Longer Nato Rails?

[James Brundige]

It would be nice to have a longer Nato rail than the 100mm in the Red store. Anybody know where one can be found?
Jared mentioned longer rails once, but haven't seen any.

 

[Ian B. Johnson]

Search picatinny on amazon, you'll find hundreds of results for far far cheaper. Many lengths. Risers, angles, etc. The beauty of a non
proprietary system!

 

[James Brundige]

Thanks, picatinnny works much better than NATO.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

I love that we can use gun hardware on our cameras.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Anyone confirmed that the Red accessories actually match stanag 4694?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Anyone confirmed that the Red accessories actually match stanag 4694?

They do.

wayfair.com also has rails and components.

If you have a local gunsmith or firearms dealer that moves a decent amount and variety of inventory, they will probably have a bunch of this stuff too.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I'm a little concerned about what lists the FBI is gonna put me on if all my internet traffic starts going to military hardware and, you know, real estate listings in isolated parts of Kansas...

 

[James Brundige]

I'm a little concerned about what lists the FBI is gonna put me on if all my internet traffic starts going to military hardware and, you know, real estate listings in isolated parts of Kansas...

Especially if you do a lot of shooting.

 

[Josh Snyder]

Thanks, picatinnny works much better than NATO.

Picatinny is old and inferior that was replaced with NATO because NATO rails are better and have longer life span.

 

[James Brundige]

Picatinny is old and inferior that was replaced with NATO because NATO rails are better and have longer life span.

But if you do a web search for Nato rails, you will only get wooden camera and Red. I think they are the same product with a new name.

 

[Jack Cooper]

Picatinny is old and inferior that was replaced with NATO because NATO rails are better and have longer life span.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Accessory_Rail

"The NATO Accessory Rail is backwards-compatible with the STANAG 2324 or MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny rail, which dates back to 3 February 1995[3], and was designed in conjunction with weapon specialists like Aimpoint, Beretta, Colt Firearms, FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch."

According to the NATO Army Armaments Group the differences between the MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny rail and the STANAG 4694 are:

A metric reference drawing.
Additional new measurements and tolerances.
Adjustments of some measurements.
Reduction of straightness tolerances with approximately 50%.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

And in reality, there is little to no difference. The clamping profiles are still the same and most "NATO rails" are still made by the same people with the same materials. The baseline specs were modified slightly, mostly to make them more international-market friendly. Some of the specs, such as bolt-through points are different, but meaningless as they often have to be customized to fit various firearms and manufacturers sell a dozen different versions of the same rail with the only difference being the bolt holes for mounting to different firearms or mounts. Most of the adjusted measurements were put in place to fit NATO-approved barrel lengths and mount points on the STANAG mount implementations.

 

[Josh Snyder]

Yes they are very similar. My friend asked form VF and theirs are NATO too.

It seems that what I meant has more to do with the clamp rather than the rail:

Another notable change is the recommendation that while in the Picatinny rail system the V-angles are used for the alignment and reference of the accessory, NATO recommends using the top surface instead.

NATO tests have shown that the Picatinny rail system does not provide good repeatability. Using the top surface as a reference and alignment of the grabbers provided excellent repeatability.

RED uses the old and inferior clamping method as far as I can see from the pictures.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Clamping methods are non-standard across the industry. Lots of different thoughts and designs. Some designed to use the detents or ratchet segments, some not, some designed to apply pressure to the top surface of the rail, some not. The picture you show of the rail/grabber interface profiles is misleading in that not all clamp designs will adhere to those guidelines, not all will be able to. It's just not cut and dry or black and white as your graphic shows. Not sure what "NATO tests" show that the Picatinny design does not provide good repeatability. The rail segments are essentially identical and it comes down to the clamping implementation, which varies more so from one manufacturer to another than it does by spec.

 

[Josh Snyder]

Yes no standard for clamps, but isn't it no-brainer that clamp works better and lasts longer when the surface area where the clamp grabs is larger?

 

[Jim Elias]

I don't think one can be judged as "inferior" to the other without taking the application into consideration. On first glance, I can think of several camera-based situations where I would prefer using the V-angles only, and I can also think of types of applications where the top-surface-reference might be better. For what we do and need, the design of the clamp and the accuracy of the rail profile will most likely be far more decisive than which surfaces are in use.

Interesting aside: both the NATO and Picatinny standards, as shown on Wikipedia, are missing certain accuracy definitions that one would need were repeatability (i.e. at any cost) the main objective. But the drawings on Wikipedia may not be official spec.

 

[Josh Snyder]

I don't think one can be judged as "inferior" to the other without taking the application into consideration. On first glance, I can think of several camera-based situations where I would prefer using the V-angles only

Yeah I said that the inferior has more to do with the clamp than the rail.

In which situations you would prefer the V angles only?

Interesting aside: both the NATO and Picatinny standards, as shown on Wikipedia, are missing certain accuracy definitions that one would need were repeatability (i.e. at any cost) the main objective. But the drawings on Wikipedia may not be official spec.

Not sure if I understood what you meant? The drawings have all the dimensions, tolerances etc, what's missing?

 

[Mark Pugh]

Surely strength in clamping comes from applying force to opposing sides.

 

[Jim Elias]

Yeah I said that the inferior has more to do with the clamp than the rail.

In which situations you would prefer the V angles only?

Think about an offset load attached via an extension arm to a clamp adapter: if the load twisted off sideways to the rail axis, it would most likely be better distributed among the available rail surfaces by the V-angle variant. But if the load twisted in the direction of the rail axis, the top-surface variant would most likely be better.

Not sure if I understood what you meant? The drawings have all the dimensions, tolerances etc, what's missing?

All the dimensions are there, but according to the Wikipedia drawings (again, which may not be correct or complete), the geometric forms are given enough leeway such that it's doubtful that exacting repeatability was king among the user specifications for either rail. For example, there is no flatness tolerance given for the top surface of the NATO rail, which is curious given its function. (Even more curious: in the Picatinny drawing, there is a flatness tolerance given, but if the contact-surface comparison given by Wikipedia is accurate, what is this flatness needed for?)

 

[Josh Snyder]

Think about an offset load attached via an extension arm to a clamp adapter: if the load twisted off sideways to the rail axis, it would most likely be better distributed among the available rail surfaces by the V-angle variant. But if the load twisted in the direction of the rail axis, the top-surface variant would most likely be better.

That's good point. Maybe the V angle grabbing is better for our use after all.