Weaver vs Picatiney?

[1jonzmith]

Is there any inherent advantage to either of these? Is there an equal assortment of rings that fit each of them?

I am about to buy rings for my Target action. I prefer one piece rings/base systems just to remove the number of "moving" parts, but also to open up the feed area.

Discussion and product recommendations welcome.

Thanks,


John

[Grit #1]

What is the difference?

[Jamie]

The difference is a true Picatiney rail has standardized slots cut into them. The slots are exact in the distance apart and the measurements of each depth, no matter who makes it.

A Weaver base can be whatever Weaver decides it wants to make. They have cross slots but they are placed at varying distances per part number. Weaver bases are also usually $9.00 and made of soft aluminum. Now, there are companies that make "Weaver style" bases. Basically meaning they have cross slots.

[ellobo]

I have used Weaver bases for more yrs than I want to remember and never had a problem until one time I needed a slot for a scope ring due to a short scope tube. I had access to a milling machine so I just made a new slot to fit the short scope tube. The fact the bases are soft aluminum never seemed to cause a problem even with recoil from my .35 Whelen. So, tell me how many of you guys have had some kind of failure due to Weaver bases? I doubt many. Personal choice is not a substitute for factual information.

El Lobo

[Gmac5]

More to picatinny vs weaver than jost slots,the distance across slots are also diff i have the diff specs 4 each in the shop . I will post if wanted tomorrow. It also means rings made 4 one and installed on the other will not truly be centered. It DOES HAVE A PROFOUND DIFF ON POA POI AT EXTENDED RANGES
Gary

[ellobo]

I was not knocking the picatinny bases, they are great for thier intended use. But my experience tells me that for my application the Weavers are more than adequate. I just get a bit antsy when I hear people knock a certain design, the Weavers and the Tupperware stocks are examples. I have a tupperware on one rifle and it is not as flexible as I keep hearing and has never caused a problem in accuracy for me and is an ideal stock for bad weather. My 2 cents worth.

El Lobo

[Gmac5]

I did not mean any one is better I too use weaver on 338 lapua & 50 bmg no problems ever
Gary

[cgeorgemo]

If you are wanting to open up area around the feed port then 2 piece bases which don't cross the feed area are the best.

[ellobo]

The beauty of this forum is you can learn something every day. Never having used a picatinney base I now know there is a difference in width from other bases. Thanks GMac. And I agree that 2 pc mounts gives you a bit more room to load a magazine. Both facts to consider for those looking for mounts. Thanks for the reminder cgeorge.

Ell Lobo

[jeffreyC]

Depending on the range you are planning to shoot, you may want to consider that Picatinny bases are available with built-in elevation which can help to keep your scope mechanically centered.

[1jonzmith]

Jeffry,

I have also seen Pic bases in two pieces so I THINK(!) I could couple those bases with MOA raise, I have seen 20 and 30MOA, advertised for long range shooting using scopes with minimal elevation flexibility. That was a really good point. More to think about.

Thank you,

John

[teebirdhyzer]

great to have choices. I have always used weaver style mounts on all my rifles with no known problems. It seems that the tacticool rage has perhaps ushered in many more available picatiney sytled mounts than in recent years....but maybe that is my imagination?

[tinkerer]

Heck, I had a set of weaver bases for a Savage that was maxed out at 100 yards. The gunsmith just shimmed it. I now keep some precision shim stosk for jsut this purpose.

As many solutions as you can think of.

Larry
Tinkerer

[1jonzmith]

thanks Larry