While the Picatinny was - and still is - widely regarded as an excellent accessory rail system, some gun users do not want the extra weight that the Picatinny adds to the forend. The use of Picatinny rail systems has become so commonplace that the design of many firearms has been modified to accommodate them as a replacement for iron sights.
Over the years, the functionality of the Picatinny has been enhanced to include the mounting of accessories such as foregrips, night vision devices, tactical lights and many others. The Picatinny originally served the purpose of enabling the mounting of scopes onto the receivers of larger caliber rifles. The Picatinny rail also features a wider locking slot width and more consistent spacing between the slot centers. The most noticeable difference between the two is that the Picatinny platform has a more distinct angular design in comparison to the Weaver’s lower, wider dovetail construction. Originally developed in the 1980s and named for the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, the Picatinny is essentially an enhanced version of the Weaver mount first introduced by the W.R. Picatinny: The “Tried and True” Rail Systemįor many years, the Picatinny has been regarded as the standard mounting platform for AR-15s and other rifles. In this article, we break down the differences between these three rail systems to help you determine the best choice for your setup. With so many options on the market, figuring out the right one for your needs can be confusing. Of course, cost will also have an impact on the selection of a rail system. For most AR-15 owners, the decision comes down to personal preference and how they feel about a variety of factors such as the performance and look of the piece.
M-Lok: Which one to choose is a dilemma that many gun owners face when considering a rail system for their AR-15 or another type of firearm. Aftermarket support for direct mount stuff is getting better all the time but there's still a long ways to go.Picatinny vs. Inefficient and it undermines the whole point of the system. It's retarded to attach a pic rail to keymod and then a mount y the pic rail. Of course the biggest problem with either of these systems is the lack of accessory mounts that attach directly. I have noticed that a lot of similar rails that come in both formats are slightly lighter in keymod form, so that's a consideration if you need a metal rail but want it as light as possible. People still use pic rails for that, so the "advantage" isn't one. The problem with this is that no one uses keymod to attach optics, mainly because the design of the most popular rifles precludes their mounting anywhere near your eye.
Keymod's advantage, on paper, is that you can maintain zero when removing / reinstalling sights/optics. IMO it looks better, feels better on the hand without covers, and I've never had a compatibility issue with them and I have with keymod. I've used both and they both work, but I generally prefer mlok.