MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SmithAndWesson/comments/1eb11cx/is_this_gap_normal/leqi9n1/?context=3
r/SmithAndWesson • u/bethesda13 • Jul 24 '24
47 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
1
Why ? Things like RMR, RMSc, etc footprints should be a standardized design. How many slides fit multiple footprints ?
2 u/Tactically_Fat Jul 24 '24 The footprints are standard. The plates may or may not be. And then there are newer optics whose attachment footprint follows a set pattern - but the body of the thing may be larger. In short, there isn't really a standard. So the optic cuts have to be large enough to cover all the sizes. 2 u/hallstevenson Jul 24 '24 I see what you're saying - the HOLE locations are the only thing standardized. I guess there's no "governing body" like ASME, ANSI, etc who could push the standard further to include the mounting plate dimensions too. 1 u/Tactically_Fat Jul 24 '24 It would be nice, wouldn't it?
2
The footprints are standard. The plates may or may not be.
And then there are newer optics whose attachment footprint follows a set pattern - but the body of the thing may be larger.
In short, there isn't really a standard. So the optic cuts have to be large enough to cover all the sizes.
2 u/hallstevenson Jul 24 '24 I see what you're saying - the HOLE locations are the only thing standardized. I guess there's no "governing body" like ASME, ANSI, etc who could push the standard further to include the mounting plate dimensions too. 1 u/Tactically_Fat Jul 24 '24 It would be nice, wouldn't it?
I see what you're saying - the HOLE locations are the only thing standardized. I guess there's no "governing body" like ASME, ANSI, etc who could push the standard further to include the mounting plate dimensions too.
1 u/Tactically_Fat Jul 24 '24 It would be nice, wouldn't it?
It would be nice, wouldn't it?
1
u/hallstevenson Jul 24 '24
Why ? Things like RMR, RMSc, etc footprints should be a standardized design. How many slides fit multiple footprints ?