The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Are Picatinny And Weaver Bases The Same Size?

AK103K · December 22, 2011, 05:45 PM

I had this problem with my Springfield SOCOM. The "mil spec" mounts (ARMS and LaRue to be specific) I had for my AR's and AK's, didnt fit the SOCOM's rail properly.

The ARMS mounts would go on, but not stay, or even draw up tight. The LaRue would not go on at all, as it has a "double block" in its base that didnt fit the rails slot spacing. The ARMS mounts/rings only have one block, and arent dependent on the spacing. I was able to "fool" the rings by setting them against the edge of a block in the slot, fore and aft, so they would not move whe the scope was installed. That seemed to work OK. The problem with the Aimpont rings was, the clamp would not draw up tight (the rings didnt either), and the mount would move in the slot under recoil.

Weaver mounts and rings worked fine, in all respects, which leads me to believe Springfields mount was a "Weaver", although they repeatedly swore it wasnt when I called and asked.

I found this on Brownells site, may help explain it better..

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=1...he_Difference_

December 22, 2011, 05:45 PM	#4
AK103K Senior Member Join Date: May 1, 2001 Posts: 10,223	I had this problem with my Springfield SOCOM. The "mil spec" mounts (ARMS and LaRue to be specific) I had for my AR's and AK's, didnt fit the SOCOM's rail properly. The ARMS mounts would go on, but not stay, or even draw up tight. The LaRue would not go on at all, as it has a "double block" in its base that didnt fit the rails slot spacing. The ARMS mounts/rings only have one block, and arent dependent on the spacing. I was able to "fool" the rings by setting them against the edge of a block in the slot, fore and aft, so they would not move whe the scope was installed. That seemed to work OK. The problem with the Aimpont rings was, the clamp would not draw up tight (the rings didnt either), and the mount would move in the slot under recoil. Weaver mounts and rings worked fine, in all respects, which leads me to believe Springfields mount was a "Weaver", although they repeatedly swore it wasnt when I called and asked. I found this on Brownells site, may help explain it better.. http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=1...he_Difference_