458 Lott ate my QD Warne rings

[C.W. Richter]

i honestly think drilling and tapping tiny little screws to hold bases instead of using the integral bases would not be nearly as strong.

There should be a recoil lug for the front bridge , or have the base utilize the front of the action opening similar to what EAW has done with their cz rings. Rigby used the double square bridge when they used the CZ actions, and do again with the Mauser actions. Their rings are quite expensive and I haven't been able to look at a set to see what they do . Their 450 Rigby is only a single square bridge so it cannot utilize a scope
I would imagine you could order a double square bridge and have them build it.

Does anyone on here run those beauty Rigbys and have any input how their ring system works?

Thanks again

Craig

Bases such as the talley have a lug built in and they don't have weak little rimfire style clamps, rather they have screws which have a very large shear modulus 90° to the screws that's why they work on every other gun but yours. You haven't fixed this already?!

 

[C.W. Richter]

Trade the gun in on a newly improved CZ oddly using older technology the out-of-pocket extra will be minimal and you will never post about this again. C z Safari not standard.

 

[C.W. Richter]

Someone above raises an important point which I have long since forgotten someone had a heavy hand loaded Big bore steyr-Manlicher with a walnut stock dialed it in with a lead sled and basically snapped the pistol grip. Not good. The body absorbs recoil much better although if your gig is 460 weatherby it might break you!
.

 

[WAB]

Makes sense to me also. Shoot within your limits and spend the time to learn how to shoot the heavy recoilers if your are going to hunt with them. Over time, since about 1969-70, I've slowly learned to shoot the heavy recoiling rifles. I always pad up with a fairly thick, hard leather pad at the range and don't over do any one session. Sometimes I can take quite a few hits and sometimes no more than 4 or 5. I stop on those days when it doesn't feel right... so I won't develop a flinch. I don't flinch with my heaviest recoiler - the slightly larger cousin of the Lott. I don't think I need a bigger caliber anyway.

I hear all kinds of "reasons" for brakes and lead sleds, etc., and some may be legit for some health/medical issues... but I think in many cases it's simply a justification or rationalization for an excuse.... or an excuse for an outlay of money for a gadget

There is no way a rifle will shoot the same comparing an attached heavy mechanical device to only the shooter's mass attached. A hunting rifle is not carried in the field with a mechanical device attached anyway so IMO the shooter needs to shoot it at the range the same way it will be shot in the field. Granted, I think that sometimes the difference in POI or group size may (or may not) be very close between the two (depending of many variables) but then the shooter has to be held accountable when the device is not attached. And an overloaded or rigid attached mechanical device will increase the potential for damage to gun and scope. I've never done it because I've never used one. I have witnessed stock breakage attributed to the lead sled though. And the physics dictates there has to be two directions of force applied to a scope if mounted to a rifle that is held against a rigid barrier to recoil like a heavy lead sled. And the distance of the force impulse doesn't have to be great for there to be potentially damaging force applied- even vibration, if violent enough (enough energy), can do damage. It's well known that the mouse f*rt recoil of a spring airgun can damage some regular high power scopes because of the direction of recoil. I also hear such things as and kind of related to this, "I'm an expert shot, have no problem shooting well for hunting, I don't need trigger time nor practice, so I shoot very little because I just don't like recoil". One of the older members of our morning coffee group comes up with that big "whoee" about every year to two when shooting orr an upcoming hunting season comes up for discussion. OhhKay, whatever you say

Nothing wrong with using a lead sled to sight a rifle in as long as you practice as you will hunt afterwards. If you feel you must shoot from a bench, at least do what the makers of these heavy rifles do, build a standing bench. This allows your body to soak up recoil much more effectively. I shot the final test rounds of the first .700 H&H at their London shooting grounds. It was stout from the standing bench. I’m quite certain that I would have been injured if I had shot it from a sitting bench.

I believe that your analysis of the recoil forces on mounts with a sled is incorrect. The recoil is generated by explosive propulsion of the bullet and powder in the barrel. This is transferred through the stock to the shooter. If the rifle is prevented from recoiling as much by the addition of a hundred pounds of lead to basically the shooters shoulder, the forces in the wrist and butt of the stock will be increased. However, the forces on the scope mounts will be decreased because the actual movement of the rifle has been decreased.

 

[machinistbutler]

I think size 8s are plenty strong. I've never even seen a size 6 fail under recoil. I see no issues with failure of screwed on bases posted in this thread or similar threads around the net, but plenty of issues about CZ integral base alignment and failure of certain QD mounts.

I believe @Ridge Runner posted how his screws sheared off on his bases and his scope flew off and hit him in the head. I don't think he was using a CZ rifle.

 

[machinistbutler]

Used the ignore icon for the first time on this site. It is a nice feature.

 

[machinistbutler]

Trade the gun in on a newly improved CZ oddly using older technology the out-of-pocket extra will be minimal and you will never post about this again. C z Safari not standard.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been drinking?

 

[machinistbutler]

Cw Richter could you also let me know how many full house rounds you have fired from your 458 Lott, being as how you know so much about how cz 458 Lott rifles are so substandard to your 458 Lott rifle.

My 416 Rigby didn't have a problem with this set up, it wasn't until I used it on the Lott, which has a little more recoil. I still think I didn't have the Qd lever tight enough, which is not a failure of the rifle. It is a failure of myself and the ring design. Put a loose ring on your 458 LOTT and see if it has no problems.

 

[Scott CWO]

Most HUNTING rifles I have seen in .40 caliber on up including mine, use a barrel band eye for sling attachment.
That ain't going to work with any bipod I have ever seen. There is usually no swivel stud on the fore end to bite the support hand during recoil. I am the first to admit that I tap out when it comes to calibers larger than .416/423. I do shoot those calibers in prone position with at least a daypack as a front rest if the occasion calls for it.
I am curious, do any of you guys use a bipod on these type of rifles?

I was referring to mid and small caliber rifles, not a larger bore DG rifle with a barrel band sling attachment.

 

[Scott CWO]

I accept that you are fully vested in wringing the maximum range potential from a given rifle and cartridge. I know this seems hard to accept, but I don’t care what the maximum range potential of one of my rifles might be. I do not equip them with the sort of scopes that could even take advantage of such capability. It does not interest me at all. What I do care about passionately is how my rifle performs within the range and target envelope for which it is being used.

My personal experience with the sled involves well over a decade of use and many thousands of rounds of ammunition In many different calibers. I can think of exactly two rifles that changed zero in any meaningful way from bench to sticks - one was a “custom” .243 that seemed to defy any logic of where it would next put a MOA group, and the other was a .220 Swift built as a light stalking rifle. It too seemed to defy any form of consistency. I should note both reacted to any sort of support. The hundreds of others showed no or no meaningful difference between a sled, a sandbag, or sticks. Those are simple facts.

I do not use an attached bipod for any of my shooting - range or field. I rarely shoot prone outside of a competitive event where I will be securely trussed up in military sling anyway. Almost all of my practice is from the sticks or sitting. In the field, I would guess 70% of my total shots at game have been from hasty rests, 20% from sticks, and 10% unsupported. I have killed one game animal beyond 400 meters.

My only point about all this is that my sled judgement is based on an enormous amount of rounds down range from the same rifles after sight in. I will freely admit, none of this has anything to do with ringing a gong at 1000+. But I would also argue little of that is particularly relevant to the rifles I use, the ranges I typically shoot, or the calibers I prefer. And I am absolutely confident I know what my rifles can do and what I can do with them at the ranges I engage game animals.

Yes, I wasn't talking about shooting the rifle in any number of hunting scenarios or positions. I was only referring to getting the rifle extremely accurately sighted in with a human body, not a sled. The only way to check that is at long range. I realize you don't care about this.

 

[WAB]

Used the ignore icon for the first time on this site. It is a nice feature.

LOL, we did get a little off track! Best of luck sorting things out.

 

[machinistbutler]

Oh sorry @WAB I wasn't referring to you at all.

I don't use a lead sled myself , a good friend does and it seems to help him a lot developing loads for his rifles.

I was just frustrated with a members bizarre posts that didn't seem to make any sense. I thought maybe he was handicapped and I didn't want to be rude.

Pissing contests on the internet are ridiculous lol.

Everyone has different ideas, what work for some may not work for others. People being rude isn't called for.

Most everyone on this forum is fantastic and very helpful!

 

[Forrest Halley]

What was this thread about?

The military didn't teach me how to shoot. I was never there. The military instructor types I have met with the crazy bonafides have not impressed me nor have the unpracticed expert shots around the gun shop counter. I value your ability to teach me rather than your individual ability.

I am thinking about putting in a sunken QD sling swivel stud for a bipod on my .375 bolt gun. I think I could then also use a 1907 style shooting sling to increase accuracy from other positions such as sitting or kneeling. I too feel that the barrel band will distort the POI with taut sling use and bipod use.

Lead sleds were not made for use with safari rifles. They were made for mitigating recoil and eliminating the flinch for zeroing normal sized hunting rifles. Folks abusing this system and their gear by being lazy recoil dodgers deserve to have their gear destroyed. Recoil is a testament to the power that the cartridge generates. You either want/need that power or you don't and if you do, you deal with the effects.

I like Warne rings and bases. They have not failed me yet. I cannot be continually afraid of something breaking on my rifle. It leads me to not want to take it out of the house. The .458 Lott is not fooling around and it offers no apologies so it seems appropriate that it identified a weak part.

It costs us nothing to be civil to each other here. I do enjoy a good bit of poking fun and even more so when the other party has the good nature to enjoy it and return in kind.

 

[Ridge Runner]

I believe @Ridge Runner posted how his screws sheared off on his bases and his scope flew off and hit him in the head. I don't think he was using a CZ rifle.

machininistbutler, you are correct my 458WM is a Zastava/ Remington 799
or 798 (I will have to look). But yes this is the brand of rifle that the base mount screws sheared off and allowed the scope to hit me.

The screws used were ( I custom fitted) were 6 x 40 or 8 x 32 metric equivalent (again I'll have to verify) fine thread, as fine threads give/provide more metal/threads for strength IMO, over less/or thicker threads, for intricate work such as required for scopes.

 

[Scott CWO]

Technically you are correct. Practically, I have shot sled, bags, rest, bipod, prone with sling, sitting w sling, sticks, etc., on many many rifles. As stated above, the only time I have seen a practical difference is on a fully bedded lightweight barrel and that was not appreciable between sled and bags, it was between prone with sling and any sort of rest.

I should add that this experience includes thousands of rounds with very accurate varmint rifles.

We can argue technicalities all day long, the bottom line is, once your rifle is sighted in, forget any of the rests and practice with it from hunting positions.

I would describe my posts as debating, not arguing. I thought of your posts that way and I respect your opinions, even if I disagree sometimes. Too many people these days cannot debate issues respectfully. There are always other people out there that can’t debate without going negative. The other person pushing sleds accused my friends and I of using animals as targets. He did apologize and then I accepted and I went back to debating. No worries.

Spoke with my friends again and another precision rifle company owner/designer who has a TV show whom we just guided for shiras moose two weeks ago. He also said a sled changes too many other variables and that the reduction of human error that people are seeking when sighting in a rifle can be taught with technique that more directly transfers to the field. As an engineer, he also designs scopes and said even spring powered pellet rifles (recoils in both directions) have damaged scopes. He designs and sells expensive scopes and he tells customers not to use a sled. He said most scopes are built with lenses that are more strongly bedded on one side to counteract the normal recoil direction that occurs when shot by a human.

Some rifles won’t show much different grouping from a sled to a human but many will so I guess I will choose not to take that chance as it defeats my goal.

Just relaying what people in the industry that I respect are telling me. They have more than just military training and they also train SF operators. These guys strive for 1/4” grouping rifles/ammo. I understand that most of us don’t require that kind of accuracy because game animals don’t shoot back. It’s a free country and people can use sleds if they like. But I disagree with advocating for sleds as a way to improve accuracy because in many rifles, they actually create other differences and accuracy problems. That’s why I got started down this path in my first post.

 

[MLindsay]

I would describe my posts as debating, not arguing. I thought of your posts that way and I respect your opinions, even if I disagree sometimes. Too many people these days cannot debate issues respectfully. There are always other people out there that can’t debate without going negative. The other person pushing sleds accused my friends and I of using animals as targets. He did apologize and then I accepted and I went back to debating. No worries.

Spoke with my friends again and another precision rifle company owner/designer who has a TV show whom we just guided for shiras moose two weeks ago. He also said a sled changes too many other variables and that the reduction of human error that people are seeking when sighting in a rifle can be taught with technique that more directly transfers to the field. As an engineer, he also designs scopes and said even spring powered pellet rifles (recoils in both directions) have damaged scopes. He designs and sells expensive scopes and he tells customers not to use a sled. He said most scopes are built with lenses that are more strongly bedded on one side to counteract the normal recoil direction that occurs when shot by a human.

Some rifles won’t show much different grouping from a sled to a human but many will so I guess I will choose not to take that chance as it defeats my goal.

Just relaying what people in the industry that I respect are telling me. They have more than just military training and they also train SF operators. These guys strive for 1/4” grouping rifles/ammo. I understand that most of us don’t require that kind of accuracy because game animals don’t shoot back. It’s a free country and people can use sleds if they like. But I disagree with advocating for sleds as a way to improve accuracy because in many rifles, they actually create other differences and accuracy problems. That’s why I got started down this path in my first post.

I have shot my 500 A-square maybe 50 to 60 times off of a bench. It has a pachmayr 990 pad , a modified muzzle brake with few holes on the bottom to keep the muzzle down. I always shoot it wearing double ear protection and a small piece of closed cell foam between pad and shoulder. To me it is not unbearable, really not that bad.

I have shot a couple times without the brake and the recoil is only slightly greater but there is a distinct muzzle rise.

 

[fourfive8]

After studying the various problems associated with CZ/BRNO mount systems, it seems the issue may have something to do with the kinetic event or events during recoil. If the lug on the side of a scope base is the least bit loose in it's slot, the impulse of a heavy recoiling rifle will slam that lug against the forward edge of the slot with an amount of kinetic energy proportional to the velocity of the recoil and the mass of the scope and its mountings. And if the mounts are the least bit loose at the first shot, the kinetic peening process will only get worse with increasing damage with each successive shot. Depending on how rigid the shooter's shoulder is or how rigid the mechanical block is (like an over weighted lead sled), the lug (whole scope with mounts) may very well bounce in the opposite direction for another kinetic hit on the rearward edge of the slot. There is a huge difference between strength against or resistance to damage by a kinetic energy event and the basic tensile strength or shear strength of a material or joined material subjected to an outside force. After looking at the photos posted of the deformations on those side recoil lugs from mounts being pounded by recoil, my first impression is the damage appears to be due to a kinetic event, at some velocity.

Again, as stated before, I would certainly try to come up with a more secure scope mount/base system if I were to get a CZ/BRNO in a heavy recoiling caliber with the flat top receiver with the single recoil side slot (a basic design flaw or weakness IMO). I would take it to a smith with a mill (easier for some than others but I'm lucky to have such a friend who is a gunsmith and who has a mill . I can envision all kinds of more secure systems for attachment of mounts including custom mounts. I am very confident that screws would also work for attachment since, by their nature, tighten and hold mounts under tension and friction so there will be no kinetic event possible when subjected to recoil impulse. For now I will be happy leaving my scopes as they are... held in rings with screws with the rings held in the bases by turn-in dovetails and the whole unit attached to the rifle with screws. No alignment issues and no failure issues.

 

[WAB]

I would describe my posts as debating, not arguing. I thought of your posts that way and I respect your opinions, even if I disagree sometimes. Too many people these days cannot debate issues respectfully. There are always other people out there that can’t debate without going negative. The other person pushing sleds accused my friends and I of using animals as targets. He did apologize and then I accepted and I went back to debating. No worries.

Spoke with my friends again and another precision rifle company owner/designer who has a TV show whom we just guided for shiras moose two weeks ago. He also said a sled changes too many other variables and that the reduction of human error that people are seeking when sighting in a rifle can be taught with technique that more directly transfers to the field. As an engineer, he also designs scopes and said even spring powered pellet rifles (recoils in both directions) have damaged scopes. He designs and sells expensive scopes and he tells customers not to use a sled. He said most scopes are built with lenses that are more strongly bedded on one side to counteract the normal recoil direction that occurs when shot by a human.

Some rifles won’t show much different grouping from a sled to a human but many will so I guess I will choose not to take that chance as it defeats my goal.

Just relaying what people in the industry that I respect are telling me. They have more than just military training and they also train SF operators. These guys strive for 1/4” grouping rifles/ammo. I understand that most of us don’t require that kind of accuracy because game animals don’t shoot back. It’s a free country and people can use sleds if they like. But I disagree with advocating for sleds as a way to improve accuracy because in many rifles, they actually create other differences and accuracy problems. That’s why I got started down this path in my first post.

No worries @Scott CWO, that’s exactly how I took your post, no offense taken and none intended. My experience disagrees with that of your friends. My experience does include a number of 1/4 moa rifles and I have been shooting them for about 45 years (obviously not nearly as long with a lead sled!). I will happily continue to use my sled. You will use bags, I’m sure with excellent results. Do be aware of my lookout on fully bedded lightweight barrels. It can be a dramatic effect.

One other thing while I’m thinking of it, I have a Ruger No1 that shoots exceptionally well (3/4” groups) off a Harris bipod. It will not shoot off any other sort of rest. I’m sure it’s got something to do with the forearm hanger/bedding. Go figure.

 

[Begger]

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest. I have used a lead sled for a number of years to sight rifles in, but I have almost always found I could get better groups off sticks or sandbags once I was sighted in. Now I’m beginning to understand why.

For me, the sled has its use, at least initially. Particularly large caliber guns at $5 or higher a shot. But it is not a replacement for learning to shoot off of sticks, in various positions. I have also found there is no replacement for simply shooting off hand. The groups on paper won’t be as impressive, but with practice they will improve.

 

[RayAtkinson]

I had Warnes pop out of gear and the levers change position, and block the bolt lift on my 458 Lott and during a buffalo charge, I slamed the bolt hard enough to breal the lever off and point the rifle at the bull and kill it or helped kill it.. Got home stripped all my rifle of warnes and went to talley and never a problem since, but in fact stuck a receiver sight on my 458 and it suited me as well ass the scope did..