Printable View
Streamlight TLR, which is one of more popular weapon lights, comes with 4 rail notch inserts, all of different widths: Glock, Beretta 92, 1913 (Picatinny) and TSW/99.
What are the railed handgun manufacturers thinking? Not 2, not 3, but 4 different slot widths instead of 1 standard 1913 which is only a tad wider. :twisted:
Just as 19th century mfgrs. used proprietary threads - to drive consumers back to them when parts or accessories are wanted. Machine tool builders were notorious for this.
Weaver rings cannot fit on Burris "Weaver" bases; try to figure that one out, lol.
I did engineering for a long time...Decisions like the above are almost always driven by the industrial design team. The convo between the engineers and ID probably went pretty much exactly like this: "That Picatinny rail sticks out too much and spoils our lines...It's ugly and we can't use it. Make it different."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokarev
They are still Picatinny-style. Only the notch width is non-standard. :roll:
I hear ya. At least it was interesting to watch as it unfolded. . .
The first integrated light rail - I believe - was the HK USP circa 1994. It used a unique two-slot / socket system that NOBODY copied, and HK INSISTS on retaining to this day on that platform. . .I guess because their "German Engineering" is right and everybody else is wrong?:roll:
The Glock Gen 3 showed up slightly after, I think, with an inverted Weaver rail. They kept it on the Gen 4 and went Picatinny with Gen 5.
That was all in the early days of "Let's figure this out". Why we're not full Picatinny on anything remotely duty sized is a real mystery to me. I get that some of the thinner guns may need something narrower, but even there, I'd hope we could come to agreement on something like a "2/3rds Picatinny" standard.
Similarly, I keep hoping that the gun and red dot industries get together and standardize on about three widths of Picatinny-ish widths to cut the tops of the slides to, and three corresponding widths of sight to go on them.
If sales gets involved the conversation probably went like this: "We are missing some sales if we don't make it non standard, also if we design to use add-on conversions we can make even more money". I worked in manufacturing and there was a almost constant back and forth with advertising and sales over whether we could make some slight change and call it "new and improved". I can name several reloading presses that have evolved over the years and they always required more lay out money and there are always extra accessories to be bought and used. Makes a lot of extra profit for the company and it works. The latest and greatest reloaders are easy targets for them. Look at the new calibers that are coming onto the market. I have not seen anything brought out in the last 20 years that was actually needed. 30-06 and maybe 300 magnum covers the North American continent except maybe 338 magnum for the big bears. 375 H&H and .458 Winchester gets Africa covered. But in the end, it is the buyers who should decide whether they need something or just want something different that drives the market and I see nothing really wrong with that. just my .02 anyway and not binding on anyone, james
So, I guess that means they are the same only different.
But...I want a .375magnum that fits in a short action! LOL Or someone who changes the length of a cartridge by 1mm and wants to name it after themselves.
Accessory mounts, especially scopes and sights, have been proprietary since day one. Some do carry on to a sort of standard. The QD sling mounts are one. The Picatinny was developed as a standard based on the Weaver design. This was very late in the game so anyone who did rails before that were on their own. Once a mfg picks a design then they are kinda 'devoted' to it until the 'useful life' of their products is exceeded. Or just look at all the different scope ring designs that still exist.
And, there are some instances where the 'std' does not fit. A std pic rail is far too wide for a micro 9 width frame. QD sling mounts stuck out too much so the detachable QD was born. Then you have stuff like Mlok come up who want to take over the game.
Anytime there is a chance for profit the mfg will do what they deem appropriate. It is up to the consumer if they accept it or not.
Simple answer; "Greed."
I do not get it. Doesn't the greed argument appear upside down? If all of these handguns had the standard 1913 rails, would they not be more sought after thanks to a 4x times broader market for accessory lights/lasers? These rails are still 1913 in cross-section, and only their notches are of different widths. Sounds insane to me.
I know of at least two folks who bought the wrong Streamlight TLR-7 Sub because they didn't read the fine print stating that they're gun-specific.
But, if the gun is 1/4" higher or 0.1" wider then it is "much bigger" than the competitor and sales will suffer. Never know what will entice the consumer to buy one product over another. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokarev
We are still talking about rail notch width? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie b
To clarify my "greed" comment.
Re-read some of the comments above. The companies want you to ONLY use THEIR products,, not a competitors product.
By having a "universal' or "only one size" anything, is great for consumers,, but companies have to compete for the accessory market.
And again: Ruger following the TSW/99 notch width on their SR series Picatinny/Weaver profile rail narrows the consumer's choice for accessories, whereas Ruger itself does not offer any of them: no lights, no lasers, no vertical front grips, nada. In my mind, this works against Ruger. But what do I know?