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.

 

[BeeMaa]

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

There are a few very good options for rifles other than Blaser that are completely repeatable for accuracy.

 

[Philip Glass]

There are a few very good options for rifles other than Blaser that are completely repeatable for accuracy.

And if they are so important why don’t we have them on our .300’s, 6.5’s etc?
The need for them is based on a false premise.

 

[SFRanger7GP]

Wow. Here are my false premises.

I have used, and still use QD mounts. They serve a purpose if you have that want or need. For me, the ability to easily remove and replace a scope while maintaining zero is important. Whether I am removing the scope for travel, cleaning, storage, changing the scope, or want to use the iron sights, I like having that option. Have I ever "had" to remove my scope while hunting? No. I have never filed a claim on auto insurance, home owners insurance or firearms insurance either.

Military weapons: no explanation needed. If you have been there you know.

Take down single shot rifles: Scopes are removed for travel and to fit in the case.

Double rifles: In case I want to remove the scopes to use the sights. Also, for travel and to fit in the case.

Dreilings and combo rifles: Scopes are removed for travel and to fit in the case. Also, to use the shotgun barrels. My success on flying targets improves greatly when I remove the scope.

Rigbys: In case I want to remove the scope to use the sights.

Encore barrels: I have a lot of barrels and swap scopes at times.

Aesthetics: I think the German style QD mounts look nicer on high end rifles.

Flexibility: I have a large, Trijicon scope that Mama calls "the Hubble" I have swapped it over on numerous rifles for a special purpose.

I have removed and mounted scopes using QD mounts often enough (as well as tested them and won a few bets) to have total confidence in them. Some days, I just like removing the scope and doing a walk about with the irons as my primary sights.

If you don't like them, trust them, need them, or think they are as evil as push feed rifles and the 6.5 CM, don't use them. I will never claim to be an expert, but for me, QD mounts serve a purpose.

Safe shooting

 

[BeeMaa]

And if they are so important why don’t we have them on our .300’s, 6.5’s etc?
The need for them is based on a false premise.

Please explain what false premises you are referring to. Not that you need to explain yourself, I’m just trying to understand and learn from your point of view.

 

[Schüler Jumbo]

I have QD’s on .338 Win Mag, .300 Win Mag, .30-06, .270 Winchester, and .264 Win Mag. I take the scopes off for air travel and rifle cleaning.

 

[Longwalker]

During my hunting at home, I have often encountered conditions that were not scope friendly. Mostly snow, falling or stuck on overhanging branches. Several times I've removed the scope that was full of snow and continued to hunt with iron sights. It's an important option for the hunting I do. And I've killed a couple animals with iron sights that I would not have got otherwise.

 

[375Ruger416]

Only on my Blaser R8 in 22 LR, 300 WM, 375 H&H, and soon to be 416 RM. These are the only hunting rifles I own with iron sights (I also have a couple rim fires with iron sights but they have optics mounted with ‘fixed mounts).

I think a quality mount, on a rifle with iron sights, for use on a rifle you will travel with, or in remote/backcountry hunts where you will carry an backup optic has a lot of utility. My modern monstrosity’s with carbon fiber, threaded barrels etc, use picatinny mounts and I prefer integral bases.

Oh, I forgot, I have some on my semi-auto carbines though I don’t love any of the QD mounts I’ve tried for repeatability. Mostly there so I can pull the optic off and use BUIS.

As far as using iron sights, I have astigmatism and find I am quicker and more accurate with an LPVO. Have started needing reading glasses this year, so do not intend to use iron sights though I do practice with them.

 

[Miletic]

We all think about it, and some emphasize the failure of the optic sight. And somewhere in the wilderness while we are hunting and where we will no longer be able to hunt or our lives will be in danger. That will never happen with a quality sight.
Or it could happen, but it is unlikely. I think it's less likely than, say, a firing pin breaking that no one mentions.
I have both detachable and fixed mounts. I only remove optical sight if it is absolutely necessary for some reason. I think that optic sight should not be removed often, regardless of the quality of the removal assembly. It's simple physics, in order for something to be in the same point absolutely, it must withstand impacts, it must also have friction, which is extremely important in this case.

 

[Kevin375]

I like to have a QR mount on my rifles. It's easier for cleaning the rifle and also for travelling.
Only my oldest 22 lr has a fixed mount.

Speaking about my QR mounts, some doesn't work so good like the Leupold QRW on my .17 HMR. That thing doesn't keep its zero so I don't try to remove it again while I heard good feedback before.

But the best remain my Blaser mounts so far. I have used the classic and original Blaser made but also others like the Henneberger HMS SAMO and the Negele, and I have never been disapointed. However, I dislike the way to fix the claw on the SAMO, but it's just 2 cents.

As I have a thermal scope that features multiple zero profiles I decided to use it on several rifles but I was able to see some limits with the classic Blaser mount.
Despite very small tolerances, you need to adjust the claws of the mount from one rifle to others and even if you think it is well tighten, there are lateral deviations at 100 meters. They are not very big but it's really difficult to return everytime to the perfect zero.
Therefore, I invested into an Innomount Zero and this thing is awesome.

I can fit it on different rifles and as long as I select the good profile, it's dead on.

I mounted an Innomount rail with Picatinny and Blaser foot prints on my Tikka T1x and with this mount, I also have a great combo.

I can switch between the daytime scope, with an HMS Samo mount, and the thermal scope with always a 100 % time return to zero.