Might be a dumb question, but I'm gonna ask anyway. Is there any problem in using Weaver type rings with Picatinny bases? That is what I am using, and it seems to work just fine. Actually, I have risers on a Picatinny base, but the risers look the same to me as the base. Main reason I am asking is I just ordered a Leaupold scope, and I have never owned a expensive scope before, and I want to make dang sure it stays attached to the AR! So, do you see any problem with this set up, or should I buy rings specifically for the Picatinny base.
What do you think about these rings: http://www.midwayusa.com/eproductpag...eitemid=320006
They should be all right, shouldn't they?
I don't know (pic vs weaver). But i ordered 2 of the cheaper riser blocks off of midway along with some other stuff, one listed as weaver, the other as picatany. Once they come in i'll do a review. I figured for $30 bucks total it was worth it to have a couple risers. I need 2 working scope mount systems anyway, and i may need higher weaver rings anyway than the ones i have on this reddot scope now, even with a riser.
As far as i can tell on what i ordered, there is no measurable difference between a riser marked as a weaver ring compatible base and one marked as a picatanny ring compatible base. I mean they are identical except for the finish, probably made by the same machine shop. Putting a set of weaver rings on these bases works, but there is "some slop" or fore to aft play until you crank the rings down. From eye balling it and what i know of recoil and scopes, i'd say its ok to do. I just mounted a reddot on my 16" upper and i'm headed to the range.
Picatinny Rails, Weaver Rails, What’s The Difference?
By Andrew Swan
When you are looking through the Brownells Catalog, there are many different parts and accessories that use the words Picatinny and Weaver to describe what they are compatible with. Just what is a Picatinny Rail anyway? And how is it different from a Weaver? It will be beneficial to look at the origin of the Picatinny system first.
The “Picatinny Rail” is a term that has evolved in the firearm industry from a military standard, specifically MIL-STD-1913 (AR) which was adopted on February 3, 1995. The title of the publication is “Dimensioning Of Accessory Mounting Rail For Small Arms Weapons” and this document specified exactly what the dimensions and tolerances were for any mounting systems that were to be submitted for acceptance by the military. The term “Picatinny” comes from the place of origin for this system, the Picatinny Arsenal located in New Jersey. MIL-STD-1913 specifies the dimensions required for consideration, including length, width, height, and angles and the tolerances allowed for each measurement. The key distinction of the MIL-STD-1913 lies in the specification for the profile and the recoil groove.
Source: MIL-STD-1913 (AR) 3 February 1995
Source: MIL-STD-1913 (AR) 3 February 1995
What are the differences between the “Picatinny” and the “Weaver” systems? The profile of the two systems is virtually identical. Depending on the quality of the machining done by the manufacturer, the two systems should be indistinguishable from the profile. The key difference lies in the placement of the recoil grooves and with width of the grooves. MIL-STD-1913 (Picatinny) grooves are .206” wide and have a center-to-center width of .394”. The placement of these grooves has to be consistent in order for it to be a true “Picatinny” MIL-STD system. Weaver systems have a .180” width of recoil groove and are not necessarily consistent in a center-to-center measurement from one groove to the next. In many instances, a Weaver system has a specific application that it is machined for, so interchangeability is not necessarily an issue. A MIL-STD-1913 system must adhere to the specifications listed above in order for it to be considered MIL-STD, since the military desires uniformity in the recoil grooves to allow for different systems to be mounted on the weapon with no concern for compatibility.
Now, what does this mean to you? Boiled down, it means that accessories designed for a Weaver system will, in most cases, fit on a “Picatinny” system. The reverse, however, is probably not the case. Due to the larger recoil groove, “Picatinny” accessories will not fit a Weaver system.
There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but for a good rule-of-thumb, “Picatinny” won’t fit Weaver, but Weaver will fit “Picatinny”.
Well, thats good to know. Be advised though that if you order a riser base from someplace, you are going to get the exact same thing that is on top of the ar15 flattop reciever (whatever that technically is) regardless of what the advertising says the rail is. The only thing i don't have in my possession is a set of picatanny rail scope mounts and i have those on the way. My suspicion is that they'll work fine on my "weaver" base riser block. I guess we'll see.
__________________ "I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
I want to avoid scratching my scope with scope rings, so am considering the Burris Signature with plastic insert. These appear to be a Weaver type, whereas the top of my AR15 is a Picatinny rail. Besides there being no spec for slot spacing on the Weaver, the slots on the Weaver are .180" wide and the Picatinny is .206". Will there be a problem (movement or alignment) mounting Burris Signature Rings (Weaver) on the Picatinny rail. It may fit, but not sure if advisable.
On a related note, I am not sure the Signature rings would look appropriate on an AR15? What do you think?
share your thoughts...
You probably already know this (in which case, disregard), but, just in case: the rings must be pushed all the way forward in the slot before you snug them down to prevent movement of the scope. Particularly important when there's extra room in the slot, as in Picatinny slots with Weaver rings.