Why not have rails?

[KD5NRH]

Most rifle hunters use scopes. Most varmint hunters would like something more secure than a "scope clip" for mounting a light. So why don't rifle manufacturers just put rails on the darn things at the factory?

One of the most noticeable things about the accessories section of any gun shop is that there seems to be a different mounting assembly for nearly every gun on the market. Even within a brand, nearly every model has a different pattern of tapped holes for mounting a scope or rail. Why not at least drill them the same, since the manufacturer is rarely the "proprietary" rings or rails will be bought from?

It seems to me that there would be little economic or engineering reason not to include a Weaver or Picatinny rail on every gun intended for a purpose where a scope, light, or any other mounted accessory would be useful. I know quite a few people that have bought AR-type rifles at least partially because they were so easy to get accessories for, when all those accessories would work just as well on any rifle with two Picatinny rails. (One up top for scopes, one below or beside the barrel for lights) I also don't know too many defensive shotgun owners who wouldn't prefer a gun with a rail either integrated into the forearm, or mounted alongside the barrel at the forward mag tube support.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

What continues to mystify me is not only the fact that manufacturers make guns without rails, but when they finally do there are a bunch of people who feel compelled to bellyache about it on Internet forums.

"Yeah, I'd buy that new Kimber Desert Thunderblaster in a heartbeat if it didn't have the danged rail on it!"

This repeatedly fails to make sense to me every time I read about it. What's it to you if the thing has a rail? Purists complain, but nobody has made a 'historically accurate' M1911 for years, let alone a pile of other guns.

Kel-Tec, Beretta, Kimber, and a few others are all going in the right direction with rails on their guns. Fie on the others, I say, unless they're trying to make historically accurate arms.

 

[Limeyfellow]

I guess it lets people put the rails exactly where they want them, or more likely "we never done it before so why do it now?" mentality.

 

[dakotasin]

i'm not a fan of the weaver scope mounting system... just too ugly. the only other attempt at a 'rail' that i know of is the ruger system, and i don't like that at all. it is a step above the weaver system, but only a step. allows no flexibility in mounting options. because there is so much variety in optics (objective sizes and shapes, powers, tube size, etc), you really need a flexible mounting system (which is why there are so many mounting options from so many different manufacturers).

the drilling and tapping has to be done differently for different guns because of the design of the receiver. bridge heights differ, widths, contours, and lengths differ.

last, especially on varmint rifles, i want nothing touching the barrel. accuracy of supreme importance, and anything that may upset that would bother me.

my thoughts on why not, anyway.

 

[KD5NRH]

the drilling and tapping has to be done differently for different guns because of the design of the receiver. bridge heights differ, widths, contours, and lengths differ.

So throw a matching rail and screws in the darn box. It's frustrating to get a rifle, then have to go dig through three or four gun shops trying to find the right rings or rail to go on it; especially when the gun has no iron sights from the factory, so it's useless without optics.

I guess it lets people put the rails exactly where they want them, or more likely "we never done it before so why do it now?" mentality.

Since the recevier is usually predrilled, you still don't get a choice. IMO, if I'm selling a $400-$1500 item and I know that adding an item that costs me less than $5 to make will greatly improve the value to the consumer, it's a no-brainer.

I've spent some time in various types of sales, and I've found that buyers who won't pay $20 more for a $2 feature when it comes installed from the factory are few and far between. When I worked in a store that sold guns, low-cost features were often the deciding factor between two otherwise similar guns. Even without a price increase to cover the cost, I would expect the sales boost to more than account for it pretty quickly.

 

[solive]

The mossberg atr 100 has factory installed scope mounts.

http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=8&display=feat

 

[dakotasin]

kd- we're back to the problem of optics... so many variations, tube sizes, lengths, etc, it is impossible to know what would work right.

i understant what you're getting at, and here's a tip for ya... call talley on you're way out the door to buy your next rifle. tell 'em what you're getting. they'll have the lightweight mounts on your doorstep in no time - and since the ring is integral to the base, they are aesthetically pleasing, and strong. all for $35-ish.

maybe not the solution you wanted, but a solution anyway.

 

[JohnBT]

"Purists complain, but nobody has made a 'historically accurate' M1911 for years,"

Colt's WWI Reproduction is pretty close. www.coltsmfg.com/cmci/1911WWI.asp I love mine - it's a great shooter.

As far as manufacturer-supplied scope bases go, I ususally end up ordering something different. I suppose I'd just as soon have the $5 as the cheap stuff some of them supply.

John