BUIS Comparison: Troy FBS & MI ERS

[Stickman]

Skintop911, check your IM when you get the time.

[ST911]

Skintop 911
These comparisons are interesting but in this case i think you are missing some major points.

Troy, thanks for writing. I'm happy to contemplate your feedback on my observations.

For anyone to say or insinuate the ERS is mechanically inferior to any other sight on the market would be incorrect in my opinion. We have thousands in military service and ZERO I repeat ZERO have come back from any kind of problem or failure. These sights can take a hell of a beating and keep going as confirmed by Bill Alexander with the .50 beowulf.

I certainly didn't say that the ERS is mechanically inferior. Insinuations are largely the product of perception, and it's not my intent to make them here. The goal is to identify and describe differences, and the operational, maintenance, and logistical effects of them. Your product had a few more discussion points, but the reader should not read "junk." It is a serviceable sight.

The other points you are missing are cost and training curve. We built the ERS to be cost effective and rugged with little or no extra training for the troop in the feild. This is why it has standard A2 controls and aperature.

Cost and training curve didn't pass me by, but I didn't include them more deliberately here.

The ERS is a good value, with a build quality and functionality consistent with its price point. My last line, "The ERS is available for ~$95 retail, and the FBS for ~$140. Both appear to be priced appropriately." is not a value judgment.

I'd question the effect on the training curve, but let's contemplate it here...
The upright ERS is a standard A2-type configuration and a seamless functional and near-seamless form transition from conventional -A2. The upright FBS differs from the A2-type in form, and operation of the windage control, but not essential function. The FBS is much akin to the A1-type troops mastered for years. The apertures of both sights are manipulated in like fashion. Both sights deploy to the upright position, and are retracted therefrom, in like fashion.

What is the comparative effect on training of each? Even when I consider the lowest common denominator user, I see frightfully little, if any. Same-plane usage, perhaps.

It was not designed to be the lowest on the market.

Not a factor in my contemplations, but noted for others.

I think you did a very good job on your review but i needed clear up these points.

Understood, I appreciate your manner and decorum. I'm happy to hear any feedback and reply accordingly.

There is lot of good gear on the market and there is alot of personal opinions.

As noted, my intent with most efforts such as these is to report observations, and leave value judgements aside. As you say, there's a lot of good gear out there. How the variables impact the end-user, and what is GTG or unsat, will vary.

[ST911]

REVISED 7/13

Incorporates portions of feedback received.

[Stickman]

The updates help make a little more sense of it for me. For people who are not used to government, agency, or departmental testing and procurement, there is a certain point where cost becomes a factor.

The price difference of $140 vs $95 is almost 1.5 times, and I would expect that more than one person is going to look at the cost and ask what real world differences are apparent in actual use when large scale purchases are being made. 3 of one unit can be purchased for the same price as 2 of the other. If a bean counter is looking at being able to buy 600 of one item as opposed to 400 of another, there needs to be solid reasons for the selection. Does one offer that much more function over the other? Will lives be put into harms way with the inclusion or detraction of either (or both)? The answer is no in this case (or it wouldn't move along to field trials), but it doesn't change the responsibility of instructors to do T& E and make responsible recommendations.

In my own use I've found larger differences based on both training and real world use between both units. Roll in similar sights of other manufacturers, and there is more to it than meets the eye.

Lastly, I've had real world BUIS failure, and its not fun. Another instructor that I know has had a similar failure as mine, and evidently he didn't enjoy it either as we both preach it from the rooftops during classes. I've also had other BUIS fail/ break/ come apart while training, and it points out that we need to identify issues where they are observed. It also points out why we need to train for these contingencies.

[jmart]

Skintop, I love these comparisons and other photo essays you do. I need to save these links somewhere to send to people that want to get into "just as good" arguments.

The MI is clearly NOT at the same level as the Troy.

Rob,

Didn't you post a while back that you had a Troy and you lost the detent and the windage went TU?

[Robb Jensen]

Rob,

Didn't you post a while back that you had a Troy and you lost the detent and the windage went TU?

He did and it just goes to show you that anything man made can break, even the 'so-called' best. I'm a fan of Troy sights but that doesn't mean I view the AR sight world wearing blinders.

Skintop911 I think your comparisons here is an 'apples vs. oranges'. A more fair comparison would be a Troy sight vs. a MI SPLP sight.

In the end it's us end-users that need to figure what it is that we really need vs. what we want, the two things can be quite different.

[jmart]

He did and it just goes to show you that anything man made can break, even the 'so-called' best. I'm a fan of Troy sights but that doesn't mean I view the AR sight world wearing blinders.

Agreed. I guess my point was, there are more aspects of the sight's design other than it uses a better screw that the MI. Not sure if that ball/detent failure mode was an isolated instance within a product run or if it is a limitation with the design, but it bears noting that these things have had downing failures. Buyers beware.

Skintop911 I think your comparisons here is an 'apples vs. oranges'. A more fair comparison would be a Troy sight vs. a MI SPLP sight.

Agreed again. If you are running an ACOG or a conventional optic, you're going to need a low pro folding rear, so those are the models which should be compared. If running a RDS, then the MI reviewed here is a viable candidate, and at that point you are in a position to save some coin, if you are comfortable with the MI's design. But I don't think this model will tuck in under an ACOG, and if that's the case, it's a non-starter for some applications.

[ST911]

Skintop911 I think your comparisons here is an 'apples vs. oranges'. A more fair comparison would be a Troy sight vs. a MI SPLP sight.

No sir, they are indeed both apples. It would be more correct to say that I'm comparing a Red Delicious to a Granny Smith.

The goal is to ID and contemplate the relative differences of flip-up BUIS units meeting certain criteria, one at a premium price, one at a more moderate level. (I added that clarification above.)

An SPLP - FBS comparison would seem more logical, but that's not what was wanted.

I don't dislike the ERS. It's inclusion should be viewed a nod. There were several options in that category.

Context and design matters here.

In the end it's us end-users that need to figure what it is that we really need vs. what we want, the two things can be quite different.

Agreed.

Agreed again. If you are running an ACOG or a conventional optic, you're going to need a low pro folding rear, so those are the models which should be compared. If running a RDS, then the MI reviewed here is a viable candidate, and at that point you are in a position to save some coin, if you are comfortable with the MI's design. But I don't think this model will tuck in under an ACOG, and if that's the case, it's a non-starter for some applications.

Profile is noted because some would ask. It isn't otherwise a factor. Clarified.

[rob_s]

Rob,

Didn't you post a while back that you had a Troy and you lost the detent and the windage went TU?

Yes I did, and they took great care of me.

As it turns out, and I didn't get to report this because the thread was locked, it was also apparently a very old version that I got used (and possibly abused).

[Robb Jensen]

No sir, they are indeed both apples. It would be more correct to say that I'm comparing a Red Delicious to a Granny Smith. No you're comparison is like comparing a Lincoln Navigator to a Chevy Tahoe (instead of the Cadillac Escalade).

The goal is to ID and contemplate the relative differences of flip-up BUIS units meeting certain criteria, one at a premium price, one at a more moderate level. (I added that clarification above.)

An SPLP - FBS comparison would seem more logical, but that's not what was wanted. By whom?

We'll to agree to disagree, did you notice my signature line? It might make you understand what comparison is.............