Comments on: Goodbye Picatinny, Hello NATO Accessory Rail http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/ Firearms not Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:38:33 +1300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-16110 Steve Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:42:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-16110 Mark, very interesting. Thanks. I wonder if KAC patented it (and agreed to drop the patents). Mark, very interesting. Thanks. I wonder if KAC patented it (and agreed to drop the patents).

]]> By: Mark http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-16078 Mark Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:05:43 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-16078 After looking through my old collection of documents I found this pdf about a KAC mount with the same characteristics: http://www.abload.de/img/kac-railp6f2.png http://web.archive.org/web/20031224145154/www.dtic.mil/ndia/arms/sod.pdf Page 21 From the Small Arms Systems Section Annual Conference, Exhibition and Firing Demonstration, 1998. Title of the presentation was "Improved Night/Day Fire-Control/Observation Device (INOD)" After looking through my old collection of documents I found this pdf about a KAC mount with the same characteristics:

http://www.abload.de/img/kac-railp6f2.png

http://web.archive.org/web/20031224145154/www.dtic.mil/ndia/arms/sod.pdf

Page 21

From the Small Arms Systems Section Annual Conference, Exhibition and Firing Demonstration, 1998. Title of the presentation was “Improved Night/Day Fire-Control/Observation Device (INOD)”

]]> By: Mark Deros http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-11101 Mark Deros Sat, 20 Jun 2009 04:20:16 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-11101 there is only one Picatinny locking product line available that was already established with the new NATO specs prior to this release. Alamo Four Star released their locking system that does not damage or distort the picatinny rail unlike some other manufactures. It's called DLOC www.alamofourstar.com there is only one Picatinny locking product line available that was already established with the new NATO specs prior to this release.

Alamo Four Star released their locking system that does not damage or distort the picatinny rail unlike some other manufactures.

It’s called DLOC

http://www.alamofourstar.com

]]> By: TenX http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10899 TenX Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:13:16 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10899 @ Claude: "I don’t understand why “reduction of straightness tolerances” is an improvement, though." Mr. Ortmann is correct "Reduction of straightness tolerances” in this case means tightening the tolerances, thus a good thing. @ Mark: There are many of 10's of 10^3's of very expensive optics in the inventory that would be unusable an a 3-sided dovetail. There is virtue in keeping the four sided scheme for backward compatibility. Straightness, especially in the horizontal pane (Yaw) is important. You have all probably seen pics of a zero power red dot sight looking though a either a NV optic or a magnifying optic. if the rail had a bow in it the aimpoint of the red dot would be shifted by the additional optics. Straightness in the vertical plane (Pitch) would also be affected, but would be easier to mentally adjust for. TenX out @ Claude: “I don’t understand why “reduction of straightness tolerances” is an improvement, though.” Mr. Ortmann is correct “Reduction of straightness tolerances” in this case means tightening the tolerances, thus a good thing.

@ Mark: There are many of 10’s of 10^3’s of very expensive optics in the inventory that would be unusable an a 3-sided dovetail. There is virtue in keeping the four sided scheme for backward compatibility.

Straightness, especially in the horizontal pane (Yaw) is important. You have all probably seen pics of a zero power red dot sight looking though a either a NV optic or a magnifying optic. if the rail had a bow in it the aimpoint of the red dot would be shifted by the additional optics. Straightness in the vertical plane (Pitch) would also be affected, but would be easier to mentally adjust for.

TenX out

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10887 Steve Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:00:07 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10887 David, HA! You are so right. I remember those, they were pretty nifty. They may even still use them with that lego midstorm robot building stuff. Still, if they were around in the 80's the patents would have expired. David, HA! You are so right. I remember those, they were pretty nifty. They may even still use them with that lego midstorm robot building stuff.

Still, if they were around in the 80’s the patents would have expired.

]]> By: David S. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10886 David S. Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:57:53 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10886 Powered picatinny rails remind me of the powered "sound and light" legos when I was growing up in the 80s. You have lego pieces that connect to conductors feeding from a main battery compartment. I'm smelling a lawsuit. Powered picatinny rails remind me of the powered “sound and light” legos when I was growing up in the 80s. You have lego pieces that connect to conductors feeding from a main battery compartment. I’m smelling a lawsuit.

]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10884 Steve Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:10:20 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10884 Mark, thanks for the link! I will update the blog post. Mark, thanks for the link! I will update the blog post.

]]> By: Ken http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10881 Ken Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:34:20 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10881 Being a Machinist of 16 years I can tell you this, giving a part tolerances that are needlessly "tight", increases cost per part and in some cases is overkill. Im guessing that the rail bows when machined. Also to wit that many screws hold the rail to the upper receiver. So basically the "bow" will go away when the part is installed. So no extra steps should be needed to make sure the part is "uber flat" prior to install. This is a partial drawing up top so I cant comment to much more... Being a Machinist of 16 years I can tell you this, giving a part tolerances that are needlessly “tight”, increases cost per part and in some cases is overkill. Im guessing that the rail bows when machined. Also to wit that many screws hold the rail to the upper receiver. So basically the “bow” will go away when the part is installed. So no extra steps should be needed to make sure the part is “uber flat” prior to install. This is a partial drawing up top so I cant comment to much more…

]]> By: Freiheit http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10877 Freiheit Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:38:01 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10877 Manufacturing tolerances for shape shouldn't affect the rezeroing as long as the rail itself doesn't change shape between removing the optic and reinstalling it. For example you could install and zero a scope on a rail thats mounted 10-degrees crooked and reinstall it on the same rail and it *should* be zeroed still. If the shape or alignment of the rail changes, then you're going to lose zero no matter how tight the tolerances. Mark - Too bad they have to keep those unmarked surfaces for backwards compatibility. Coming from the software world, keeping backwards-compat is a bitch. You can either get rid of it and piss off customers or you can keep it and piss off your engineers! Steve - I agree with Sven. Reducing tolerances generally means that things must be made closer to spec. This would generally increase production costs, if for no reason other than rejected pieces. Please clarifiy!!! Manufacturing tolerances for shape shouldn’t affect the rezeroing as long as the rail itself doesn’t change shape between removing the optic and reinstalling it.

For example you could install and zero a scope on a rail thats mounted 10-degrees crooked and reinstall it on the same rail and it *should* be zeroed still.

If the shape or alignment of the rail changes, then you’re going to lose zero no matter how tight the tolerances.

Mark – Too bad they have to keep those unmarked surfaces for backwards compatibility. Coming from the software world, keeping backwards-compat is a bitch. You can either get rid of it and piss off customers or you can keep it and piss off your engineers!

Steve – I agree with Sven. Reducing tolerances generally means that things must be made closer to spec. This would generally increase production costs, if for no reason other than rejected pieces. Please clarifiy!!!

]]> By: Mark http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10876 Mark Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:33:51 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10876 Document about the "Powered NATO Rail". http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/wednesdaysessionvTorbjoern.pdf Document about the “Powered NATO Rail”.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/wednesdaysessionvTorbjoern.pdf

]]> By: subby http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10874 subby Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:12:57 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10874 thats the only reason they are changing the standard in the first place. the inability of picatinny to hold zeroe after removing an optic and putting it back on. Its irrelevant how they do it, just that it gets done. thats the only reason they are changing the standard in the first place. the inability of picatinny to hold zeroe after removing an optic and putting it back on.

Its irrelevant how they do it, just that it gets done.

]]> By: Matt Groom http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10873 Matt Groom Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:26:35 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10873 I'm pretty sure the Picatinny rail was not adopted in 1913, so it's not almost 100 years old. It was designed in the early 80's for the Colt ACR project, with the final version of the design being made by Dick Swan, founder of A.R.M.S., and being approved by Colt, who incorporated the rail into a new forging for what became the M4 Carbine. The design was approved by the Picatinny Arsenal, they gave it the Mil-Std of 1913, in order, not by year. The US dropped the year designation thing around WWII, since so many things were invented and adopted in the same year. What I wonder is, did Richard Swan have any input in the change to his design? This is just bureaucrats being bureaucratic. Bunch of pains in the ass. This is less an improvement and more of a resume padding activity. I’m pretty sure the Picatinny rail was not adopted in 1913, so it’s not almost 100 years old. It was designed in the early 80’s for the Colt ACR project, with the final version of the design being made by Dick Swan, founder of A.R.M.S., and being approved by Colt, who incorporated the rail into a new forging for what became the M4 Carbine. The design was approved by the Picatinny Arsenal, they gave it the Mil-Std of 1913, in order, not by year. The US dropped the year designation thing around WWII, since so many things were invented and adopted in the same year.

What I wonder is, did Richard Swan have any input in the change to his design? This is just bureaucrats being bureaucratic. Bunch of pains in the ass. This is less an improvement and more of a resume padding activity.

]]> By: Mark http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10871 Mark Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:26:58 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10871 Funny, with the new alignment recommendation the two unmarked surfaces are for the birds. A normal "dovetail-rail" would be cheaper and would do the same job. Funny, with the new alignment recommendation the two unmarked surfaces are for the birds. A normal “dovetail-rail” would be cheaper and would do the same job.

]]> By: Sven Ortmann http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10866 Sven Ortmann Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:50:20 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10866 That is strange. I heard that the next rail standard was meant to include integral power lines if not even data connections. --------------------------- A "reduction" of a tolerance means a more accurate production if I read that correctly. Large tolerance = loose, no tolerance=no measurable variations. I think they should use two tolerance standards - and simply use the otherwise wasted production parts for the lower tolerance spec. A searchlight or fore grip doesn't need the same accuracy as a scope. That is strange.
I heard that the next rail standard was meant to include integral power lines if not even data connections.

—————————
A “reduction” of a tolerance means a more accurate production if I read that correctly.
Large tolerance = loose, no tolerance=no measurable variations.

I think they should use two tolerance standards – and simply use the otherwise wasted production parts for the lower tolerance spec. A searchlight or fore grip doesn’t need the same accuracy as a scope.

]]> By: Jay.Mac http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10865 Jay.Mac Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:16:33 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10865 Yep, reduced tolerances in manufacturing is never a good sign- particularly where optics are concerned. Yep, reduced tolerances in manufacturing is never a good sign- particularly where optics are concerned.

]]> By: Claude http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/15/goodbye-picatinny-hello-nato-accessory-rail/#comment-10863 Claude Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:30:50 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=6727#comment-10863 So , after almost 100 years the Picatinny rail still rules! I don't understand why "reduction of straightness tolerances" is an improvement, though. So , after almost 100 years the Picatinny rail still rules!

I don’t understand why “reduction of straightness tolerances” is an improvement, though.

]]>