Now that RDS are so popular, why don't they make pic rail on top? That way, RDS manufacturers will make their dots with the included pic rail mount. Solves the problem of the gazillion different foot prints.

Spohr of Germany are doing it with their revolvers.

I think you'll see slide cuts become common, but not pic rails. The slide cut can get lower.

Yeah, I know there are some out there, but, there should really be tons of pic rail topped pistols, with the explosion of RDS in recent years. Too many different footprints to keep up with.

Rails would likely be too high. I thought the same some time back.

I just think they need to standardize on any one of the current footprints or two if we need a separate one for smaller/thinner slides and we’d all be better off and it would likely help with selling optics.

Plate this, RMR that, RMSC but not with Holosuns blah blah. It’s a PITA.

What I would like to see is some kind of quick release/quick mount type cut if possible. Like some of the early rifle scope mounts as the screws seem to be a weak point.

Funny that Spohr has an LPA rear sight.
They make one with a rail. They could have saved a lot of machining and a lot of ugly.

I had a similar thought. Regular picatinny is a bit large for some guns though, so I thought maybe a “mini picatinny” would be the next logical step. At the very least, the RDS manufacturers could standardize on one of the existing footprints (in that case, my vote would be Aimpoint’s). However, I think it’s still too early in the game for this to happen. It’s actually one of the reasons I haven’t bought any OR pistols (where the option exists). I have a feeling that the ones of today will be less desirable than their regular (non-OR) counterparts 15 years from now because the mounting footprint will be outmoded and useless, thus viewed only as an awkward and unnecessary eyesore.

I am not optimistic. We aren't getting standard iron sight dovetails. Almost kind'a sorta' Novak shapes; phooey.

Take note, the guns featuring top rails in this thread have one feature in common. That is the rails are on parts that don't slide back and forth in response to recoil. There is a reason for that, every bit of mass you add to a pistol slide increases the potential for a malfunction AND increases muzzle flip. Excessive muzzle flip and unreliable operation is something I don't want to have on any pistol I own so I will give a great big giant nope to rails on the slide of a semi auto. I'll also express the opinion that anyone purchasing something like this is making a rather foolish choice.

I've long thought about having a slide milled at the front end for a mini dot. Technically speaking, aiming and accuracy wise, it's a better location for it. But for not getting covered in debris from muzzle gasses, not so much. Plus, what do you do with it? Open front or bikini race holster would work, but that's it.

My Beretta 87 Target has one. Actually a Weaver rail. And I have a RDS for it, which I use only for dry fire. Makes it easy to see displacement resulting from poor trigger control.

https://www.safesidetactical.c...lr-weaver-rail-30960

quote:

Originally posted by MacGyver:
I had a similar thought. Regular picatinny is a bit large for some guns though, so I thought maybe a “mini picatinny” would be the next logical step.

This has been my thought for some time.

As I understand, the M1913 Picatinny rail standard was developed by the military when night vision scopes were huge and weighed several pounds due to technological limitations. The technology has progressed to the point where these devices are now quite small, if they are even mounted on a firearm rather than worn attached to a helmet.

It seems to me that it is time to rethink the requirements of the Picatinny rail system and analyze what is really necessary to mount current devices to firearms. And then the question needs to be asked if devices mounted to rifles will ever be mounted to handguns. If the answer is no, then a different standard needs to be developed for handguns.

I think revolvers & non-cycling autos [like arc's above] would be good candidates.
Wonder if it would remove too much slide mass on a reciprocating slide & need to be added elsewhere.
Also, holster compatibility, depending on how far forward the Pic rail extended.

I think it would be far easier if all optic makers just used ONE standardized footprint, like they mostly do with the narrower slides of micro 9s.

Imagining trying to fit a M1913 rail into a 92FS slide...that would a level of UGLY that would be hard to unsee.