Shooters Forum banner
  • Hello Everyone! Let us know what you would spend a $50 Amazon gift card on, HERE For a chance to win a $50 Amazon Gift Card!

Do you intuitively trust (instead of knowing or believing) Quick Detach Mounts to Return to Zero?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • Not Worried about it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't care, I'd never touch them

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the aspect and effect of lapping in scope rings as relates to 'precision' when it comes to initial mounting, removal, and remounting the scope/ring combination. So, ?.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
Lapping scope rings shows you how far off the mounts are from being perfectly straight. Lapping rings saves scope finishes mostly and a good thing to do.
Exactly Jack, good on you for responding! When one thinks about it, fresh (new) rings get mounted to the receiver as the 'first step' in mounting (fitting?) the optical system, meaning the scope/ring combination. If the rings are not lapped in, (and lapping will show you just how far off the ring/receiver fit is) the scope will be stressed (bending the tube, so to speak) by whatever misalignment exists, since the bottom half of the rings are firmly tightened to the base before the scope and upper half of the rings are assembled. That process establishes a dimensional relationship to the entire rifle/scope/ring assembly. So, when the scope/ring assembly is removed (as an assembly), whether we call the rings QD or not, any temporary flexing of the scope relaxes. As minute as it may be, that relaxation changes the dimension between the two rings. That flexing can be measured with a dial indicator. Now, if you accept this premise, when you go to remount the scope/ring combo (depending on the ring to base design, Weaver, picatinny, etc.) to the bases that remained on the receiver (integral, like Ruger, or otherwise. That dimensional variance, however slight, will present itself and make it impossible (from a perfectly precision perspective) for the scope/ring combo to return to it's 'exact' previous position.
Again, minor differences that shouldn't matter much on a 'hunting rifle' (whatever that is?), but it could show up on the target in either, or both, POI shift or group size.
Okay guys, rip into me!

P.S. I'll add this as a 'side poll'....How many (percentage) 'average shooters' do you think lap in their scope rings?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
A skim coat of bedding compound on the lower half of the rings, with the scope (with ample 'release' agent!!) held in contact with surgical tubing can get you to the same end result without all the 'elbow movement'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,236 Posts
(I glass bed a piece of one inch hydraulic chrome shafting instead of the scope, though.)
Good idea, less $$ risky than an expensive scope should something go wrong. In either case, lapping or bedding, you have to make sure your 'tool of choice' is as straight and true as the scope tube, or all is for naught!
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top