Picantinny or Standard Mount

[Arnvil]

Picantinny or Standard Mount
I'm thinking on which way to go.... Pros / Cons on both....

[HK Dave]

Have no clue what a "standard mount" is, nor what you are referring to. Maybe you mean "weaver"?

Picatinny is the standard of today. Stick with it. You will regret anything else.

[Arnvil]

Here's what I mean...this is the standard...
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/595...g-action-matte
Here's Picantinny
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/747...on-matte-steel

[Arnvil]

Detailed pros and cons is greatly welcomed...

Thanks HK Dave for your input...

[Iloveguns]

Go with the Picantinny. It will allow you more room for adjustment of the eye relief for the scope to fit you perfectly. Also you are stuck with Loopy rings if you go with the other mount.

[HK Dave]

Def go with picatinny. It will open up a huge world of rings, unimounts, etc. Like the previous poster said, it will allow you to adjust eye relief better. It will also allow to install picatinny mounted things like bubble levels, angle indicators and the like.

Main reason thought is that picatinny is the current universal standard and you don't get stuck in a closed system.

[HK Dave]

Also depending on what kind of round you're shooting, if its a big kicking round, you may want a mount with built in recoil lug so the screws aren't taking the brunt if the recoil. My favorite by far is seekins precision.

[postal]

I used the 2 piece loopy base for a number of years. I was never fond of it. However it never did let me down either. (it was all a local shop had in stock, and I didnt know better at the time)

Among what everyone else said about pic being better, You can use ANYONES rings on it that are pic. You dont have to buy same brand base/rings.

Just be aware, if you go steel base, you can use steel OR aluminum rings.

If you go aluminum base, ONLY use aluminum rings.

[Arnvil]

Thank You Gents!!!....
I'm still undecided, reason being, I have a Pre '64 Winchester Mod. 70 Safari .300 Win Mag. ... Leupold everything scope, base and rings. I can shoot sub 1/2 MOA at 300 yards with Sierra 168 gr, match kings. Ain't gonna change this one.
On the other hand I have a couple of newer rifles, that need to be more up to date. Savage Mod. 10 in .308 and a Remington 700 Sendero in 7mm rem. mag.


Leupold rings and base...$80


TPS picatinny rings and base...$145 I have the (steel) rings already.

Ok, which mounting system for which rifle

Picatinny, 7mm mag.?

Leupold .308?

or the other way around?

[postal]

In that case, perhaps you should make a choice based on weight.

Is one of these rifles going to be a hunting rig? Put the TPS stuff on the other one....

The loopy stuff will be lighter for your hunting rig.

Or...

Which one do you want to look "cool"? the TPS stuff looks way cooler than loopy!

Or... Here's a serious consideration as well.

depending on the specific scope you intend on using on each rifle- which one will fit better in the loopy mount for proper eye relief?

You may want more relief on the 7mm since recoil on a 308 is minimal. It comes down to what scope would fit what mount better?

[Arnvil]

Thanks Postal,
FYI...

I'm going with Loopy rings and bases on my 7mm.

2 piece picatinny on on my .308 with TPS rings and Warne maxims.

Thanks for helping me decide.

[OpticsPlanet]

I picked this up somewhere, years ago:

Dazzle your friends with your knowledge of picatinny and weaver rails:

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.

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, true “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”.

Mark H.

[JagerDog]

On classic rifles I like classic looks. Picatinny is anything BUT a classic look. "Looks cooler"? I don't happen to think so. I think they look like an abortion on classic lined rifles. For really classic looks, Conetrol has 'em all beat, but they're pricey.

The Picatinny does provide more variability in eye relief spacing...gobs more. It does provide that a scope could travel from rifle to rifle or multiple scopes, optics, attachments could be adapted to one rifle and swapped with relative impunity.

As Optics Planet revealed, Waever and Weaver type lacks the uniformity between mounts. 2 Scopes are readily swapped on one rifle with something like Maxima rings, but it's unrealistic to expect one scope to fit two rifles...particularly of different breeds.

My levers have Warne bases with Maxima take-off rings. The mounts are low enough that the factory sights can be readily used by removing the scope in just a few motions. My classic bolt actions get mounts same/similar as the Leupold's (though I prefer 2-piece allowing for more accesiblity to the bolt port) depicted and for long range applications get Burris Signature rings with the enclosed shims providing additional effective vertical adjustment.

The Leupold mount pictured will accept a variety of ring mfg.s made for the front rotating dovetail and rear windage adjustable. If the mounting holes in the receiver aren't on axis with the bore (not untypical at all), the windage adjustable mounts can help keep the windage adjustment of the scope from doing all the work, keeping the scope's internal adjustment fairly centered.

[postal]

Originally Posted by JagerDog

On classic rifles I like classic looks. Picatinny is anything BUT a classic look. "Looks cooler"? I don't happen to think so. I think they look like an abortion on classic lined rifles. For really classic looks, Conetrol has 'em all beat, but they're pricey.

The Picatinny does provide more variability in eye relief spacing...gobs more. It does provide that a scope could travel from rifle to rifle or multiple scopes, optics, attachments could be adapted to one rifle and swapped with relative impunity.

First- 'looks' is a personal preference- I like the look of more 'industrial grade' hardware on a modern rifle myself..

Second, it was kinda thrown in there as a joke- but the rest of the advice was all serious considerations... Especially eye relief and to some, weight can be a concern.

Third- Weren't you the guy that didnt know you're not supposed to put steel rings on an alu base? I forgot... Thought it was you....

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by postal

First- 'looks' is a personal preference- I like the look of more 'industrial grade' hardware on a modern rifle myself..

Second, it was kinda thrown in there as a joke- but the rest of the advice was all serious considerations... Especially eye relief and to some, weight can be a concern.

Third- Weren't you the guy that didnt know you're not supposed to put steel rings on an alu base? I forgot... Thought it was you....

Not sure why your panties are in a wad.

Did you have a point? Of course looks is a personal preferance. I said that I think they look like an abortion on something classic like a (walnut stocked) Win mod 70. Would you prefer fugly? And you think everything should have a muzzle break. Wasn't that you? Of course it was. Not everyone is shooting 1000 yards into the dirt so they can see how far off their reckoning was. Fine...you have your solutions to your problems. But not every problem is a nail, hence not every solution is a hammer.

I agreed with eye relief flexibility. But on said rifles, until you get into 4" type eye relief scops it's really not much of an issue with standard length stock. Recently scoping a custom Mauser I chose the standard viper with 3" relief over the HST at 4" for that reason. Just for the record, they don't make rails for that rifle TMK. I'd guess that eye relief using typical sporting telescopic sights was wayyyy down the list when they developed the picatinny rail. It was developed mainly for it's modularity. The ability to take component "A" and place it properly on any rifle "B". Makes great sense in a mil application with tough and changing conditions.

I asked why you felt steel rings shouldn't go on aluminum bases. Personally, I prefer steel all around. The oly thing I have aluminum on is a 10/22 and a circuit judge (came with it)..neither offering much in the way of recoil. But the recoil dog or crossscrew on aluminum Weaver style rings is steel. The clamp, if seperate, often is as well. Wow...might put a mar on an aluminum base. Any beating of the recoildog/screw on the slot is gonna happen regardless of the ring main base material. If the scope isn't coming off, you'll never see a mar. With the leupold base the OP is considering, doesn't seem like frequent scope removal is high on his priority list. Neither is an once of weight given his looking at 1 piece vs. 2 piece. IMHO more open port access afforded by 2-piece bases is a "serious consideration" too.

['ol shooter]

Different bases for different functions. I like the look of the Standard base on some rifles, and the utilitarian look and versatility of the Picatinny on others. Mounting a scope can be a pain with Standards, and the rail makes it much easier. Whichever you choose, the rings should fit the purpose too. If long distance is your bag, Sig Zee's are the cat's meow. My 50-75 yd. .22's have Warne QD's, so I can remount a dot if I want. Here are Standards with Sig Zee rings, adjustable in all directions.
[IMG][/IMG]

[postal]

Yup I recommend a brake on highpower rifles used in competitions.

Heck, even the 3 gun guys need a brake on a little 223 to be competitive. I was talking about a brake on 308/260/etc for that edge in a comp.

Generally, the base stays with the rifle, but the rings get swapped out when/if a scope is changed. If the scope was a 1" or 30mm or 34mm and the new scope was a different size... obviously it needs new rings. Happens all the time. People start cheap, with a 1" and move up eventually to a better scope. The pic rail can stay, but new rings need to be used. Perhaps the new scope, the rings wont line up in the same slot as the previous one. The marring on the base will put pressure on the ring bringing it out of true, which will apply torque to the scope tube- causing excessive ring mark, AND in some cases causes the scope to malfuction through it's adjustment range of zoom or elevation/windage travel.

As to your silly little excuse regarding marring the base with different materials and the material of the cross bolt/clamp material......

Funny! Since 65 inch pounds is actually quite a lot of torque- that is normally applied to steel ring cross bolts cupcake...


Yeah... that can do a number to an alu rail.

...and 'port access'.... Unless it's a blind internal mag that is top load only, it isnt an issue. I use a DBM setup like most people that shoot my style of competition. But is a valid concern to blind mag users.


Your opinion is both valid, and important to me, and this company. I will take this into serious consideration while making my decision as we move ahead. And I continue to help people who ask for advice...

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by postal

Yup I recommend a brake on highpower rifles used in competitions.

Heck, even the 3 gun guys need a brake on a little 223 to be competitive. I was talking about a brake on 308/260/etc for that edge in a comp.

Generally, the base stays with the rifle, but the rings get swapped out when/if a scope is changed. If the scope was a 1" or 30mm or 34mm and the new scope was a different size... obviously it needs new rings. Happens all the time. People start cheap, with a 1" and move up eventually to a better scope. The pic rail can stay, but new rings need to be used. Perhaps the new scope, the rings wont line up in the same slot as the previous one. The marring on the base will put pressure on the ring bringing it out of true, which will apply torque to the scope tube- causing excessive ring mark, AND in some cases causes the scope to malfuction through it's adjustment range of zoom or elevation/windage travel.

As to your silly little excuse regarding marring the base with different materials and the material of the cross bolt/clamp material......

Funny! Since 65 inch pounds is actually quite a lot of torque- that is normally applied to steel ring cross bolts cupcake...


Yeah... that can do a number to an alu rail.

...and 'port access'.... Unless it's a blind internal mag that is top load only, it isnt an issue. I use a DBM setup like most people that shoot my style of competition. But is a valid concern to blind mag users.


Your opinion is both valid, and important to me, and this company. I will take this into serious consideration while making my decision as we move ahead. And I continue to help people who ask for advice...

Yo cupcake. The OP or the guy with the varmint barreled 308 didn't mention long range competition. The guy hadn't even fired the rifle yet and youre screaming brake brake BRAKE! And outside of tactical rings you won't be finding 65 lbf*in torque specs. You're still hitting every problem with the same hammer. That works for you...fine! I happen to think each rifle, shooter and application to be rather unique.

I happen to think rails don't look right on a classic hunting sporter like a walnut Win 70. But that's why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors and girls come in blonde, brunette and ginger.

FWIW, 1", or 30mm or even 34mm has nothing to do with quality of optics. Sure, mfg's of higher end scopes have adopted larger tubes as of late, but it has little to do with quality and more to do with internal adjustment and market trends. Even CHEAP scopes can be had with 30mm tubes due to some "implied" quality which just isn't there. I also haven't run across the person feeling buying a new mount (say $30) for a $1000 scope to be a deal breaker. Maybe they're out there??? Many mount styles have rings available for the bigger tubes...specifically the mounts the OP listed do. Off hand, I can't think of one that doesn't. So unless one expects to be alternating optics, much of the utility (and the driving purpose behind their invention) of Pic rails is washed down the drain. That doesn't mean a rail isn't a perfectly good option...just not the only good option.

[postal]

Originally Posted by JagerDog

You're still hitting every problem with the same hammer.

Thors hammer is pretty effective.. LOL! It's a varminter... not a fancy claro walnut stock rich deep blue...

FWIW, 1", or 30mm or even 34mm has nothing to do with quality of optics. Sure, mfg's of higher end scopes have adopted larger tubes as of late, but it has little to do with quality and more to do with internal adjustment and market trends. COLOR="red"] HUH?!?!?! manufacturers of higher end scopes adopted larger tubes, but has little to do with quality????? High end manufacturers.... IE manufacturers of QUALITY scopes....[/COLOR]

Even CHEAP scopes can be had with 30mm tubes due to some "implied" quality which just isn't there. I also haven't run across the person feeling buying a new mount (say $30) for a $1000 scope to be a deal breaker. Maybe they're out there???

Sure- china copies anything that might make them some money. Wont surprise me for a second when nikko sterling and or nc start have a 34mm tube model. Currently those 34mm tube models on the market are from QUALITY brands. And yes its done for more internal adjustment and passing more light through the tube. Generally to spend $30 to mount a 1k optic is foolish, and will not give the results someone would expect from a 1k optic... Look at even those loopy products you're so fond off.... Their highline is the mk4 series.... they offer pic rails and rings for THAT highline series... Who would put a mk4 scope on dual dovetails???? Oh... someone that doesnt know what they're doing.....

[JagerDog]

Originally Posted by postal

Sure- china copies anything that might make them some money. Wont surprise me for a second when nikko sterling and or nc start have a 34mm tube model. Currently those 34mm tube models on the market are from QUALITY brands. And yes its done for more internal adjustment and passing more light through the tube. Generally to spend $30 to mount a 1k optic is foolish, and will not give the results someone would expect from a 1k optic... Look at even those loopy products you're so fond off.... Their highline is the mk4 series.... they offer pic rails and rings for THAT highline series... Who would put a mk4 scope on dual dovetails???? Oh... someone that doesnt know what they're doing.....

Wow...now your hammer is Thor's. Everyone back up! A genuine Norse god is in the house.

Your nonsequitors aside, I didn't say whether or not I'm a fan of Leupold. Nice try though. But yeah, I guess if they include a pic rail in their product line, it's a testament to it's superiority in all things scope mount.

My God...what did folks do before the pic rail? I bet their scopes wandered all over the place and couldn't stand up to recoil. Interestingly enough, on Leupold's site is an article on Jim Carmichael shooting a 0.115" group last year, shattering records. He's not using a pic rail. Maybe you should write Jim and tell him how to improve his groups with a rail. Maybe you should tell him he doesnt know any better. He's just an old man stuck in his ways.

BTW, physics suggests (actually dictates) that the scope tube diameter has no bearing on light transmission. The larger body can support larger internals (passing minimally more light), but then the increased internal travel is largely negated. Choose your poison.

Again, the pic rail was designed as a modular mounting system largely for military use. Scope A could be quickly swapped with red dot B and it did't matter if it was rifle C or rifle D (sans sighting in). If scope A or red dot B gave up the ghost, it could be interchanged with whatever else was available. This modularity is largely lost in most sporting environs. Doesn't mean it's dysfunctional in these environs, just not particulary advantageous (with the exception of eye relief flexibility).

[Arnvil]

Apparently pic rail and standard mount is strictly preference. Due to my financial practicality, I had to go with standard mounts and rings on both rifles, both are Loopy and I think I'm kinda loopy myself by starting this thread. Thanks for the debate you shared both are compelling and very informative and not to mention entertaining, which I thank you all gratefully.

The results on the .308 was satisfying... 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards all day long, with a couple of 3/8 inch groups towards the end of the day... with cheap factory ammo.
As far as the 7mm RM, it was about the same, but this one needed to be tamed.... muzzle brake, yes... with about the same results. And also with cheap factory ammo.

I guess its time to get the Rockchucker out.

Thanks again gents!