[aWellKnownGun]

I've a long history of precision reloading and shooting. I'm not casting aspersions but we all know 89% of ppl who ever pulled a trigger or bought the prettiest box of ammo consider themselves to be in the top 10% of precision shooters. Can somebody with both precision machining and hard-won precision reloading experience share their feelings and experience with QD (quick detach) optical mounts is in the realm of the perfectionist? I know the articles, ads, and studies already, but "precision" is a concept that permeates a certain type of shooter's philosophy, and dictates every action from buying ammo components to fouling a bore for competition and firing between heartbeats. It's thinking about the amount of force and speed we close our bolts with, or throwing away the first round in an autoloader because the bolt seats differently manually than automatically. It's in everything even when we know that a cheap rifle's design limitations far exceed the disciplined, obsessive but never compulsive minutiae of the care and consideration we take in the belief that effects are additive, and it all counts. That there's no such thing as "statistically insigfigant". If you can relate to this, you are exactly the people I really need to talk to me about quick detach mounts, and everything else mechanically that "returns to zero".

 

[MikeG]

Define what "returns to zero" means to you, and then go from there, as far as what will meet your needs.

 

[nsb]

I’m not very concerned about this subject and honestly don’t see a lot of value of putting it to a poll, but…… I’ve used QD rings before and in my experience (I’m old so I have a lot of it) when I take the scope off and then put it back on it’s mostly right where it was left and if it’s off at all it’s very, very little. Usually one or two clicks to get it back to where it started. Why I’m not overly concerned about this subject is that I wouldn’t take the gun out hunting or to a match without checking it first, so what’s the issue? FWIW, I have a very long history of competition shooting and this hasn’t been an issue in over fifty years of shooting

 

[crooked creek]

I dunno, I'm struggling with the premise of the question. How can you apply 'intuitive trust', which is basically defined as 'gut feeling', to something/anything 'precision', without having at least minimal knowledge of the subject, whether that 'knowledge' is derived from marketing puffery, observation, personal experience, tested results (facts?), or whatever source of 'input', from which your 'beliefs' are formed?
Seems to me, the question is one of 'do quick detach mounts work?', rather than one of intuition. If so, I think the answer is a 'qualified yes', the qualification being; what are you trying to do (the purpose?) with the combination of scope and firearm? 'Return to zero' means, to me, hitting what you are shooting at, and not maintaining a specific 'group size capability'. Then, it depends on one's definition or interpretation of 'precision'. Is it 1000 yard score shooting, 500 yard varmint shooting, score benchrest, NRL 22, deer hunting, or? 'Good enough' is very much a subjective thing based on one's needs and acceptance level, and why one even needs QD capability to begin with.
If a person's definition of 'precision' means 'perfection', then QD probably is not for you.

 

[aWellKnownGun]

Define what "returns to zero" means to you, and then go from there, as far as what will meet your needs.

That's kinda exactly why I'm so ambivalent about the whole concept. 'Return to Zero' is an advertising and defense contractor term used for civilian and military promotion. I'd define it as the ability to "quickly" detach an optic at the mounts (usually with two small levers) and after any period of time, replace it in its original position while maintaining a standard and consistent accuracy. The terms 'standard', 'consistent', and 'accurate' as you understand and define them. These are obviously terms that have a different definition to for everyone and every weapons platform, and that's why I was pretty snobbish and snarky about who I wanted to hear from by defining my interpretation of precision shooting not solely on a couple of groups in an impromptu range test with no control group but also not something resembling a scientific research paper's description of statistical analysis and confidence intervals that only a Ph.D. might comprehend.
I'm happy to hear from anybody with experience, at the cost of sounding snarky I defined a bit of the mindset of certain shooters to encourage their input but I certainly could be grateful for anybody's practical experience and if they have a stance for or against quick-mount optics in the context your own feelings and definitions of precision and accuracy.

 

[nsb]

I quit buying Quick Detach mounts several years back. They really aren’t any quicker than the non-QC rings. How long does it take to put a socket on a nut and remove the ring vs using a little lever attached to it? Seconds? Even the “regular” rings when detached and returned to the same slots are pretty much “dead on” after being re-installed. Again, a check with a shot or two brings things back to “spot on” for most purposes. Based on my experience over the years, if I were out hunting and HAD to remove the scope for some reason (can’t think of one off-hand) I would be confident to hunt deer with it if I simply couldn’t check it right away. It’s only in the movies where the assassin puts the gun together and makes a super long shot and hits dead on. Most of us don’t put our gun together in the field.

 

[aWellKnownGun]

I dunno, I'm struggling with the premise of the question. How can you apply 'intuitive trust', which is basically defined as 'gut feeling', to something/anything 'precision', without having at least minimal knowledge of the subject, whether that 'knowledge' is derived from marketing puffery, observation, personal experience, tested results (facts?), or whatever source of 'input', from which your 'beliefs' are formed?
Seems to me, the question is one of 'do quick detach mounts work?', rather than one of intuition. If so, I think the answer is a 'qualified yes', the qualification being; what are you trying to do (the purpose?) with the combination of scope and firearm? 'Return to zero' means, to me, hitting what you are shooting at, and not maintaining a specific 'group size capability'. Then, it depends on one's definition or interpretation of 'precision'. Is it 1000-yard score shooting, 500-yard varmint shooting, score benchrest, NRL 22, deer hunting, or? 'Good enough' is very much a subjective thing based on one's needs and acceptance level, and why one even needs QD capability to begin with.
If a person's definition of 'precision' means 'perfection', then QD probably is not for you.

Note that there is an option included for unconcerned, uninterested, or undecided votes, giving anybody worried about form or common definitions an articulate option.
You're right I didn't add enough context because I wrote it at the same time as the post where I detailed a bit of the kind of precision experience I was seeking. And no, I was careful with my words in formulating the question. I coulda done better but you're reading too much into it. You nailed the definition of "intuitive trust" but I think I oughta better explain its "knowing or believing" counterpart. The latter is meant to identify with those with machining and experience with a perfectionist mindset as it pertains to precision shooting. Hence the quotated/nonquotated differentiation. Despite the abrasive preamble, I trust the readers of this forum to infer from a question about scoped precision rifles in competitive precision shooting to "intuitively" understand we're talking about 300-500 meters minimum in the prone position with rests as allowed by host rules in the beverage LR rifle shoot. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and didn't mean to turn anybody off, because your final simple recommendation after discussing the contextual definitions of most of the words was what I was looking for. Ig if I overdefined, and didn't do it clearly enough, yours is a pretty reasonable response and I totally appreciate it.
Some relative citext I can give it that I high quality QM options available to me, and will soon need to make a decision on whether to use them or risk be in an unideal situation with damaged optics, no fast way to revert to iron, and no replacements or time to install one properly. I left this out because I'm not interested in a tactical discussion and the whole other beast of shooting in a black and white, simple risk vs. benefit environment.

 

[aWellKnownGun]

Define what "returns to zero" means to you, and then go from there, as far as what will meet your needs.

Please feel free to

I quit buying Quick Detach mounts several years back. They really aren’t any quicker than the non-QC rings. How long does it take to put a socket on a nut and remove the ring vs using a little lever attached to it? Seconds? Even the “regular” rings when detached and returned to the same slots are pretty much “dead on” after being re-installed. Again, a check with a shot or two brings things back to “spot on” for most purposes. Based on my experience over the years, if I were out hunting and HAD to remove the scope for some reason (can’t think of one off-hand) I would be confident to hunt deer with it if I simply couldn’t check it right away. It’s only in the movies where the assassin puts the gun together and makes a super long shot and hits dead on. Most of us don’t put our gun together in the field.

That's the kinda practical info based on experience I was looking for! Thankk you sir.

 

[aWellKnownGun]

I’m not very concerned about this subject and honestly don’t see a lot of value of putting it to a poll, but…… I’ve used QD rings before and in my experience (I’m old so I have a lot of it) when I take the scope off and then put it back on it’s mostly right where it was left and if it’s off at all it’s very, very little. Usually one or two clicks to get it back to where it started. Why I’m not overly concerned about this subject is that I wouldn’t take the gun out hunting or to a match without checking it first, so what’s the issue? FWIW, I have a very long history of competition shooting and this hasn’t been an issue in over fifty years of shooting

That's good practical input. Everybody has a different definition of precision and every situation has adds own separate context. I't a decision I'll need to make where tools or certainly time and facilities to rezero a scope (if one can be found) probably don't exist or would require an inordinate amount of time and distance to access. I didn't mention that as I've always been curious about them and the question being slightly more pressing now combined with an attempt to avoid some kinda rabbit hole of assumptions and tactical advice and SERE training tips. Thanks's for responding, I'm not tryin' to make headlines or worried about the popularity of the post, that kinda obsession with likes and popularity and the need to critique every question and approve or disapprove of the post before even attempting to answer a plainly written request for personal opinions is for Hacker's forums and Twitter comments. I mean seeing a few names pop up on an insane amount of questions that always make sure to establish their presence and authority in the forum and on it's subject matter is supposed to be for Star-Trek and Gaming blogs. I like to believe that shooting sports enjoys the following of a mix of largely well raised and respectful folks sharing their experiences. Not to say a lotta shooting clubs, like fire and police departments, usually have one or two folks more concerned with being perceived as having superior knowledge than actually learning from others or obtaining learning experiences. The Dunning-Kruger curve in every profession shows the highest levels of confidence in the least experienced before curving down with time and practice before rising back up again but never to the level of that that first surety. It's common sense that the more a guy learns, the more he discovers what he doesn't yet know, and most decent people with both confidence and experience are unfailingly honest and humble about their limitations. Those are the ones to look to in any skilled activity, especially one encompassing everything from pocket change .380 boot pistols to 1,000 meter contenders discussing mirage effect. A little unrelated but I firmly believe the tone and content of your reply are a great example of sharing useful information without some kinda chip on the shoulder. It reads more confident than others.

 

[aWellKnownGun]

It's been pointed put that the poll may not be of interest or useful. I respect that, and there's an option for that and voting ain't mandatory. I'm not concerned for popularity's sake, but out of a new member's desire to learn the ropes so it's a 1-day thing. Don't see any option to remove it and it's a legitimate question I'm seeking opinions on, and not an attempt to catch the attention of anybody that doesn't have any interest in it. Bear with me, new to forums outside of medical and public health research. Even negative opinions are still useful while I'm learning.

 

[crooked creek]

Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from a little better, although, I think maybe you are overthinking it a bit.
Based on some personal experience, I'll expand my thoughts. One addresses nsb's comment about not thinking offhand of having a reason to remove a scope in the field; many years ago I was predator hunting with a friend. We parked on a gravel road and while walking to where we were going to start calling, I slipped on a patch of ice and landed on my back with my rifle slung over my shoulder. The landing broke the scope in two at the juncture of the 1" tube and the forward (objective) bell. The scope was mounted in Weaver 'Tip Off' rings, not QD. Since I didn't have a screw driver in my pocket, I was 'done for the day'. With Ruger rings, and their big screw driver slot, I used to carry a house key blank (literally) in my pocket when I hunted with my 44 Mag. Redhawk. If I was in dense cover demanding close shots, I could remove the 2x Leupold scope in a flash with the key blank as a 'pocket screw driver' and re-attach it when sitting alongside an open field. So, I improvised a way to make Ruger rings to QD capable, and no problem with return to zero for that 'non-precision' purpose. Again, context to the definition of precision is key (no pun intended!) to the discussion, experiences, and opinions.
I'd say, if you have a reason to believe that QD capability will be of benefit to you personally for your purposes, go for it until your experiences prove otherwise.

 

[nsb]

I have a couple of rifles dedicated strictly to deer hunting, and they usually have low power variable scopes on them. To do load development with these and some other guns, I take those lower power variables off and put a higher power target type scope on the gun. After I get the load I’m looking for I put the lower power variables back on. The last month or so I’ve been doing this with two of my guns and one from a good friend of mine. Putting the lower power variables back on and returning to the original load the guns have actually been “spot on” each time. I mean no adjustment at all. That’s pretty repeatable and better than I expected.

 

[JBelk]

I make custom bases for Talley Rings. I can count on about 25% increase in group size if the scope is dismounted and re-mounted between shots. All commercial systems I've tried are considerable worse than that...300% not uncommon.

 

[Im2Tall2Play2!]

I am intrested in this for 2 reasons. A) the SRH for scoped range & longer range deer/hogs & using irons for closer range/carry, & B) the predator/hog hunting day/night. Day use of traditional scope & night time thermal/NV scope. So keep the replues coming!

 

[JBelk]

Buy more guns to fit your excess of scopes. Simple math tells the story and how uncommonly difficult it is to switch scopes without changing zero and have a REAL zero. A Zebra zero is fine, if he's not too far.
Consider all those that have come before--The slick dovetails of the M-S and Griffin and Howe, the rotary locks and hand-fit feet of claw mounts, the double vee block system of the Kuarsky Bros, Weaver clamps, Redfield rotary dovetails and adjustable dovetail Tallys. They all work but not to varmint shooting standards.
The weight and length of the scope affects zero.

The Tally system as seen above is augmented by a peep sight that fits in the rear mount in case a scope is damaged the hunt is saved.

 

[nsb]

I make custom bases for Talley Rings. I can count on about 25% increase in group size if the scope is dismounted and re-mounted between shots. All commercial systems I've tried are considerable worse than that...300% not uncommon.

Why would the group size change from taking the scope off and then putting it back on? I could see the POI changing, I don’t see why this would make the group bigger?

 

[JBelk]

Point of impact changes increases group size, sometimes in a string, sometimes in two 'clumps. It shows how close to identical the scope is remounted between shots.
Many shoot a group, remove and replace and shoot another group. It does the same thing with twice the ammo.

 

[Im2Tall2Play2!]

Well Jack, I just don't have enough shoulders & holsters (& $) to carry everything I wanna shoot in a walk-about day. 😪🤧

So I guess I'm gonna have to do some of my own experiments to determine my own answer. Darn, means I gotta do more shooting & fiddling!

But. I do see your point(s)!

 

[Kevinbear]

I have a practical reason for having two scopes for one rifle and be able to switch them in the hunting blind, I like to hunt coyotes before light in the early hours of the morning with night vision then switch to a conventional scope when the sun rises. It works well enough for shots inside 150yds but not any farther and I've tried several mounting systems. The best solution for coyote hunting is to have two uppers with the different scopes mounted and sighted in on them. Probably faster as well, push two pins out and change the upper on an AR takes less than a minute.

 

[crooked creek]

Why would the group size change from taking the scope off and then putting it back on? I could see the POI changing, I don’t see why this would make the group bigger?

If I may; We normally think of a group being fired as five (or whatever number) of shots fired consecutively at a target with a resulting measurement of 'X'. What is being discussed here as a 'group', is those same five shots being fired as one shot, remove the scope, handle the firearm off the rest, remount the scope, take a seat, resituate the firearm on the rest, fire a second shot at the same point of aim as the first. Repeat that process for five shots (or?) and measure the resulting group, which will be 'X' plus something. It's the amount of the 'plus something' that one must either accept or reject as being to their personal satisfaction. It's the POI shift between individual shots that enlarged the group.

Point of impact changes increases group size, sometimes in a string, sometimes in two 'clumps. It shows how close to identical the scope is remounted between shots.
Many shoot a group, remove and replace and shoot another group. It does the same thing with twice the ammo.

I can understand that there may, depending on many variables, be a situation where average group size could temporarily increase slightly when removing and reinstalling a scope. Temporarily meaning (in my suggestion) that there may be a number (undefined/undetermined) of shots required to 'settle' things down a bit to re-seat the mating surfaces involved in the mounting arrangement. Otherwise, with no changes to the rifle, scope, mounts, or any load components, what would cause groups to enlarge? If the answer is 'Just because', then it's just as likely that groups could shrink from the previous averages, no? If I'm right, I think the effect would be, more or less, inconsequential in 'normal' haunting situations. 500 yard shots at ground hogs or in benchrest matches an entirely different story. Just my opinions.