View Full Version : Troy Front Sight; A2 style or HK?
I'm about to buy a set. I just wanted to get some views as to which other users preffered, the A2 or HK style.
From my limited time with HK sights, they seem very open, but there is a familiarity with the A2 ones.
They are going on a flat top with a 10" rail if the extended lenght effects anything.
I like the HK style, lining up the circles seems faster to me.
I have both, and both work fine, but for my next purchase, I'm going to buy another M4 style...just a matter of personal preference.
I have both styles also but don't really have a preference. They both work fine.
I prefer the M4 style on my AR.
I like the HK style, lining up the circles seems faster to me.
Lining up the two sets of concentric circles can be quick and easy - so quick and easy, that my eyes/brain want to do it every time, which works great unless your front sight post ends up not centered in the front circle after zeroing... In which case I found myself having trouble keeping the post centered properly instead of the the circles. At close range and a quick pace, it was probably a moot point, but it's still one reason I've got Troy version with M4-style "wings" now.
lethal dose
05-28-10, 22:27
You're not supposed to "line up the circles". The troys aren't true hk style sights... hk sights are adjusted w and e via the rear sight only. On the troys, if your front sight post ends up not centered, you're in trouble if you wanna "line up the circles". If you wanna run em that way, buy centurians.
I like the HK-style front. It is very quick to line up and, because I am getting older, I tried a KNS front sight post. That combination really funnels my vision to the target quickly.
Iraq Ninja
05-29-10, 01:24
I prefer the HK style, but I had one break on me. It was mounted on my carbine and extended. It fell about two feet and hit the floor of my room. One of the wings broke off.
Troy promptly sent me a replacement with no questions asked.
I've been messing with HK-style fronts for awhile - I'm just a guy and not an operator, so that that into account.
I find I much prefer having the circle in circle HK-style sight picture over the standard AR wings so long as I have a W and E adjustable rear.
I have a Troy fixed HK style on my 9mm carbine and use a RRA rear, it works well because I simply ignore adjusting the front for elevation and do it all through the rear. I agree with the other comments that moving the front post away from dead center destroys the entire HK sight picture concept, so I personally wouldn't bother with the Troy rears for this front.
I'd like to give the Centurion diopters a try on this carbine, they have to be lighter than the RRA rear and drum rears have worked well for me in the past.
I've found that I am much quicker with HK-style sights than with AR wings, and accuracy doesn't suffer. I do slightly prefer an open top front like the Troy or Centurion over a closed (full circle) front like on the SIG 556.
I'd like to give the Centurion diopters a try on this carbine, they have to be lighter than the RRA rear and drum rears have worked well for me in the past...
I've found that I am much quicker with HK-style sights than with AR wings, and accuracy doesn't suffer. I do slightly prefer an open top front like the Troy or Centurion over a closed (full circle) front like on the SIG 556.
Be advised that Centurion's are a few mm lower that standard AR sights (they are still higher than HK sights) - if you plan on running optics, you have to be careful with mount height selection.
I agree on open top vs. closed top. Closed hood sights take up too much visual space in optics window, provided you're running front sight up.
The original question has already been answered in this thread multiple times. The circular wings only make sense if sight post is in geometric center of a circle and all adjustments are made via rear.
My preference is the M4 style. I like the look of the Hk style however I try and stick with what I know works for me...
4thPointOfContact
05-29-10, 14:19
I like the look of the HK better as well (grass is always greener, I suppose). But when I considered that adjusting the front sight post up or down would affect how it was centered, I went with the standard AR/M4 sight. If the sights I looked at were true HK style, I might have changed my decision.
I'm struggling to see how the front sight post moving up or down makes the slightest difference. If you line up the circles, the point of impact and point of aim should be the top of the front sight post. Keep in mind this isn't a thread about holdover...
Now if the gun was shooting high or low, the front sight post would be raised or lowered. This has nothing to do with how you line up the circles. The only thing that changes is where the front sight post is within that circle. If you are topping out the front sight post to zero it, you have a mechanical problem or shooter error somewhere. Zero adjustments should never be that far off...
I thought the same thing at first so I raised the front sight post. I found I constantly sighted low and had to consciously adjust my aim - my brain wanted to line up the circle in the circle with the target dead center. Yes, you can overcome it - but it slowed me down. YMMV.
If you line up the circles, the point of impact and point of aim should be the top of the front sight post
Nope, it doesn't work that way. Most of the time you'd need to move front sight post up or down few turns. You need to keep it centered of rear sight aperture; you really don't care about relationship to sight's ears, be it HK or M4 style.
With my HK-styled Troys, the 50/220 yard zero required me to lower front sight post 2 turns. With that, obtaining correct sight picture (front sight post in the center of rear sight aperture) lead to "misalignment" of front and rear circles ( front sight circle displaced up). Conversely aligning those two would position the front sight tip low in rear sight aperture. I hope I am explaining this clear enough, or I misunderstanding you in some way.
Deleted -- badly misread something.
With that, obtaining correct sight picture (front sight post in the center of rear sight aperture) lead to "misalignment" of front and rear circles ( front sight circle displaced up). Conversely aligning those two would position the front sight tip low in rear sight aperture.
I would consider a correct sight picture to be circles lined up and the tip of the post poa/poi. If its higher or lower than the dead center of the circle than so be it, it's not a red dot.
I don't see how the front sight post being low in the rear sight aperture is a problem. It is way easier to judge if the circles are aligned than if the post is centered. I've never centered a front sight post within a rear the way you are describing.
With a A2 style sight, ears aligned on the circle and what I want to shoot on the tip of the front sight post. I've never heard of it being required to center the tip of the front sight post in the rear arp. I've never heard this point of view before. With true HK sights, the front sight post would always be centered, but the hybrid troy M16/HK doesn't work the same.
This makes me want to buy the HKs just to try it out...
The idea is not that the tip of the post must be located in the geometric center of the circles. The concept is that you would align the circles to index the front sight and then place the post where you want it. Placing the tip of the post on your target is faster than trying to make sure both circles are exactly aligned. There are better sight options for precision shooting. For me, the value of the HK style is quickly hitting man-size targets in center mass.
I've never centered a front sight post within a rear the way you are describing.
I've never heard of it being required to center the tip of the front sight post in the rear arp. I've never heard this point of view before. ...
Oh, I see. I guess it is a difference in training, but at least now we understand where our differences are. I was trained that correct line of sight connects two points - center of rear sight aperture and tip of front sight post, and process of aiming is to put that line of sight on target. If one does it that way, then it is easy to understand that if one wants to also have circles aligned, then it only can be done if geometric center of front circle coincides with tip of front post. However if you get your sight picture without connecting tip and center of rear sight - which, I understand, is the way you do it - then that geometric thing becomes non-issue.
Robb Jensen
05-30-10, 09:28
I prefer the M4 style. I to found myself subconciously aligning the rear peep with the round front. I guess I could have just raised the front sight post 1/2 way up the sight but I don't believe that was it's design. To me growing up shooting '03s, Garands, M1As/M14s, M16s and M4s the M4 style just works more natually. IMHO natural is better it's just like in rifle shooting getting your 'natural POA' etc.
I've never centered a front sight post within a rear the way you are describing.
With a A2 style sight, ears aligned on the circle and what I want to shoot on the tip of the front sight post. I've never heard of it being required to center the tip of the front sight post in the rear arp. I've never heard this point of view before.
The clear tip of the front sight post is centered both vertically and horizontally in the rear sight aperture, regardless of which style front one uses.
If you're getting results by not doing that...great!...but do not speak to that subject as though that's the way it is supposed to be. You'd be the exception, not the rule.
There was a thread, in AR Technical, if I recall correctly, that pointed to how the wings of a FSB can vary in sizes, whereas the front sight posts are all the same size and put in the same spot in relation to the barrel. That, how big the wings are compared to a front sight post, plus any quick perusal of an AR-platform user manual...yeah, the post is centered in the aperture.
Lining up circles on an HK front is nice for quick/easy initial alignment of your sights. After that, you put the tip in the center of the rear aperture, and if the front circle formed by the wings is high or low within the rear aperture, it's totally irrelevant.
Went looking for the thread, can't find it.
Regardless of the method if it is done the same every time it will put rounds where they are needed.
whereas the front sight posts are all the same size and put in the same spot in relation to the barrel.
There are many manufactures that make different size front sight posts. You are saying the wings are different, but everything else in what is suppose to be a "mil-spec" front sight is the same? I also doubt a CNC milled front sight would be the same as a M16 type FSB. THis topic was about the Troy sights in particular, and has wandered a bit.
I see what people are talking about with the front sight post being centered. But with the Troy HK sights, how would adjusting the rifle to make the front sight post centered (negating the circle alignment or causing a mis-alignment), and adjusting the rifle to place the target on the front sight post (with circles aligned) be any different?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.