Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

[Penguin156]

I have a FN PBR with a 20 moa Near Mfg base on it and a 700 5r that I put a 20 moa Warne base on for the time being. I also have a Trijicon 5-20x50 Accupoint in the LaRue low QD rings that I was planning on using interchangeably between both rifles. The QD rings cam in pretty sung every time on my Near base, it's a good setup. The problem comes on my Warne base, it just seems really loose when I push the cam levers in on the rings. Is one of the rails not built to spec? If I want to run my glass on both will I have to use the same base manufacturer for both rifles?

 

[Defusion]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

Only one way to find out. Measure it!
Also, are you able to actually move the scope/rings around on the base? Or did you simply feel less resistance when pressing down on the levers?

 

[Gray]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

I would imagine the Warne is out of spec, Nears's stuff is very good quality. You get what you pay for with bases/rings, and pretty much everything else on a rifle.

 

[Penguin156]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

That's what I figures. The glass doesn't move on the Warne base but I hardly have to apply any pressure at all to the arms to close them, and the shock to the rings under recoil is a lot different than me trying to move it by hand. Does anyone know of a good quality 15 moa base? I'm almost out of down elevation with the Trijicon Accupoint on a 20 moa base quickie t a problem at all but I like wiggle room, especially if I find a place to shoot downward off of a ridge or hill.

 

[gstaylorg]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

The adjustment range on LaRue QD mounts where the lever(s) are just tight enough (but not too tight/loose) is pretty narrow. I have used various LaRue QD mounts and switched scopes between rifles for some time. In my hands, a slight adjustment in the throw lever was almost always necessary to get the mount tightened just right when switching between rifles. I wouldn't go so far as to say that necessarily means the rails were out of spec, but they definitely differed by just enough to make re-adjustment of the throw lever necessary.

 

[Penguin156]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

Makes sense. I bought them used without instruction, are they pretty simple to adjust? How do you adjust them? I might be able to figure it out if I had it in front of me but I'm guessing, like with anything, there's a way that works and there's the right way.

 

[JohnnyC]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

This is a good example of purchasing the right QD mount for your individual application. LaRue makes a great QD mount if you're putting it on and taking it off of the same gun (think dedicated day scope, dedicated night scope on same firearm). If you're planning on using one optic on multiple guns you'd be better served by going with a self-adjusting QD mount like the Bobro, or ADM since the adjustment is essentially tool-less and much quicker than the LaRue.

Of course this is all predicated on the company offering the mount you require to begin with.

Adjusting the LaRue requires a 3/8" wrench. See video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBI3YOnNj7Y

 

[shooter6.5]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

Every Larue QD mount I purchased from them new came with a small wrench used for adjustment.

 

[AzNooB]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

Had a customer bring in a DPMS 308 yesterday with the receiver Picatinny out of spec. None of our one-piece mounts would fit the rifle.

 

[Swift]

Re: Are all picitinny bases not up to MIL-1913 spec?

FWIW, ADM makes a nice mount that's independently adjustable front and rear without tools. It came in handy when mounting on an LAR8 with an out of spec rail. Front lug was 1/2 turn tighter than the rear.