Scope Rails or Mounts?

[bigalexe]

To my knowledge there's 2 ways to mount a scope: Mounts that are usually specific to that firearm, or Weaver/Picatinny rails which are sometimes universal and sometimes brand or gun specific. I realize one immediate downside to a rail is the need for more hardware on top the rail to fit the scope.

Whats the pros and cons of each mounting method.

 

[rcmodel]

Rails require no more hardware then scope mount bases.

They both use scope rings clamped somehow to the rail or base.

Weaver scope rings for instance, will fit either Weaver bases, or Picatinny / STANAG rails.

It seems to me rails are best employed on target style rifles where it may be necessary to have built-in elevation in the rail to get enough scope elevation clicks for extremely long range shooting.

Or on military type TackyCool rifles where you want to also mount a bunch of accessories such as magnifiers, back-up iron sights, night vision equipment, etc on the same sighting plane.

Bases are much more suitable for sporting & hunting rifles, because they are lighter, smaller, and take up much less room over the loading port on a bolt-action.

There is no disadvantage as far as strength or rigidity, as either one is mounted to the receiver with the same scope-mount screws.

rc

 

[bigalexe]

Thank you, I was just wondering the difference. I'll make an admission here that until recently I had never looked close enough at rifles (I'd always had someone Else's handed to me as is) to realize that Non-rail mounts existed. I knew about Rails because my Excalibur Crossbow uses a weaver rail mount for the scope on it.

On that note: Don't bother with a 4x fixed magnification scope on a crossbow, its so ridiculously magnified at 30 yards its hard to see where its pointed.