Why Picatinny

[Sawney Bean]

The lack of standarization is an evil that has plagued the shooting community since the invention of the stick that shoots metal.....

And if gun manufacturers deserve a slap on the left cheek for not standardizing airgun barrel sizes (beyond the nominal .22 or .25, what a joke ) — they deserve one on the right cheek for not standardizing dovetail rail sizes.




I noticed how some posters declared flat out that picatinny looks ugly.

It would help the rest of us reading these unqualified comments if the posters stated that they usually enjoy guns with wooden stocks, they prefer classic lines, they have a lot of springers —
and many of them hate what they derrogatively call "tacticool."


And I have to agree with their preference of rail for their preferred guns:
A picatinny rail on a Huntsman Revere just doesn't fit as well as a dovetail rail.



➠ Now, for that much maligned group called the "tacticool crowd" — you know who you are! — an RTI Prophet or an FX M3 just looks so much more aggressive with that serrated shark-tooth rail.

Even the word picatinny sounds more aggressive than dovetail:

▪ Picatinny Arsenal is highly regarded for it's innovative military weapons research.¹

▪ Doves?!? These meek and mild animals — these symbols of peace — should be part of a killing instrument?!? —
And let's not forget, they are those stinking sh¡#ing pest that two of my living heroes here on AGN have shot down over 10.000 of them — because of all the damage they have caused?



Be assured, I won't ever own a Huntsman Revere (or anything resembling those kind of classic lines, or wood stock).
Far worse: I will only buy bullpups. (I know, I've got it bad.)

And since I like to mount my scopes as low as possible — and like to use adjustable scope rings with lots of adjustment — and scopes with 34mm tubes —
➠ the Burris XTR Signature rings offer me both the lowest mounting, and the most adjustment.
And they only come in picatinny.
➧➧➧ So, there you have it.

Matthias



¹ https://home.army.mil/picatinny/about/history

I really like figured walnut and deep blued steel and I think Pic rails look fine on a classic rifle. There's already a scope and rings on it anyway.

 

[rcarlisle]

I've never thought about it. I've just made due with what the gun came with. I have both and can honestly say I have no preference most of the time. I'm not real picky, though if I were looking at PRS guns, a Pic rail seems more desirable than a dovetail. If it were ever an issue, I'd buy an adapter and move on with my life.

 

[PumaCarl]

The Ruger 10/22 does not have a dovetail. The receiver is drilled and tapped for a myriad of scope bases. And actually the last one I bought included a Weaver style base. I had an all original 10/22 from ~1967 that had a dovetail attachment in the box. But my comment was in the modern context, and there are almost none that have milled dovetails.

Again, true, and I thought that it was extremely stupid that Ruger never milled in their own mounting system to make 'it' more popular. Everyone leaving everything to someone else started early.

 

[John "spysir" Blount]

Run hat you like.
Anyone who thinks or say's dove tail wont hold on high recoil rifles is NOT using BKL's.
With the self centering BKL's once torqued down correctly you can remove the (tightening) screws and it wont move at all on an RWS48-54 or anything else. Remove scope and beat rings with a rubber matte so hard you damage the rifle and they will Not move.
Perhaps they do not have exactly what you need but if they do the very best every made in America rings ever.

John

 

[boscoebrea]

The Picatinny rail raises the scope,makes it easier to change scopes. Dovetail is alright if I use high rings and do not intend to change the scope.
.Another problem with dovetails is too many times they are not machined deep enough ,straight enough,etc
So in the end, though dovetails may seem like a simple way to mount scopes, too often they can cause problems.
When using dovetail mounts it is important to use really good strong rings.