Quick Release / Quick Disconnect Scope Mounts - Do You Use Them?

[Ontario Hunter]

QD rings have a couple of advantages. Multiple scopes for one rifle zeroed for different loads or for different purposes can be handy. Optional iron sights for special purposes or backup are the most common reasons to choose QD mounts. I think as the former undeserved reputation for failing to hold zero fades we will see more shooters switching to QD. Gun nuts are wild for gadgets.

 

[Wiley64]

I do not and don’t think I ever would. I know they are proven but it still seems sketchy to add and subtract a scope in the field.

 

[fourfive8]

Never used them. No point to using them. I carry a small tool (star or hex) that can remove scope/mounts fairly quickly if needed. Never had to jack around with changing a scope during the hunt in 59 years of hunting with a scope. Pretty much have figured what scope works best with what rifle. I use strong/proven mounts. No need to fiddle around changing out scopes with quick change system. I believe in the KISS system

 

[Scott CWO]

Mark,you are absolutely right about the production. Sellers know how to immediately sell both the sight and the mount.
In my opinion, the best mount ever made is the Picatinny with a fixed ring. It is best if it is an integral part of the weapon, milled on the box. If the sight breaks (this should never happen if we use quality optics) we just unscrew the original screws of the rings and use iron sight

Yes, very sturdy but does not offer the flexibility of taking off quickly to follow up a wounded buffalo or brown bear in thick cover and later reattaching the scope quickly without having to sight back in. As for sturdiness, I’ve never had a Talley QD mount break or become loose.

 

[Longwalker]

I have three special purpose rifles with fixed mounts and no iron sights. All the rest, a couple dozen, have QD mounts and iron sights. Most are actually equipped with two scopes, to increase versatility when hunting in varied conditions. A GOOD quality QD mount has no disadvantages. It is just as reliable as a fixed mount in my experience. And if I feel my handy little straight tube 1-4x illuminated close quarters scope would be inappropriate for the current hunting conditions, it's simple to replace it with a 2-10x with large objective. When switching between stalking elk in the thick stuff at noon to the next morning when waiting for them to appear across a big open feeding field at dawn, I can choose the best possible sighting arrangement. And also have a spare in case of scope failure. If low light scopes were't so big and bulky, I'd probably be satisfied with using a good variable 2-10x50 or something like that for everything. But I really like compact scopes with non-critical eye relief for stalking or shooting moving game.
Sometimes I switch scopes when using drastically different loads. I like doing that without having to re-sight the rifle. For example I can switch between 140 and 175 gr. loads in the same 7mm rifle by simply switching scopes. I like that.
Not all QD mounts are equal in quality and repeatability. The best in my opinion are the elegant and expensive Suhler claw mounts. Just as good and more practical are EAW/Recknagel swing off mounts. Both are expensive but are 100% reliable. Proprietary mounts like the Blaser and Sako and Brno also work very well. But I wouldn't choose a Picatinny mount if it was free, downwind and hiding behind a bush. I think they're crude and ugly. I've been forced to use them on a couple rifles due to lack of reasonable alternatives. I reluctantly admit Picatinny/Weaver mounts can be serviceable, but I don't like them.

 

[Philip Glass]

Blaser only. Others have failed me and the premise most people seek them for is unrealistic.