Ang QD rings that truly return to zero?

[Adam Gibbs]

I need a set of rings that are QD to a pic rail, and actually return to zero when the scope is remounted. I have a set of Warne QD rings on there now. The first shot is always quite a ways off, the next are pretty close but not inside my zero. Im sure there's better options than Warne?

 

[Gettincloser]

Take a look at Scolarworks. I have been highly impressed by them. You tighten 2 little scroll wheels with your thumbs and done. I took my scope off yesterday and remounted it just to test. No change in point of impact.

 

[robtattoo]

How Q do you need the QD to be?

My 9.3x62 remington is wearing a set of old school, steel, Weaver Suregrip rings. The ones with the thumbwheel/penny slot clamp. They're a long way from being 'high speed, low drag, ultralight, operator, sexy-time' but they just work.

They've been on & off like a bride's nightie over the last 3 years & have always returned to a 'hunting' zero. No, it's not a precision rifle by any stretch & it's a <300yd rifle, but it's always put the first shot into the same 1½" group, after removing & replacing the scope. As far as I can remember, it's never been off by more than maybe a ¼", certainly not enough for me to bother about.

Phil Shoemaker recommended them to me, since that what he has on Ol' Ugly (his legendary .458 WM) & he wasn't wrong.

 

[Adam Gibbs]

How Q do you need the QD to be?

My 9.3x62 remington is wearing a set of old school, steel, Weaver Suregrip rings. The ones with the thumbwheel/penny slot clamp. They're a long way from being 'high speed, low drag, ultralight, operator, sexy-time' but they just work.

They've been on & off like a bride's nightie over the last 3 years & have always returned to a 'hunting' zero. No, it's not a precision rifle by any stretch & it's a <300yd rifle, but it's always put the first shot into the same 1½" group, after removing & replacing the scope. As far as I can remember, it's never been off by more than maybe a ¼", certainly not enough for me to bother about.

Phil Shoemaker recommended them to me, since that what he has on Ol' Ugly (his legendary .458 WM) & he wasn't wrong.

Doesn't have to be super quick. This rifle sees the same kind of use. Definitely less than 300 yards. I jusg find it strange that your weaver style rings work like that for you, yet the Warnes I have do not. Its entirely possible im doing something wrong though.

 

[Chris in TN]

I know they're controversial but I've had really good experiences with Larue Tactical one-piece mounts over the years. I have one in particular (still have it, just don't shoot the rifle a lot) that has been removed and replaced dozens of times and always returned to within *maaaaaaayyyyybe* half MOA. For a rifle that never gets shot past 400 yards it has been more than sufficient. YMMV.

 

[robtattoo]

You have to make sure both rings are snugged very tightly to the front of the rail slot & when you re-install them, push forward on the scope as you tighten them.
I think that's about the only thing I make sure to do.

 

[robtattoo]

Bottom target was zeroing after load development, top target was re-installing the scope after regulating the fixed iron sights.

 

[RockAndSage]

As long as it's a pic rail, there are a number of one-piece QD mounts that have excellent return-to-zero. Bobro, Scalarworks, and LaRue come to mind.

It's definitely work questioning yourself to be absolutely sure you need QD though, because they come with some notable trade-offs, depending on your application. There are really only a handful of situations where it's the better choice.

The biggest problems you have with single-piece QD mounts are weight, price, and overall height. They can be substantially heavier than a normal 2-piece ring set, and all those parts - done right - make them more expensive. They're also a PITA with normal rifles, like bolt guns. On ARs they're fine, as the stock height and mount height match up decently. But on traditional bolt guns - especially ones with stocks with a drop more suited to irons - you'll often need to add a cheek-riser to get everything lined up properly. That adds cost, time, complications, etc.

Again though, ask yourself if you really need QD. If so, it would be hard to beat the quality of the three makers I mentioned, with Scalarworks probably being the lightest - and most expensive.

 

[TaperPin]

I’ve tried a few. With any mount keep in mind .001” of dust or flex in one ring makes 720x that difference on target, or nearly 3/4 MOA. I’d say steel almost always works better than aluminum, but some guys have great results with some aluminum.

I didn’t have good results with old or newish weaver, but how tightly they are cranked down is where the problem was. Leupold QD mounts with the hole and post design was really bad even though they are steel, like 2 MOA off.

Burris Zee rings work well, but the dovetail clamp design makes removing the scope a challenge on a low mounted scope. The new Burris signature rings flex a bit on the dovetail clamp.

The Sig steel rings have all the makings of repeatable rings, but I haven’t tested the pair I have and expect it to be no closer than other steel rings at 1/2 MOA best case.

Talley steel mounts are well thought of high quality heat treated steel and worked better than anything else up to that point, but again the torque applied made a big difference and the steel on steel mounting surface of the dovetail has to be perfectly clean. I currently use the detachable model sized for pic rails with steel bases on something like a bear rifle, but the 3/8” dovetail is a cleaner look. Pic rails are more universal and easier to swap a scope between rifles.

Another good choice are the steel Leupold Mark 4 or Badger ordinance of the same design. Steel rings flex much less when tightened to the base. I have one set of aluminum Mark 4 rings that won’t repeat as well as the steel version. Pack a small wrench if they need to be removed in the field.

That’s all I know.

The more experience I’m getting with rebuilding machine tools and scraping dovetails to increase accuracy, it seems undeniable there would be some benefit custom fitting rings to bases. The best machining is crude compared to custom scraping or lapping. Smooth bases would also be more able to repeat better on the microscopic level than matte finishes, especially really course finishes like Nightforce uses.