for a cross pin and it is strong but assembly can be a bite especially for the Leupold rings. The complexity is in the rings and there is nothing left on the rifle as with the Talleys, just a flat milled piece of steel. I think that is the best way to do it.

The Leupold QR's leave a lever (and latch) on the base. I will say that on or off the Leopold QW's are the slickest and less obtrusive lever of all of them and I do not find it as grabby as the others. The QWR's the Warne Maxima's and the Talleys all have the sharp snaggy levers. Only the Talley has the totally flush screw head to replace the lever. I always carry in my pocket a Leupold scope wrench with the torx and allen head tools ready to mount dismount and remount any scope. If I can't fix it with that and a leatherman tool in the field I don't want to carry it to the field.

In defense of the Leupold levers, all models as with any levers. The biggest failure of them is the human attaching them. Folks think they must be ultra tight to hold and R2Z but thumb pressure is all that is needed. I have seen all of them damaged by over torque of smackin them with a soft hammer.

[ironartist]

leupold

First class, I can peel my scope off and use my iron sight, shoot a couple rounds screw my 3.5x10 back on and it's right where it was when it left. LEUPOLD rocks

[Snowwolfe]

Does anyone know if any company offers QD stainless rings for a Ruger? Would love to add these to a Ruger Alaskan.

[mainer_in_ak]

Warne being the originators of the quick detach/return to zero rings should tell you something. As murphy explained, the Warne bases are extremely stout. I own both the Warne and Leupold, I like the Warne rings better.

[shphtr]

I have been satisfied with my EAW mounts for ease of use and rtn to zero. http://www.newenglandcustomgun.com/i....html~maindeal

[Brian Richardson]

All good info so far...

Warne being the originators of the quick detach/return to zero rings should tell you something. As murphy explained, the Warne bases are extremely stout. I own both the Warne and Leupold, I like the Warne rings better.

This quote sums up my experiences with WARNE vs. LEUPOLD... Both rings/bases set ups are pretty much the same in design, ruggedness, QD/R20, etc. However, the Warne has a much better orientation to screwing the scope into the rings themselves. These types of rings also work best for rails systems, if you use tactical bases & suchlike, plus if you use accessories... maybe a ghost-ring site or Eotech/Reflex/Nightsight for examples.

In terms of quick detach and retuning to zero the LEUPOLD 'QD' is better that QRW; BUT!!! just as Murphy explained... those little levers will break off too easily, and you'll be stuck with a scope on the gun that can't be quickly taken off in the field or in the shop without proper tools. The lever will likely at some point break off in its locked-in position with the base leaving that stud-like sheared section recessed in the ring. It is a small flaw in the design that seems to be the only big problem on the QD.

Talley set-ups are nice, just as there are other good ones out there... yet few places carry these when you may want extras in a hurry for quickly mounting your other optics or accessories.

[broncoformudv]

For Ruger you can't go wrong with the Warne QD's they fit great and RTZ without a hitch. They also offer them in stainless, blued, and three ring heights as well. I have a set on my Ruger #1 in 375 H&H and have not had any issues. I did think the levers were a little grabby when in my hand but have not noticed them grabbing clothing or any items while walking through the woods.