I have seen each offered, but I don’t know if one is a better/more stable mount than the other. I don’t know if they are interchangeable or what the difference is between the two. I know that some accessories say they will mount on both.
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.
How about free float vs. non-free float. I don’t really know the difference here except for the stated obvious.
FF clams to upper/barrel nut and does not transfer weight to barrel. NFF operate like regular hand guards in the sense that they use the barrel as a supporting member. NFF are generally considered more accurate…
More accurate because they have less chance of moving I assume? So this would be the option you would want if you were to have sights mounted on it correct?
Are weaver rails even an option for an AR15?
Did you mean that FF are generally considered more accurate? Typo I’m thinking.
What rails are you looking at? What is your intended usage?
Instead of starting a new thread every time something new pops into your head, why not just ask in the other thread when you were asking about other stuff.
If you use your Google-fu an answer about free-floating and non free-floating would have easily been answered. I know plenty of people here have given you real good advice. Are you using it or playing Chinese parliament session?
I never knew there was a difference.
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=1702
You must not have searched very hard. The slots in the weaver are narrower. They are not necessarily interchangeable. So if you have an optics mount or scope rings designed to mount to a Weaver rail they will work on both picatinny and Weaver rails. If it is an item designed for a picatinny rail it won’t fit a Weaver rail. All of the rails that are worth a shit for an AR are picatinny. There you have it. End thread.
They are virtually identical right up until they aren’t.
Here is a photo of an AR-15…it is a pre-ban era rifle. And back when it was made, the manufacturer decided to use a Weaver rail. In my hand is a Picatinny rail riser. As you can see, the locations where the riser’s recoil lugs are located don’t match the corresponding slots on the Weaver rail.
So…do yourself a serious favor…avoid a Weaver rail. It simply isn’t worth the hassle.
