Edited: There is no problem with the rail, it's the scope out of spec.
Edited: There is no problem with the rail, it's the scope out of spec.
Last edited by Wakizash; 05-12-2022 at 01:24 PM.
There's 2 spec: one regular mil spec and the other at 21mm witdth (called the STANAG).
Maybe you have a weaver rail with slots smallers than picatinny?
I've read a lot of articles about the difference, either rocket science type of articles or simple as "they are same", can someone help me understand what the differences between STANAG and Regular Picatinny?
what's it hanging up on?
one of the often overlooked critical measurements of the 1913 rail is clearance beneath, which some optics rely on (notably eotechs with QD mounts) this is where you see people complaining about not being able to mount to their WK/WS rifles because there isn't enough room under the rail before the top of the receiver.
Cheers,
Leigh
Dlask Arms Corp.
www.dlaskarms.com
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
The Wikipedia articles on "Picatinny rail" (MIL-STD-1913) and "NATO Accessory Rail" (STANAG 4694) show that they're very nearly identical, but the former is in old units and the other translates it into metric and refines it a wee bit. Ideally accessories wouldn't be built to such finicky tolerances to be able to demonstrate the difference!
I'll chime in here also.
Like dlask we build lots of things that are m1913 . Spec
We have had at times had iaUes wirh some holosun produ to being too tight
Bbb
I don't think it's the rifle. I have the same magnifier on my m10x and it doesn't fit well. I had to cinch it down uncomfortably tight to where it wouldn't wiggle on me, and even then it's still not perfect and has some movement.
I thought it was the rifle at the time and tried it on others, but it's the magnifier itself, I'm 100% sure something in the specs or manufacturing of those magnifiers is off.