Flat Top AR, Scope Rings?
Do I need picatinny specific rings, or can I use Weaver type cross slot rings?
0
-
My understanding is that the Weaver type rings fit. 0 -
Weaver type rings work fine. The only difference between Weaver and Picatinny, is Picatinny,s are made more precise for the military. 0 -
Excellent, Weaver type it will be. Seems every tacticool ring I looked at was priced on how ugly they are.
Thanks guys.0 -
Take a look at the ARMS mount swan mounts on the flat top is all that is required. I have a set on the AR and they look great and keep 0.
Emmett0 -
Ugly = Tacticool. [;)]
Picatinny rails have wider grooves to accept the wider cross member on the ring, so rings for a Picatinny base only will be too thick for a standard Weaver base. Weaver rings will fit the wider Picatinny albeit with a bit of front & back slop.
I don't think it makes any difference in most applications, but when using heavy recoiling rifles I do make certain to match correctly.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dfletcher
Ugly = Tacticool. [;)]
Picatinny rails have wider grooves to accept the wider cross member on the ring, so rings for a Picatinny base only will be too thick for a standard Weaver base. Weaver rings will fit the wider Picatinny albeit with a bit of front & back slop.
I don't think it makes any difference in most applications, but when using heavy recoiling rifles I do make certain to match correctly.
Or maybe Tacticool=ugly[:D]
Did you catch my post in GD? There ain't much tacticool about my "new to me" rifle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcs shooters
Weaver type rings work fine. The only difference between Weaver and Picatinny, is Picatinny,s are made more precise for the military.
The Weaver rings should work fine, though I think its a little more complicated than that.
Picatinny (1913) rails are required by spec to have the slots be of uniform distance apart. The slots on Weaver rails don't have to be (and often aren't).
Also, by spec, the slots on Weaver rails are SLIGHTLY smaller than those on Picatinny.
So while you should always be able to put a Weaver base on a Picatinny rail, the reverse isn't always true.
For this reason, as mentioned, a true Weaver base on a true Picatinny rail will have a tiny bit more play than a true Picatinny base on a Picatinny rail. (I say "true" because some manufacturers use the terms interchangeably when they really aren't).
Now in practice, yes, you can put Weaver bases on your flat top AR rifle, and this should work fine.
In THEORY, there is more room for front-back play with the Weaver bases on a Picatinny rail (about 2/100" IIRC), but in practice its probably not significant especially since the screws holding them down are probably going to prevent any motion.
Also in THEORY using true Picatinny mounts on the rail may give you a more reproduceable mount (eg if its a quick-detach type thing that you take on and off), though in practice I'm not really sure how reproduceable any of these things are in the real world.0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
Also in THEORY using true Picatinny mounts on the rail may give you a more reproduceable mount (eg if its a quick-detach type thing that you take on and off), though in practice I'm not really sure how reproduceable any of these things are in the real world.
I don't forsee any problem with return to zero. Once the scope is on it's there to stay. At least until I can afford something like a Kahles or Swarovsky.0 -
There are some one piece mounts on the market which you may want to consider. I used a RRA one piece mount to put a scope on my 20". 
0 -
Now that's a nice looking one Maalox. I'm definitely going to check into the heights available.
Thanks0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments