Encore base and rings

[dj_in_md]

I have a few encore barrels and I am thinking of using one style base on all the barrels and using one set of quick detach rings to switch a Nikon between them. Wondering if anyone else is using a setup like this and/or what the encore users think of this idea and recommendations of which brand to go with.

thanks in advance for your input.

[hogrdr]

The only barrel i use quick detach is muzzle loader switching scope from 1X Utah regs to 3X9 when out of state!
I use Leupold and they have not failed and need very little if any adjustment when switched.

Hog

[Qualitymilk]

+1 for Leupold - they are hard to beat on any rifle, and I have been very pleased with the 1 piece DMZ Dednutz mount as well (they are a sponsor here too.)  Good luck!

[Grumulkin]

I did use Leupold QD rings on a Leupold base on my 375 H&H Magnum Encore and they did fail.  Perhaps they would have done OK if mounted on a barrel chambered for a cartridge with less recoil.

What I do use are Warne bases on my Encore and Contender rifle barrels and I use Warne QD rings so I can easily switch scopes between barrels.  Warne bases/QD rings have proven entirely satisfactory even up to 20 gauge shotgun and 300 Win. Mag. levels of recoil.

[southernutah]

I did use Leupold QD rings on a Leupold base on my 375 H&H Magnum Encore and they did fail.  Perhaps they would have done OK if mounted on a barrel chambered for a cartridge with less recoil.

What I do use are Warne bases on my Encore and Contender rifle barrels and I use Warne QD rings so I can easily switch scopes between barrels.  Warne bases/QD rings have proven entirely satisfactory even up to 20 gauge shotgun and 300 Win. Mag. levels of recoil.

Warne,    Only way to go

[NOLA]

I did use Leupold QD rings on a Leupold base on my 375 H&H Magnum Encore and they did fail.  Perhaps they would have done OK if mounted on a barrel chambered for a cartridge with less recoil.

How did they fail?
I am trying to use them on a 375 JDJ and on a 350 Rem Mag

[southernutah]

I think Leupold had two different QDs. One uses small lever like the Warne and weaver style base and the other has posts the are held in the base with a cam on a lever. Hope that make since.

[Grumulkin]

The ones I tried were not on a Weaver style base so must have been the cam on lever ones.  How did they fail?  The rings became very loose in the base after only a few shots and I wasn't able to tightly secure the rings to the base.

[southernutah]

The difference I found between the Leupold and Warne is the Warne don't mark up the scope like the Leupold

[Ladobe]

I'm old school and wouldn't use QD's on any of my firearms... each scope is dedicated to a barrel/rifle and stays on it.   So no help there from me, sorry.

Just some random thoughts... Rings wouldn't mark up a scope or slip if they were installed correctly, or be as likely to fail.   Few bother to lap rings now days, a necessity for handcannons but should be done on every scope mounted.    Big, heavy scopes do not belong on handcannons either - weight is the mounts enemy during recoil.   JD uses high tensile strength aluminum for his T'SOB bases and rings for a reason on the handcannons - why they do not fail like heavy steel rings can/do.

YMMV

   

[Grumulkin]

I'm old school and wouldn't use QD's on any of my firearms... each scope is dedicated to a barrel/rifle and stays on it.   So no help there from me, sorry.

Just some random thoughts... Rings wouldn't mark up a scope or slip if they were installed correctly, or be as likely to fail.   Few bother to lap rings now days, a necessity for handcannons but should be done on every scope mounted.    Big, heavy scopes do not belong on handcannons either - weight is the mounts enemy during recoil.   JD uses high tensile strength aluminum for his T'SOB bases and rings for a reason on the handcannons - why they do not fail like heavy steel rings can/do.

YMMV

   

How "old school" are you.  I'll bet I'm older than you.

If you'll come over to our side, you'll find that a barrel without a scope is much easier to store or travel with to say nothing about the savings when you don't have to buy 20 scopes to go along with your 20 barrels.  As for ring lapping; if you buy good rings marking on the scope will be nonexistant or minimal and there will be no need for lapping.  I, by the way, have never in my life lapped scope rings.

I'm not sure what you mean by "big heavy scopes" but my favorite is Leupold's 2.5-8X handgun scope which is about as big as handgun scopes go.  If you're shooting a high powered and accurate handgun, you'll like the extra magnification.  I do, however, mount the scopes on my heavy recoiling handguns in SSK Industries' 6 screw base/4 ring T'SOB system.

[Ladobe]

How "old school" are you.  I'll bet I'm older than you.

If you'll come over to our side, you'll find that a barrel without a scope is much easier to store or travel with to say nothing about the savings when you don't have to buy 20 scopes to go along with your 20 barrels.  As for ring lapping; if you buy good rings marking on the scope will be nonexistant or minimal and there will be no need for lapping.  I, by the way, have never in my life lapped scope rings.

I was born in the late 40's, so it would be no big feat for you to be older in years.   But a person’s age has very little to absolutely nothing at all to do with doing something "old school".   Lots of my hunting buddies use old school methods because they work, and some of them are half my age.

Thanks for the suggestions, but long experience assures that I will not come over to your side on using QD bases and rings.   Shooting/hunting has been a very large part of my life since I was a lad on the ranch where firearms were just tools.   So the costs involved for firearms, scopes, accessories, etc are not and never have been a consequence to me - I've always spent whatever I had to for what I wanted.  And since most of my use for my firearms (including my TC’s since 1968) has been western big/small game, predator and long range varmint hunting, high quality scopes mounted on nearly every firearm is standard.   It's a sure bet that I’ve owned way more TC frames and barrels than you have, and way more handcannons than you just because I’ve owned way more than most folks have.   So I know what has always worked for me and see no reason to change that.

And like I said in my original post... "YMMV".

[Grumulkin]

By George, you ARE older.  I feel better now.

I haven't had that many Encore/Contender frames but barrels I've had (quite a few sold over the years) probably run 40 or 50.  My taste in scopes has also changed over the years.  I used to be quite satisfied with Tasco and Bushnell scopes.  My tastes now run to Leupold VX-III, Leupold Mark 4 (especially illuminated), Nightforce and Zeiss.  Not only is it less expensive to switch scopes between barrels, but barrels and scopes take up less room in the gun safe.  In addition, there really isn't much downside since the QD rings hold them securely and if you record scope settings on target turrets, you can easily get scopes back to zero.

But, each to his own.

[Ladobe]

Ahhh, just a punk kid huh?  

I'ved owned as many frames as you have owned barrels pard, and over that many custom barrels alone (not counting all the factory barrels).   Other than the Tasco Pro Class and Simmons Gold Medal handgun scopes I've owned (because they hold up to handcannons), I've never wasted my money on no name scopes for either my rifles or pistols.     Never needed to rezero scopes on any of my firearms.   While many of my long range scopes do wear target turrets, I'm not a knob twister.   Instead I'm old school on that too, just let many years of experience be my guide to hold for range and wind.   I never bothered with barrels in the safes either, they were for guns and I had enough of them to fill two safes.   But I had silhouette cases and cabinets full of barrels in racks if that matters.

Yep, to each his own.    

[1jonmon]

not to stir the pot or anything , but between you two's "to each his own's",  I have to say, I think Grumulkin is right!  To me the whole point of owning an encore or contender is cost effectiveness...Ladobe you posted "I've always spent whatever I had to for what I wanted."  So why not have an arsenal of Weatherby whatevers...?  Or Browning, etc...?  Didn't T/C really get "on the map" for versatile cost effectiveness?  Why have a buttload of actions and scopes if you can interchange?  You can't shoot more than two at a time, lol.  Spend that savings on fishing rods