Difference between weaver and picatinny?
- Thread starter Nozler
- Start date
thequickad
New member
Picked this up off the web a while back...
Dick Swan designed a dovetail system to be compatible with the original commercial Weaver mount, albeit with a slightly wider cross groove for strength. This design (which is patented by Dick) was taken up by Colt and subsequently standardized by Picatinny Arsenal under the specification STandard NAto AGreement 1913.
It has come to be called the "Picatinny Rail" because of the activity that NATO-standardized the design, but it is properly referred to as the "Swan/Weaver Rail."
Swan/Weaver rails will accept Weaver rings. However, while STANAG 1913 rings will slide onto Weaver bases, the cross-bolt is wider than the commercial Weaver cross slot.
Dick Swan designed a dovetail system to be compatible with the original commercial Weaver mount, albeit with a slightly wider cross groove for strength. This design (which is patented by Dick) was taken up by Colt and subsequently standardized by Picatinny Arsenal under the specification STandard NAto AGreement 1913.
It has come to be called the "Picatinny Rail" because of the activity that NATO-standardized the design, but it is properly referred to as the "Swan/Weaver Rail."
Swan/Weaver rails will accept Weaver rings. However, while STANAG 1913 rings will slide onto Weaver bases, the cross-bolt is wider than the commercial Weaver cross slot.
Occasionally you will come across a Weaver rail where the cross slots are hemi-spherical or rounded and the cross bolt of the rings used with them will align within the groove.
Compare to most true Picatinny mounts which will often have a squared cross bolt or a recoil lug that fits precisely into the squared cross slots and allows for very little movement.
In the end, you might get away with using Weaver rings on a Picatinny rail but you won't always get away with using Picatinny rings on a Weaver rail. Weaver rings also may have a bit of a sloppy fit until tightened down.
Compare to most true Picatinny mounts which will often have a squared cross bolt or a recoil lug that fits precisely into the squared cross slots and allows for very little movement.
In the end, you might get away with using Weaver rings on a Picatinny rail but you won't always get away with using Picatinny rings on a Weaver rail. Weaver rings also may have a bit of a sloppy fit until tightened down.
Let me jump in with a slightly OT question (since it's the right forum).
Anyone know which rail is used on the M1A Scout? I'm assuming Picatinny. The manual that came with mine just had info on the M1A in general. Makes sense given the only differences are the rail and length of barrel. Theres' nothing that indicates the rail type.
Anyone know which rail is used on the M1A Scout? I'm assuming Picatinny. The manual that came with mine just had info on the M1A in general. Makes sense given the only differences are the rail and length of barrel. Theres' nothing that indicates the rail type.
I recently took my leupold off my rifle and didn't like the unsolid look of the rear ring being held in place by a single screw on each side. Given how easily the screws move when pressure is removed I know my zero has changed just from taking it off.
I have been looking for a better mount/rings and IOR is the only weaver system that wasn't cheap looking that I found for my A-Bolt. They offer both weaver and picatinny and I didn't know which to get.
Their HD rings with long clamps and three screws on each side look very solid. They are over kill for my use but they look cool.
I have been looking for a better mount/rings and IOR is the only weaver system that wasn't cheap looking that I found for my A-Bolt. They offer both weaver and picatinny and I didn't know which to get.
Their HD rings with long clamps and three screws on each side look very solid. They are over kill for my use but they look cool.
BusGunner007
New member
When I chose to mount the Leupold Tactical 4.5-14x40 1" tube scope on my Remington 700 Police in .308, I went through the catalogs and websites trying to get the lowest combination of parts possible to maintain strength and still give me a way to R&R the scope, if I had to.
What I came up with was the new Weaver Grand Slam medium rings made of steel, and the Leupold MkIV 1-piece base, also made of steel.
The scope is REALLY low without touching the bbl. It worked perfectly.
I think this is a case of mixing 'Weaver' and 'Picatinny' mounting components that worked exceptionally well.
What I came up with was the new Weaver Grand Slam medium rings made of steel, and the Leupold MkIV 1-piece base, also made of steel.
The scope is REALLY low without touching the bbl. It worked perfectly.
I think this is a case of mixing 'Weaver' and 'Picatinny' mounting components that worked exceptionally well.
