Front Sight and Terminology ?

[p7fl]

Front sight and terminology.

I prefer the 2 ARs I have without a fixed front sight. I would like to send my old and favorite Colt 6933 to a quality firm to remove its front sight/post, so I can co-witness an Aimpoint. The last time I called a company about this, they were arrogant that I wasn’t using the correct terminology.
Questions:
Who can you recommend to use?
And…..exactly what am I asking the company to do, I know it is more than taking a hacksaw and cutting off the sight.
TIA
jon

[HeruMew]

If you're removing the front post, you can't cowitness.

Cowitness is where the iron sights are also "witnessed" with your optic reticle.

A lower 1/3rd cowitness means you will.look at the iron sights through the bottom 1/3rd of your optic. A total cowitness is when your iron sights are directly centered with your optic. In all situations, your dot sight will follow your eye, so even a lower 1/3rd the dot will line up with your front post.

So, "cowitness" requires a front sight post, hence, your terminology is off.

Easy mistake.

It's called a "shaved front sight post".

Also, please don't.

It's honestly more worth your dollar to keep it stock. Implement it into your KISS build. Put a good optic on there with a quick detach to get a real cowitness.

If you want a regular gasblock and rail, its more worth your time and money to invest in a new upper.

Especially if you factor in the cost of labor and shipping to shave the perfectly good front post.

Just my opine.

[Iraqgunz]

Mount the optic with a lower 1/3 co-witness and leave it alone. The only time I would recommend it, is if you want to get rid of the FSB and add a longer rail, then it would make sense.

[tehpwnag3]

Pretty much what I was thinking. To have front/rear flip-ups that absolute co-witness with his red dot. Not everyone does this, so perhaps that is why he may have ran into a dead end??

The only time I would recommend it, is if you want to get rid of the FSB and add a longer rail, then it would make sense.

[eodinert]

Go ahead and shave it off. Better yet, do it yourself and learn about your rifle. Modern fighting rifles are trending away from fixed immovable sights... for a number of reasons.

There are a lot of 'how to' videos on the interwebs. Do some googling.

[Eurodriver]

Modern fighting rifles are trending away from fixed immovable sights... for a number of reasons.

Can you give examples to back up this statement as well as the reasons you mentioned.

[noonesshowmonkey]

Can you give examples to back up this statement as well as the reasons you mentioned.

Gauntlet thrown.

[jackblack73]

I don't mean to speak for eodinert, but it does seem like most newer rifles eschew fixed sights for folding sights. The SCAR, ARX, and Tavor are a few examples off the top of my head.

[tylerw02]

Fixed sights are superior. However these days optics are becoming better and better. This renders back-up sights unnecessary for many. Thus, iron sight quality can be compromised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BrigandTwoFour]

Market trends don't necessarily equate to what is best from a functionality standpoint. Popularity isn't everything.

I honestly think that the move away from fixed sights and towards optics is because the environments that we've been fighting in allow for it.

I do recall reading accounts over at Lightfighter that optics are not necessarily performing well in jungle environments, though. Moreover, there was a discussion (here, I think) where Kyle Defoor did testing in heavy rain and reported results. Irons and magnified optics won out over RDS in those conditions, and there are certainly times when no magnification is preferable.

In any case, needed or not, removing the front represents a net loss in capability (unless you made up for it elsewhere). Better to have options and not use them, then to remove options for "style" and suddenly find a need for them.