How well does a scope & rings hold zero when removed & remounted?

[dieselrealtor]

Leaving rings on the scope of course.

I have several rifles I have scopes for but don't really have room in the safe for them to be scoped in the safe.

The way they mount on the rifle seems to have a "bottom" with no wiggle as it is tightening, does it depend solely on the quality of the rings & base?

thanks.

 

[snapping turtle]

Look at setups with warne Quick Detachable rings. Let’s you remove the scope easy for storage of rifles in the safe. Scoped rifles are far more bulky in a safe.

They seem to go right back to zero between on and off. Other brands most likely preform about the same but since the warned seemed to work very well I have stuck with them.

I am able to then buy a quality scope and use it on a couple of platforms like this also. I use a hang tag on the scope to remind me which gun it was last sighted in on. It is not magic solution but they got right back to zero on the rifle they came off of.

I have the following in Warner QD. Leopold scout scope. Redfield 1-4 scope. Leopold fixed 6x. Leopold ultralight 2.5 Leopold 2-7 Weaver target v30. Weaver V16. And one weaver grand slam 3x9. I have a dedicated setup on a 22-250 with one of Allen’s vortex scopes. I have a Denver redfield 3200 in regulars and a couple of 22’s with scopes that I bought them with. The smaller magnification scopes seem to see lots of work in the field and the weavers for target. Not everything fits on everything and some like the fixed six is always been a one gun scope on my 222.

With a good rail system in place it also lets you use say a fixed 16 power scope to tweak reloads or accuracy loading and drop down in power for hunting. All rather quickly at the range.

 

[M67]

You get what you pay for. Quality (expensive) QD mounts will return to zero or very close to

Cheap ones you'll be able to take on and off but don;t count on it being close to being zero'd

Good bases are a given, Warne, EGW, Nightforce, etc.

 

[natdscott]

To get good QD, it costs, and even then you need to be able to replicate how YOU use the QD.

By the by, GOOD in this case is usually defined as be in within a Minute. Better is achievable, but don't expect miracles either.

-Nate

 

[Yeah]

does it depend solely on the quality of the rings & base?

Add the scope and base along with the mounting particulars if all of the above and you're there.

 

[dieselrealtor]

Scopes are mainly Vortex, a few Weaver Kaspa. Not sure what all is on the rimfires.

 

[Yeah]

I've never used a Weaver Kaspa I wouldn't trust any Vortex to RTZ regardless of rings or bases or mounting practices, mainly because I've had several.

 

[seedubs1]

Try a Razor?

This should have much more to do with the rings and bases and proper installation than the scope...

I've never used a Weaver Kaspa I wouldn't trust any Vortex to RTZ regardless of rings or bases or mounting practices, mainly because I've had several.

 

[halfmileharry]

I torque all my rings to the bases and re-torque when I re-install them.
Overall they do decent but I seldom have one that goes back to zero. Even my American Defense mounts will need "touched up"
They'll be close and some will be spot on but it's the exception to the rule in my experience.

 

[Yeah]

Try a Razor?

This should have much more to do with the rings and bases and proper installation than the scope...

Several, Gen 1 and 2.

Never seen a 1 RTZ reliably, QD mounts or not. The 2 are hit and miss in that regard.

 

[seedubs1]

Having a hard time believing a Razor Gii isn't holding zero. I'm thinking the issue is somewhere else in the system. Those scopes are well proven at this point.

Several, Gen 1 and 2.

Never seen a 1 RTZ reliably, QD mounts or not. The 2 are hit and miss in that regard.

 

[snapping turtle]

“Right back to zero” let me admit that is is never perfectly right back to zero but it is very close.
The lower power scopes seem to work best in the system. All of them get sighted in before any hunting is done.
All seem to be on paper and within reason of many of my rimfires with the scopes that stay in place all the time.

 

[Yeah]

Having a hard time believing a Razor Gii isn't holding zero. I'm thinking the issue is somewhere else in the system. Those scopes are well proven at this point.

I'm more than a little comfortable mounting optics, and assessing the work of others. Only one of ten or so Vortex scopes that I've owned didn't have at least one functional defect. That figure includes 2 Gen I and 2 Gen II Razors. Apart from the first Gen 2 I bought already mounted up those defects were enough to send them down the road. Owing to their marketing department I've seen multiple others do their thing at various hunting camps and the like, and far more often than not those had defects as well.

What paces have you put yours through, how many MOA through their erectors, etc?

 

[seedubs1]

Im not running any Razors. At this time, I’m running two Sig Tango 6’s and a Weaver Tac. All 3 of those out of the same LOW Japan build house as the razor. No issues with tracking and retaining zero so far.....no idea how many times I’ve run the turrets up and down though. I’d guess a thousand or so on the Weaver 3-15 and Sig 2-12.

Only real step up from a razor gen ii is Hensoldt, Leupold mk8, USO, IOR, and a few others. And most of the comparably priced well regarded scopes in the razor gen iis price range are LOW produced as well.

Im really just not seeing major issues with Razors around here at the ranges nor on the forums. If they didn’t work, people wouldn’t still be recommending them and buying them for the price they cost.

If you were complaining about PST gen 1’s going down.....yeah, I see that. But the Razors are even in the sand box at this point, and you’re pretty well the only one I’ve seen complain about the razor gen iis. Maybe you just have bad luck?

I'm more than a little comfortable mounting optics, and assessing the work of others. Only one of ten or so Vortex scopes that I've owned didn't have at least one functional defect. That figure includes 2 Gen I and 2 Gen II Razors. Apart from the first Gen 2 I bought already mounted up those defects were enough to send them down the road. Owing to their marketing department I've seen multiple others do their thing at various hunting camps and the like, and far more often than not those had defects as well.

What paces have you put yours through, how many MOA through their erectors, etc?

 

[Yeah]

Im not running any Razors. At this time

So the ones you've shot through a bit, how about those? Or if you had one/some and no longer do, why'd you trip?

Maybe you just have bad luck?

Unlikely, as I experience excellent results almost unflinchingly.

 

[seedubs1]

No issues.

So what exactly are you running if the razor gen ii isn’t up to your standards? Care to share any actual testing you’ve done? I’ve read most of the testing available on the internet regarding the higher end scopes.....interested to hear since it sounds like you have conflicting data.

So the ones you've shot through a bit, how about those?

 

[bwframe]

So I wonder if the folks that have found the QD mounts to be unreliable on returning to zero have moved away from them? Or do they still use them for the versatility of moving the scope around, even though having to rezero?

 

[snapping turtle]

On my marlin 1894 44 mag scout scope it returns to zero (under one inch or my skill level) at 60 yards. This gun is not a target gun and I do use it without sight in shots for deer season as it is minute of deer for sure. It is a scout rifle. All shots within 100 yards and close to 20-40 yard normal shots. This rifle has back up iron peep sights from skinner also.

The weaver 16 often gets switched to different rifles but when it goes back on to what it came off of it can vary slightly but is always close. Is it the humidity? Weather? Wind? Where I am placing my cheek. Once again I don’t know if my skill level calls out the QD as being the issue. It does have 8 times more magnification than the scout. When it comes off the ruger 10-22 target is works great and seems right back to near the same hole. On a Remington 541T not as good outside the the 9 ring to the right but it might be the two piece rings. Both of these rifles shoot much better than I do. The ruger target is laminated stock the rem is walnut. Once again the variables of the gun bases weather humidity ect could be in play more on the older rem 541.

The rem 700 and the Leopold M8 6 power I would go without a sight in shot on groundhog or coyotes. It locks in very well. I always sight in sight it back in and it is always just a one shot ordeal. That scope and rifle has always been together as a pair. Only the warne QD has changed. On pistol scopes for a contender 4 power and 2-6 power they work great up close from barrel to barrel. K

So so it would seem as magnification goes up zero repeatability goes down. Once again we are also dealing with issues such as bases of different styles.

If you are looking at a storage issue they are worth the price over safe prices. If you only have room for one safe ect. The cost is you need to go to a range before serious shooting to make sure you are on target.

Works for me. Maybe not all.

 

[Yeah]

So what exactly are you running if the razor gen ii isn’t up to your standards?

I'm "running" a herd: SWFA of varying models, Nightforce NXS and ATACRs, elder vintage Leupold M4 and FX3, USO SN3 and ST10, Bushnell LRHS...probably some others I forget. They'll all happily hold zero, repeat adjustment, and RTZ well better than anything Vortex. A $300 SWFA SS will shame anything they've ever made.

I’ve read most of the testing available on the internet regarding the higher end scopes

I don't doubt reading about the exploits of others saves wear and tear on the body as compared with actually doing. A side benefit is that the less one does the better inferior wares "perform".

 

[seedubs1]

So.....no data? I’m sticking with data, personal experience, and the experience of a hell of a lot of competitive shooters as well as the military. The razor Gii holds zero, tracks, and is repetitive. You’re pretty damn well the only person I’ve everheard say otherwise.

I'm "running" a herd: SWFA of varying models, Nightforce NXS and ATACRs, elder vintage Leupold M4 and FX3, USO SN3 and ST10, Bushnell LRHS...probably some others I forget. They'll all happily hold zero, repeat adjustment, and RTZ well better than anything Vortex. A $300 SWFA SS will shame anything they've ever made.


I don't doubt reading about the exploits of others saves wear and tear on the body as compared with actually doing. A side benefit is that the less one does the better inferior wares "perform".