Quote Originally Posted by jhelmuth
Their bases... so how could they get them "wong"?

I don't have them to look at further, but here are my "thoughts"...

> What are the differences between the “Picatinny” and the “Weaver” systems? The profile of the two systems is virtually identical (Depending only on the quality of the machining done by the manufacturer, the two systems should be indistinguishable from the profile). The key difference is 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.

> If they do not align on the bore axis on one side, it is geometricly not possible for it to do so on the otherside. The ONLY way you can have it work that way is to have a rail which is NOT symetrical. This is NEVER true with either the Picatinny OR Weaver rails - they are, but design, symetrical in the profile. (see above). I cannot find a single reference on their specs which contradicts that.

Maybe you can prove me wrong? ???