Benefits of Weaver style...

[swerv512]

I'm currently running Leupold 2 piece dual-dovetail bases (i like the ideal of less moving parts to go wrong) with standard leupold rings on my rem700.

although i have no regrets and have had nothing but positive experiences with my current setup, there's something about the weaver-style that appeals to me. anyone see any pro's or cons for switching over to a weaver platform for my hunting rifle?

[Omega13device]

The following may be helpful, it's from the Brownell's web site. Full article at http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/Gun...?p=0&t=2&i=558 (hint: google for "weaver picatinny" and you'll find a bunch of helpful web pages).

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, “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”.

[maxicon]

You gain flexibility with a Weaver/Picatinny rail, but you may lose stability, as mentioned. If you swap optics around a lot, a good rail system is a great thing, and it would be smart to go with a Picatinny spec system for compatibility.

If you're going to leave the same optic mounted most of the time, the simplicity of a good basic ring set is hard to beat.

[Fjold]

As far as less moving parts to go wrong, both have zero moving parts so the risk is the same with either unit.

The highest risk of something going wrong would be from removing the old bases and installing the new ones. The risks include breaking screws, stripping a screwhole, mounting it wrong, etc.

Right now your risk are minimal but they increase exponentially the more you mess with it.

[swerv512]

The highest risk of something going wrong would be from removing the old bases and installing the new ones. The risks include breaking screws, stripping a screwhole, mounting it wrong, etc.

Right now your risk are minimal but they increase exponentially the more you mess with it.

excellent point- something i never really considered. the "if it aint broke, dont fix it" theory works on soo many levels, but the up all night tweaker inside of me is calling me out. Maybe i'll quiet that inside voice that says tweak with your scope by finding something else to do... like polishing all my firearms...