View Full Version : Removable carry handle question
I saw the picture below in another thread and wanted to ask a specific question concerning the issue depicted in the picture. I handled a number of used, Colt, removable carry handles at my local dealer and each and every one had the rear sight move in the fashion noted in the picture. My dealer was very honest about the fact that every one he had did the same thing. He indicated he was told this is common to the removable carry handles. I've always used a folding BUIS, so I have no other experience with these. My question then, is this truely a common characteristic of the removable carry handle?
http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww256/crusaderwyn/Projekt%20AR/BMRearSight.jpg
yep it's normal.
take a look at the pic below... the sight is canted due to spring #4 ;)
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4427/upperreceiver.gif
Yup, all 111 of the M16A2's in my vault (I'm the fulltime supply sergeant for my Guard unit) have the same apparent twist. And most removable carry handles use standard A2 sight components. every time we qualify, someone tries to use this as an excuse for their horrible shooting!
This is not all purely an alibi. That is why the National Match Service Rifles, if properly set up, will have part # 9 pinned to part #24).
There will be a guide pin on the front and rear of that part (#9) so that the adjustments will not cant the rear sight in relation to the rest of the A2 upper or the removable carry handle in the case of a NM AR 15 A4.
There is accuracy and then there is accuracy!;)
This is not all purely an alibi. That is why the National Match Service Rifles, if properly set up, will have part # 9 pinned to part #24).
There will be a guide pin on the front and rear of that part (#9) so that the adjustments will not cant the rear sight in relation to the rest of the A2 upper or the removable carry handle in the case of a NM AR 15 A4.
There is accuracy and then there is accuracy!;)
True, but dosn't the NM sight have a smaller aperture, as well? I'm willing to bet that the size difference mkes for a bigger accuracy differential than the canted aperture.
Plus, these are the same guys that foget to put the small aperture up when they zero, complain about zeroing in the first place, then bitch when they miss the 50 meter target!
True, but dosn't the NM sight have a smaller aperture, as well? I'm willing to bet that the size difference mkes for a bigger accuracy differential than the canted aperture.
Plus, these are the same guys that foget to put the small aperture up when they zero, complain about zeroing in the first place, then bitch when they miss the 50 meter target!
Actually, I believe the canted aperture is a bigger problem. The human eye will naturally center the front sight but canting is another mechanical aiming issue altogether. For example when David Tubb cants his sights at an angle - it is to make corrections for his body's natural positioning. But his sighting system as a whole is canted, not just the rear sight! He is canting his rifle in the opposite from the way his body is canting - esp. in the standing position.
Just my 30 cents (the U.S. currency has been taking a beating lately:() worth -- I could be completely wrong.
Your guys probably think that giving them optics will solve their immediate problems. However, it's not just sight alignment, but trigger press, breathing, body position, rest, and practice.
Someone yelling at them will most likely not help either :)
Your guys probably think that giving them optics will solve their immediate problems. However, it's not just sight alignment, but trigger press, breathing, body position, rest, and practice.
True, we had M68's during our last deployment, and most of these guy's qual scores were the same or worse.
Someone yelling at them will most likely not help either :)
Yelling? They are supposed to be ready for someone shooting back at them!
Boy, did this thread get off track!
No no.
We are not off track. We teach marksmanship first and then we teach them what works on the battlefield and what does not.
If they are not trained properly, and if their training does not stick, they will revert to what was wrong to begin with. There is still a lot of controversy over what works in a firefight and what works in competition and for that matter what snipers are able to achieve as opposed to an infantry squad or platoon.
I was also trained as a sniper / reconnaissance NCO. I have seen guys bang away with an M60 and not hit anything and make no effort to correct. This is where you teach them to walk the point of impact into the enemy position. We did the same thing with other weapon systems as well.
Fine motor skills (like making fine sight adjustments) rarely stay intact when the SHTF.
No no.
We are not off track. We teach marksmanship first and then we teach them what works on the battlefield and what does not.
If they are not trained properly, and if their training does not stick, they will revert to what was wrong to begin with. There is still a lot of controversy over what works in a firefight and what works in competition and for that matter what snipers are able to achieve as opposed to an infantry squad or platoon.
I was also trained as a sniper / reconnaissance NCO. I have seen guys bang away with an M60 and not hit anything and make no effort to correct. This is where you teach them to walk the point of impact into the enemy position. We did the same thing with other weapon systems as well.
Fine motor skills (like making fine sight adjustments) rarely stay intact when the SHTF.
No argument here. The off-track comment referred to the OP's question about the twist in his rear sight, which we left behind several posts ago.
In the National Guard, at least my state, we simply don't have enough time to retrain marksmanship, there are far too many other mandatory training requirements. That situation is what got me into AR platfoms in the first place, I didn't like my qual scores, and didn't want to trust myself in a firefight.
Most of the soldiers who complain about equipment are older, long-service guys. Some of the men went through IET with an M14! I constantly hear that they want their M16A1 back, but if you check the old records, their quals were just as bad back then, too.
I don't know for sure but that particular carry handle sight looks far more canted than what I remember. Im holding a USGI carry handle sight, there is some wiggle. But there is not the gap shown in the picture.
I had another follow up question regarding something mentioned earlier. If the rear sight is pinned to the carry handle, how can you elevate the sight ? Just curious, excuse my ignorance.
I don't know for sure but that particular carry handle sight looks far more canted than what I remember. Im holding a USGI carry handle sight, there is some wiggle. But there is not the gap shown in the picture.
I had another follow up question regarding something mentioned earlier. If the rear sight is pinned to the carry handle, how can you elevate the sight ? Just curious, excuse my ignorance.
They call it pinned but really round rails that the rear sight rides up and down on. It was designed, I believe, to stop that canting and prevent any increasing "slop". In other words, along with the threads, they make the rear sight into a precision match sight.
Parabellum9x19mm
07-09-09, 06:52
(sigh) nevermind
I wonder if a matching hole drilled in the lower left of part #9 with a spring and detent in it would balance out the cant.
Be easier than pinning the thing.
You could install a plastic shim to straighten it out.
Captains1911
07-19-09, 21:46
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e106/Captains1911/TN18.jpg
Well there you go.
Problem solved.
Thanx.
Well there you go. Problem solved.Thanx.
I believe that all A2 (or carry handle versions) all do this to some extent. That said the above pictured one is the worst I have ever seen. I once had an A2 upper that I replaced the factory Colt rear sight with a NM version.
Like the above Armalite memo refers to (#3) it had a double spring & ball set-up. It was a very good sight and it was very straight because of the dual opposing springs & ball bearings. I liked it a lot.
Again, I would say the one pictured is as bad as they get, most are not that canted.
openbolt
Mine is no where near that far off.
I don't recall the A2 I had in basic having a canted sight but that was 21 years ago.
Holy crap! that was 21 years ago.
Damn, I'm gettin' old.
The only sight that didn't have any type cant, is the utg detachable rear buis. After looking at it, I noticed it didn't even have a spring and ball. Run your elevation all the way to the top and wiggle the sight back and forth a few times. Maybe the spring or ball is not quite in the detent.
All of them have this to some degree.
The one in the OP's picture I would say is above average but still ok.
kaiservontexas
07-21-09, 00:48
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=33797
My A2M4 BM and consensus was it is borked up even on the AKforum. It will be replaced with a Bravo Company upper in the future as I am taking the advice of others here and there.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e106/Captains1911/TN18.jpg
That looks very familiar. ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.