Troy BattleSight Rear Di-Optic Aperture (and other Troy sights)

[Rated21R]

http://store.troyind.com/Di_Optic_Aperture_DOA_Folding_Rear_Sight_p/ssig-doa-rfxx-00.htm

Anyone have this, if so what do you think?



Also, what are folks preferences on the front sight: HK style or M4 style?

http://store.troyind.com/HK_Front_Folding_Sights_p/ssig-fbs-fhbt-00.htm
http://store.troyind.com/M4_Front_Folding_Sights_p/ssig-fbs-fmbt-00.htm


Any thoughts on this:

http://store.troyind.com/Rapid_Adjust_Front_BattleSight_p/ssig-raf-00bt-00.htm

[Dist. Expert 26]

I have the HK style front sight on my gun. It's a solid piece of equipment, if I could change anything about it I would make it spring loaded to speed up the process a bit, but it's not a big deal.

[LDM]

I have the early version of the Troy Di-Optic sight which was called the Diamondhead.
The Diamondhead is slightly different, as it has short bars or "ears" extending from the sides and top.
It is not just a matter of me liking this sight, it is literally the difference in me being able to accurately use my iron sights .
Here why: I'm 55 years old and like almost everyone my age I have presbyopia (i.e. cannot focus on close objects and need reading glasses). Regular rear apertures are just a fuzzy indistinct shape. The Diamondhead is fuzzy, but the shape provides better reference to align the front sight. My accuracy with the Diamondhead is acceptable while with regular irons sights it was unsatisfactory and inconsistent.
I recognize mine is a particular case, but look at it this way for a moment: if external conditions degraded any shooter's vision (e.g. poor light, etc.) the better reference benefit of the Di-Optic is an edge. I think in good conditions, and with good eyesight, the benefit probably does not seem so great.
My presbyopia also means the "nose-to-charging-handle" technique is problematic. I use a cheek weld further back on the stock.
Your mileage may vary.
Stay safe.