View Full Version : If you were going to shoot "irons only" what would be your all-around setup?
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-29-10, 19:47
Hey guys,
Not interested in debating the merits of red dots vs. Irons--red dots are clearly superior. However, if you were just a masochist, how would you run you AR without red dots?
I asked Ken Hackathorn this and he basically suggested A1 style sights with some sort of tritium front.
What setup would you guys run on a 16 inch lightweight?
Fire_Medic
05-29-10, 19:57
Can't beat a good set of Troy's. They make them now with tritium inserts too.
Just my humble $0.02
The Dumb Gun Collector
05-29-10, 20:00
Has anyone fooled with the CSAT sights? They seem pretty efficient. Could they be mounted in a A1 carry handle?
GLOCKMASTER
05-29-10, 20:02
I asked Ken Hackathorn this and he basically suggested A1 style sights with some sort of tritium front.
What setup would you guys run on a 16 inch lightweight?
Our S&W M&P patrol rifles are setup with an A2 stand alone rear sight similiar to the RRA (http://www.rockriverarms.com/popup.cfm?type=i&id=products/sarsa.gif) version and a Trijicon front sight.
However, the next 200 rifles going out the door will also have Aimpoint Comp M2's mounted on them.
Well, depends on the intended usage. If it were to be a 0-250 yd carbine I would agree and likely go with the Daniel Defense or other A1 style setup for the simplicity. If it were say a 0-600 yd rifle then I would go with one of the range adjustable rears, preferably with a dual aperture setup. If strictly long range, probably a NM setup.
:)
Don Robison
05-29-10, 20:04
My choice would be what I already run for a BUIS. LaRue non-folding and either stock front or on guns with a full length rail a DD non folding front.
If I was going to go irons only, an A1 upper would be my first choice. Second would be a Larue fixed, as it is basically an A1 rear.
Troy folder would be my third. I shot a Troy folding buis through a Pat Rogers/EAG course earlier this month, on an 11.5". I was able to perform well with the irons.
jklaughrey
05-29-10, 20:11
A1 upper, can't beat simplicity. Plus it is grunt friendly.
Colt 6520.
If looking for "ideal" I'd prefer an original M16-style upper with A1 sights and no forward assist or brass deflector, but with M4 ramps (cut in after if need be) and the CSAT rear and standard A2 front.
Careful pairing things like the Howe with a tritium front. The Howe is designed to work with a standard A2 front and I don't know if the added width of a tritium post would work with it or not. There should be no issue installing a CSAT rear in an A1 sight.
I have a CSAT in a Daniel Defense rear BUIS, and I've owned a tritium front post in the past. I think the tritium front posts can confuse shooters that are really used to the standard sights as the tendency becomes one of focusing on the dot instead of the tip.
Preferred User
05-29-10, 20:23
I have a CSAT in a Daniel Defense rear BUIS, and I've owned a tritium front post in the past. I think the tritium front posts can confuse shooters that are really used to the standard sights as the tendency becomes one of focusing on the dot instead of the tip.Dots are great on handguns, not so good in the "traditional" AR sight picture. I ended up with the XS Tritium Stripe front with the CSAT in the factory DD rear sight after reading a previous discussion on irons. Not sure the Tritium makes as much of a difference as the stripe.
thopkins22
05-29-10, 20:34
Has anyone fooled with the CSAT sights? They seem pretty efficient. Could they be mounted in a A1 carry handle?
I shot a few rounds through the CSAT aperture up at CSAT when I took a course there and they worked great. Your eye is close enough to the rear notch that it's not really a pistol type sight picture, I found I just had to trust that just focusing on the front sight put it close enough. I've put off buying a couple for too long.
Cagemonkey
05-29-10, 20:39
If your going to use a single BZO I'd use a DD rear. If you want some adjustability I'd use an LMT.
devildogljb
05-29-10, 20:44
i just use the standard A2 set up that came with the rifle but thinking about using a magpul rear on my smith
C7 upper, standard rear and trijicon front...
B
A DD or A1 style rear depending on whether or not I want a carry handle. I would want a same plane rear aperture but not the CSAT sight as I'm not a fan of notch and post sights when there's already a ghost ring *right there*.
I'd want a narrow front sight for shots at distance and/or better precision up close. Perhaps one of those KNS tapered jobs.
If (and this is a big if) I was going to use this as close in gun, I'd think about a fully hooded front sight along the lines of an MP5. Place ring on bad guys chest, press and repeat.
Jay Cunningham
05-29-10, 21:03
M16A1 clone.
On a 16" LW I'd probably use the DD front and rear with red loc-tite.
fivefivesix
05-29-10, 23:06
i am using the standard front site that came with the barrel, and a magpul rear site. i use to use a yhm folding front with the rear magpul but i like the standard front site.
Got CSAT sights installed on a Troy BUIS and LMT fixed sight. Really like the setup a lot.
LMT rear and Trijicon front.
How's the KAC folding 200-600 rear sight? Worth it as a stand alone iron sight?
Troy or the Daniel Defense sights for me.
Magic_Salad0892
05-30-10, 05:38
KAC 200-600m Micro sights would be my sights of choice.
Otherwise, LMT + CSAT Aperture, and standard FSB.
KAC 200-600m Micro sights would be my sights of choice.
you would want the only sighting system on the gun to be able to flop over with the brush of a hand or a stiff breath?
I thought you were mr. "hard use, storm the beaches". :confused:
I just went to irons only on this rifle and I think I am going to keep it that way.;) I found I was becoming way to reliant on T1's so I thought this would be a good setup to get dialed back in with irons only.
I really like the LMT set personally....
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t5/d90king/DSCN0019.jpg
My experience is a bit limited but the LMT QD Rear Buis has been a bomb proof sight for me.
Robb Jensen
05-30-10, 07:47
I'd with a 16" midlength with a Daniel Defense rear BUIS blue loc-tited on. If SBR I'd go with a BCM 12.5" Kino with a DD BUIS.
M16A1 clone.
On a 16" LW I'd probably use the DD front and rear with red loc-tite.
Exactly what I was thinking.
M16A1 clone.
On a 16" LW I'd probably use the DD front and rear with red loc-tite.
Same same, know hold overs or if need longer range w/o knowing hold overs, go with the LMT rear.
I asked Ken Hackathorn this and he basically suggested A1 style sights with some sort of tritium front.
What setup would you guys run on a 16 inch lightweight?
This is exactly the setup I had many moons ago before Aimpoints were more common. 16" "standard" profile barrel, A1 rear sight, tritium dot front post.
I don't know why you'd want a folding front or rear on an "irons only" rifle. Why would you need to fold them, or have the additional expense/complication/failure modes of a folding system on such a gun?
I've been shooting a 6920 with only a La Rue LT-103 for almost a year now. I love it, it is extremely solid, has kept its zero excellently, and it is practically impossible to change the settings on it once zeroed. I shot a CSAT course with this BUIS only and things went very well. The only real big limitation was shooting out at 350 yards as the carbine length sight radius was very limiting. And personally I can understand the argument for a fixed rear sight, but the LT 103 is so solid that I don't know if it would be worth it to go to a much more limiting fixed rear sight/carry handle set up as you may eventually want to put an optic on your rifle.
But if I was to go with irons only, IMHO even more important then the type of rear sight, would be to get as long a sight radius as I can get. In a carbine I'd definitely go with a mid-length gun just for that issue alone, or maybe even a Dissipator type set up, or of course if length isn't an issue, with a rifle length set up.
Re. the CSAT sight: Based on what I saw when I took the CSAT course the rear sight excels in giving you a "surgical" shooting capability at close range.
When using traditional sights it was nerve racking to aim a few inches high and then have the front post/rifle obscuring a large portion of the target (and this was a stationary target) when shooting hostage drills.
However I didn't try to run the sights at speed. One guy did mention that it confused him somewhat to use the CSAT sight at speed as he was so used to looking for a traditional large peep sight picture. You will also be forced to use the small aperture unless you flip the sight, and as the sight is designed to be left on the U/small peep setting, when shooting at speed it may require some getting used to.
However, IMHO I think that the CSAT sight is worth it if you go irons only as the prospect of hovering a traditional peep sight holdover shot on a CQ moving target in a hostage type situation is a nightmare. So the surgical capability of the CSAT sight at very close range alone probably makes it worth getting used to it when shooting fast. Not to mention the fact that it will essentially allow you to be very precise from 7-100 yards without ever touching the sight.
I don't know why you'd want a folding front or rear on an "irons only" rifle.
I've been wondering the same thing as well. I've seen several people mention folding irons, and I'm simply not seeing the point on a dedicated iron sight rifle.
I've been wondering the same thing as well. I've seen several people mention folding irons, and I'm simply not seeing the point on a dedicated iron sight rifle.
Well I brought up the KAC 200-600m because of what its called. Was just wondering how great it could be.
you would want the only sighting system on the gun to be able to flop over with the brush of a hand or a stiff breath?
I thought you were mr. "hard use, storm the beaches". :confused:
Assuming this is a serious response and I'm not missing an inside joke...
While I wouldn't necessarily pick flip-ups as my first choice for an irons-only rifle, I trust the Troy BUIS I've used not to collapse on me short of falling onto the rifle and putting all of my weight directly onto the sights themselves.
That being said, I'm assuming the KAC 200-600m are not of the same sturdiness/construction? I only ask because you listed the upgrade as a bonus for the SR-15 in the other thread. For $200, that seems awfully overpriced to not short of bomb-proof.
LMT or RRA rear stand alone, standard FSB or non folding rail Front.
It has an optic now, but...
http://www.545ar.com/spikesmidlengthwood.jpg
I would use the LMT or a similar rear sight if I wanted to shoot past 300.
It has an optic now, but...
I would use the LMT or a similar rear sight if I wanted to shoot past 300.
How's the Spikes working out? What's the round count up to now?
Jay Cunningham
05-30-10, 11:25
Let's stay on topic. There is a Spike's thread if you want to discuss Spike's.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-30-10, 11:41
I'm assuming you want the max in accuracy, I'd go with FF rail and a covered micro gas block and a fake FSB all the way out on the barrel by the flash hider to give you a longer sight radius.
arizonaranchman
05-30-10, 12:33
I like iron sights personally. I love the simplicity of them and lower profile. I'd go with a standard upper with carry handle (I like the carry handle too) if using just irons... A1 or A2 depending on your preference.
I think we need to take a step back, or out, as this discussion as become not much more than "this is what I use" without much of anything in the way of explaining why it's what one uses or what other sights one has experience with.
First, I think we need to establish why the OP is using iron sights instead of an optic.
If it is simply to better acquaint himself with his iron sights in the event that his primary optic goes down,then he should spend his iron-sight training time using whatever BUIS he normally runs with his optic. Every BUIS has it's idiosyncrasies and he would do well to figure out what they are and become comfortable and proficient with them.
If the intention is that this particular carbine will never wear an optic (why not doesn't really matter for this discussion) then he should maximize the potential to get hits with irons at the distances he expects to engage, and he should reduce the probability of failure by reducing the number of joints/parts in the system. In other words, extend the front sight as far forward as possible given the barrel length, take steps to make that front sight as visible as possible given the kind of shooting intended, and utilize an A1 or A2 upper to reduce the potential to lose the rear sight. No amount of locktite and torque is as good as an integral piece.
If it is strictly a marksmanship/training/practice exercise then there are arguments both ways; for using the standard BUIS and for maximizing the potential to get hits with irons.
In the first instance I would use a DD rear BUIS on the flattop with a fixed front sight base attached to the barrel (not rail) and I would install a CSAT rear aperture in the DD. I would keep the front post black because i would want the front post black when I went back to my optic.
In the second instance I would try to find an A1 upper with M4 feedramps and install a CSAT rear sight and either paint the front post or investigate using a tritium post if intending to work at closer ranges and some kind of precision front/rear if intending to work at distance. In either case I would opt for a mid-length gas system to get the fixed FSB slightly further forward, and if looking to shoot irons at distance would consider a 20" barrel or a Dissipator setup.
ETA:
I have used rail-mounted rear sights from Magpul, KAC, GG&G, ARMS, Troy, YHM, Cavarms, Larue, a cut-down carry handle (which is basically what the LMT is), and the DD both with A2 and CSAT apertures. I have also used A2 and A1 sights, and an A1 rear aperture in an A2 rear sight. I have worked with rifle-length, mid-length, carbine-length, and even pistol-length iron sights on carbines. I have shot with all of these at ranges from contact to 200 yards, and in both static and dynamic applications in matches and classes. The discussion and suggestions above are based on my experiences with these various products and combinations of products.
Pathfinder Ops
05-30-10, 17:50
I have a "slick" set up.
Its a 16" SW M&P15 with fixed front sight and a ARMS 40L rear.
That's it Nothing else on it.
I think I'm gonna put a light onto it but that's cuz I think that a light should be a BASIC compliment to any gun.
Solid reliable lighter than my main rig and stone cold efficient.
For an iron-sighted carbine, I'd require something with an A2 aperture. Specifically, I want to be able to use the A2's large aperture. I don't care about the A2's target-style adjustability, but I DO care about that larger aperture, and the std A1 two-position aperture has two small apertures.
In close range, that large A2 aperture is generally quicker, almost like a ghost ring. In low light, that large aperture is like a wide-open camera aperture that lets in more light for a low-light exposure.
For 50M or more, the A2's smaller aperture works better for me. But that's an extremely low-probability engagement distance for legitimate self defense in a non-LE civilian situation.
Cagemonkey
05-30-10, 18:33
For an iron-sighted carbine, I'd require something with an A2 aperture. Specifically, I want to be able to use the A2's large aperture. I don't care about the A2's target-style adjustability, but I DO care about that larger aperture, and the std A1 two-position aperture has two small apertures.
In close range, that large A2 aperture is generally quicker, almost like a ghost ring. In low light, that large aperture is like a wide-open camera aperture that lets in more light for a low-light exposure.
For 50M or more, the A2's smaller aperture works better for me. But that's an extremely low-probability engagement distance for legitimate self defense in a non-LE civilian situation.The down side of the A2 aperture is that the two apertures aren't on the same plane. If you zero your rifle with one aperture your point of impact will differ with the other.
The down side of the A2 aperture is that the two apertures aren't on the same plane. If you zero your rifle with one aperture your point of impact will differ with the other.Well, as I said, I look at even 50M as a very low probability event for non-LE civilian self-defense. I'll even go so far as to state that every year there are more state and regional lottery winners in the USA than there are legitimate self defense shootings beyond even 25M.
Even still, I don't see much of an issue with the two plane A2 sight apertures. If it bothers you, just get a 50yd/50M BZO with the small aperture and use the large aperture for closer ranges, however you wish to define "close range."
This post indicates that the difference between the two apertures is 2.5 MOA:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=668454&postcount=2
At 25 yds, that's pretty much 0.625" difference (2.5/4). That's an insignificant difference in my book. You'll have more of an error due to estimating your sight offset holdover than you will due to the minor difference between the small and large apertures -- assuming that you even remember to hold for the sight offset in a real world self-defense situation.
Sure, the difference between the two apertures is noticable at 100M, but that has nothing to do with real world non-LE civilian self defense. If you do have to shoot at 100M, you can always switch back to the small aperture if you have time.
Cagemonkey
05-30-10, 20:28
Good info. I was just pointing out something many people don't realize. Seems a lot of people get confused when it comes to the A2 rear sight assy.
Outlander Systems
05-30-10, 20:42
F-Marked FSB, and an LMT rear.
It's simple, and has been my personal favourite combination to date, with regards to irons.
I think we need to take a step back, or out, as this discussion as become not much more than "this is what I use" without much of anything in the way of explaining why it's what one uses or what other sights one has experience with.
My primary reason for setting a rifle up to run irons only was simply because I felt I was getting lazy by only using my T1's. I wanted to get back to the basics and get dialed back in with irons should the need ever arise to employ them.
It was more of a training aid than a primary weapon setup for me.
I had a set of XS sights on an A1 upper and really liked them. I would use the white stripe fs and the non tritium rear sight.
http://xssights.com/store/tactical.html
Jay Cunningham
05-30-10, 21:06
I think we need to take a step back, or out, as this discussion as become not much more than "this is what I use" without much of anything in the way of explaining why it's what one uses or what other sights one has experience with.
Not every question needs to be psychoanalyzed. The question the OP posted seemed pretty simple, and resulted in some pretty simple, straightforward answers.
How much further does it need to go? It's not a Mars mission.
arizonaranchman
05-30-10, 21:10
For an iron-sighted carbine, I'd require something with an A2 aperture. Specifically, I want to be able to use the A2's large aperture. I don't care about the A2's target-style adjustability, but I DO care about that larger aperture, and the std A1 two-position aperture has two small apertures.
In close range, that large A2 aperture is generally quicker, almost like a ghost ring. In low light, that large aperture is like a wide-open camera aperture that lets in more light for a low-light exposure.
For 50M or more, the A2's smaller aperture works better for me. But that's an extremely low-probability engagement distance for legitimate self defense in a non-LE civilian situation.
Ditto here. I like the A2 carry handle and it's irons for this reason. Simple, durable and no fuss.
I do like the more rugged AR-15/M-16A1 sights better than A2 one always shot better with A1s than A2s used and carried an A1 from 87 to 93/94
in Active Duty Infantry Units. I found the front sight is better for acurate fire to 300 Meters without adjustments just larger sight for close rng.
and just using hold over for 300-400 M ranges I'd like to have the rear sight "leaf" from the A2 though skip the target adjustments but then again
I was alot younger and shot alot of ammo..
It always pissed off the know it alls that all said the "M16 wasn't accurate to shoot 200 to 350 M" then I be shooting bowling pins at 300M with a 11.5 barrel
shorty with the welded 5.5 FH It was a OLY Arms I put together from parts then. (1988)
Not every question needs to be psychoanalyzed.
Actually, it kind of does. Knowing why someone is doing something, or what their end-goal is, kind of makes a difference in what gear or solution will work best for them, doesn't it? Wasn't this you?
When you clearly define your mission, your gear usually sorts itself out.
The question the OP posted seemed pretty simple, and resulted in some pretty simple, straightforward answers.
Simple, straightforward, and utterly useless (for the most part) without being qualified in any way. One sentence "this is what I use" answers aren't frankly worth the time it takes to type them and hit "submit".
How much further does it need to go? It's not a Mars mission.
No, it's not, but the way this thread has gone kind of typifies what some folks are rather bored of 'round here. Is not the unofficial mantra here "what do you want to do with it and how much do you want to spend?" Maybe if the respondents took a similar "this is what I use, how I use it, and why" approach things would improve without assigning teacher's pets.
Outlander Systems
05-31-10, 07:24
Actually, it kind of does. Knowing why someone is doing something, or what their end-goal is, kind of makes a difference in what gear or solution will work best for them, doesn't it? Wasn't this you?
Rob has a valid point. I will expound upon my statement, that was basically nothing more than what I prefer, without the details.
F-Marked FSB, and an LMT rear.
It's simple, and has been my personal favourite combination to date, with regards to irons.
I'd prefer this combination, due to both items being "fixed". No spring actuated levers to fail, very little moving parts. Since, for this theoretical exercise, we're sans-optic, there's no need in overcomplicating the process by adding in more moving parts.
Ultimately, I'd say the "best" option, from my perspective, would be a standard FSB and a carrying handle, but for the sake of weight, and the assumption that the user's got a sling, I'd opt for the LMT.
I've personally shot my best with irons using this particular configuration. In comparison, I've used irons from Midwest Industries, Troy, Magpul, YHM, and FNH.
Jay Cunningham
05-31-10, 09:26
rob_s,
Please check your PMs.
F marked FSB and Larue same plane.
Well, as I said, I look at even 50M as a very low probability event for non-LE civilian self-defense. I'll even go so far as to state that every year there are more state and regional lottery winners in the USA than there are legitimate self defense shootings beyond even 25M.
One of the most valid observations I've read on this forum in a long time!
On the topic, Kyle Defoor had an excellent article on his blog about his experience with irons compared to red dots.
http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/02/iron-sight-project.html
I recently put a small target-type lens in a hooded AR aperture (fixed
A1 setup) to try to compensate for aging eyes, but found that it was neither sharp enough or large enough in field of view to be practical. I was skeptical but thought it was worth a try. One of those great in theory ideas but not much in practice.
In putting the original flip aperture back I first ran a 3/16" drill bit through one hole; instant ghost ring. Looks like it will work fine with my pistol shooting glasses for shorter ranges.
Some years back I found a very large aperture sight to work out very well with a #4 Lee-Enfield out to 300 yards. Most old references to aperture sizes found no real loss in practical accuracy from even very big apertures. I tend to agree.
Drill, baby drill?:cool:
Knife_Sniper
05-31-10, 16:06
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/Lothen/Firearms/DSCF0755.jpg
Please see my xs front sight review on the main page. :)
One of the most valid observations I've read on this forum in a long time!
On the topic, Kyle Defoor had an excellent article on his blog about his experience with irons compared to red dots.
http://www.kyledefoor.com/2010/02/iron-sight-project.htmlThanks for the compliment!
RogerinTPA
05-31-10, 18:05
F-Marked FSB, and an LMT rear.
It's simple, and has been my personal favourite combination to date, with regards to irons.
Agreed, for me the F marked FSB would be a must and any sturdy (Non folding) rear site (LMT, DD, etc...).
0-800 meters: A2 sights (A2 upper, carry handle, or LMT rear)
0-400 meters: A1 sights (A1 upper, A1 carry handle, DD rear, etc.)
I have run a BUIS on an "irons only" rifle and didn't like it. I was limited in adjustment and sometimes the sight would be flipped down when I needed it.
Dustin
Not by any stretch do I have the experience or technical knowledge of ya'll, but I am learning. But I am running irons right now as I have not decided on an EOTech or Aimpoint Comp M2 for my AR I just built. I have a Magpul Rear BUIS and a F marked A2 front sight. I zeroed in at 50m last weekend and was pretty happy with the results even when I hopped on the 100m lanes. I know I'm a noob around here but the Magpul worked well for a rookie like me.
Daniel Defense M4 carbine with a surefire X300 in front of the front sight post.
Magic_Salad0892
06-01-10, 13:56
The reason I picked flip ups for a dedicated iron sights carbine are - -
A - I already know the KAC sights pretty well. I can use them, and don't have to get used to any other sight pictures, assemblies, controls, etc.
B - They're almost certainly lighter weight than most irons on the market.
C - They're also slightly lower profile, which even by a few millimetres I can appreciate.
D - In the event the mission changes and I adopt an optic, I can just fold them down and be optic ready.
It's really just personal preference.
I'm thinking in terms of an SBR though, because that's what I like. I hate using carry handles on a 12.5''. It's obnoxious.
I'd take a base M4. Familiarity and ease of use.
Failure2Stop
06-02-10, 16:40
I would go with a standard fixed FSB and a LMT rear.
While many try to escape the A2 rear sight, I have used them for long enough for them to be second nature from 3 to 500 meters.
Then again, I think I might be the only guy on the planet that can hit anything with the 0-2 aperture :p.
I have LMT front and rear sights on the rifle I have built. My first AR build.
The reason is, I trained with A2 sights in the military for years, and my first civilian AR was a Colt with A2 sights that I have been shooting for years. I don't have any problems using the small peep for everything. The LMT's are a no transition no retraining option for me. They seem pretty bombproof.
I've been meaning to put an eotech with a 1/3 cowitness on it. But, a new build has sucked up the eotech money for now, and I do well with the iron sights.
I'm not as high speed as all of you guys, pretty much a noob to all of this new stuff and ideas. I'm pretty sure my ideas will change the more exposure I have to everything. I'm looking forward to it.
Not to go to far off topic, but, I'm building a Diplomat as a second build, and I saw one of you guys Diplomat builds using HK style sights. I was planning the same thing,, only with the LMT sights. My question is, Is it a waste of effort, because the sight plane is so short? Just go with the fold down sights and an Eotech or T1?
Thanks,
Orvis
An Aimpoint or Eotech is definetly better, in my opinion, for a short sight radius. I run an Aimpoint + flip ups on my 7.5" The other side of that is you are adding more weight to a light weight carbine. To me the quick and accurate benifits of a RD are worth it.
ghostman1960
06-03-10, 12:09
Standard A2 sights. That is what I learned on.
Magic_Salad0892
06-03-10, 17:33
If I'm running a PDW I want H&K sights, and no optic.
I know that sounds backwards, but I like that system.
Or that mini-red dot sight that weighs under an ounce. That's badass.
If anybody remembers the name, please PM me. :)
Six Feet Under
06-03-10, 19:37
Daniel Defense fixed rear sight and basic F-marked front sight, possibly Tritium post? I've never used one, but I'm thinking about it.
I'm planning on leaving my first (and only, at the moment) build with just fixed irons and eventually, once I get 1-3 more rifles, use it as a trunk gun for longer trips and stuff. Keep it simple.
PrivateCitizen
06-03-10, 19:44
DD A1.5 and Standard FSB.
Plain. Effective.
(ETA: I do whish someone made a FSB-styled site with an HK type picture)
Set up #1: A2 front & rear .040" hooded aperture, .050" front blade.
#2: A2 Carry handle, .046" aperture, .050" front blade in rail mounted MI HK-style flip-up.
#3: LMT rear, .046" aperture, F-marked FSB w/.050" blade.
#1 is on a dedicated match rifle. It's not the best for low-light conditions.
#2 is my favorite as far as sight picture. The hood really speeds up my front sight acquisition.
Everybody's eyes are different. What works for one person (vis a vis aperture size/front sight width), may not work for another person at all. The .040" aperture is as small as I can go (and .046" is preferred), but some can use a .030" without a problem. The .050" front blade is nice and crisp to my astigmatic eyes, while some folks have a difficult time even seeing it.
F-Marked FSB, and troy rear.
Jeremy Wills
06-03-10, 23:47
I like my Matech buis setup with the Aimpoint. Lately I've been finding myself turning off the dot and just using the Matech with the standard front post. Of course at first I was shooting much tighter groups with the dot now I'm gettin better with the irons. I should be good to go. I don't think one set of sights over another makes a whole ton of difference. Practice, practice, practice. Just shoot whatever you have and get proficient.
I'm actually thinking of going with the A1 upper setup on the next one. With an M4 profile barrel, sort of in the spirit of the IDF clone type project. Don't get me wrong, I love my current setup but I want a KISS type rifle handy as well. Can't ever go wrong with iron sights going dead because of a dead battery ;)
I built an ASBR upper with an. Old Colt A1/SP1 slick side upper. It has a BCM 11.5" bbl. I plan to use a tritium front sight and a CSACT rear on the upper. The A1 rear sights are freaking tiny. I need a set of MOE handguards and I will be good to go. Its a spare upper for now.
Sciuirse Morrigna
04-16-11, 20:24
If the rifle will never have an optic put on it, then I'd go with an A2 upper. Always liked the A2 sights, and even if you don't need the adjustment, I've never seen it to be a problem.
If the rifle will ever have an optic in the future, I'd go with Troy flip ups. They are tough, and with the fold down sight, you can co-witness a red dot, or fold it down for a magnified optic.
Silver_2325
04-16-11, 22:06
You should always have a good set of zeroed iron sights no matter what optic you are running.
My experience is a bit limited but the LMT QD Rear Buis has been a bomb proof sight for me.
Same here, I'm running one of these and it's been great.
Eurodriver
04-17-11, 03:10
LMT rear with standard front sight.
No reason to use folding sights, not even to keep the weight down. Plastic handguards plus the barrel nut, slip ring, and FSB would be equal to or less than a rail and folding front sight in most situations.
For irons only, I prefer the A1/C7 upper and a fixed front.
Carry handle. It's multi-functional. I like being able to carry the rifle by the handle when walking around out in the desert. The handle protects the rail on top, and I just think it looks better.
My Irons Only gun:
BCM 11.5' bbl
Colt SP1 upper
BCM Medium Gunfighter CH
BCM FA BCG
Sully Stock
The neutered M16 lower is not mine :mad:
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=374&pictureid=1897
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=374&pictureid=1896
I need a set of MOE handguards with a light and sling attachment, I have a spare BFG 2 point sling and I will be good to go. I plan to add the CSACT rear and a tritium front sight.
BushmasterFanBoy
04-17-11, 11:05
Has anyone ever done a "Chopped carry handle" on a carry handled upper? I'm thinking I'd likely go with a C7A1 and a fixed front in that case.
Floating other ideas out there, if you keep the carry handle, what would be the issue with using an upper like the very early Famas-esque AR10's? I'd think that might be a good solution, and maybe an advantageous relocation of the charging handle to boot. (No dismounting to work the handle needed) Maybe even make the CH reciprocate? Perhaps a setup like that with A1 style adjustments, and a case deflector would be interesting. Or was there a reason it was scrapped in the first place?
Troy's have my vote. They work just as well as primaries as back-ups.
I read a how to here on m4c once about how to do it. Google search with the subject followed by m4carbine.net gets me the best results.
Has anyone ever done a "Chopped carry handle" on a carry handled upper? I'm thinking I'd likely go with a C7A1 and a fixed front in that case.
Floating other ideas out there, if you keep the carry handle, what would be the issue with using an upper like the very early Famas-esque AR10's? I'd think that might be a good solution, and maybe an advantageous relocation of the charging handle to boot. (No dismounting to work the handle needed) Maybe even make the CH reciprocate? Perhaps a setup like that with A1 style adjustments, and a case deflector would be interesting. Or was there a reason it was scrapped in the first place?
Has anyone ever done a "Chopped carry handle" on a carry handled upper? I'm thinking I'd likely go with a C7A1 and a fixed front in that case.
Floating other ideas out there, if you keep the carry handle, what would be the issue with using an upper like the very early Famas-esque AR10's? I'd think that might be a good solution, and maybe an advantageous relocation of the charging handle to boot. (No dismounting to work the handle needed) Maybe even make the CH reciprocate? Perhaps a setup like that with A1 style adjustments, and a case deflector would be interesting. Or was there a reason it was scrapped in the first place?
you mean an A2 upper, or chopped a detachable carry handle? i've done a dozen or so carry handle chops, in the last couplefew years- never even seen a chopped handle on an A1/A2, though... i suppose you'd shave a tiny bit of weight, but there'd otherwise be no benefit to doing it..
---
as to the OPs question... i'm with the guys who said standard A1/A2 and a fixed FSB! if it's a TRULY dedicated irons only gun, why wouldn't you?
bkb, at one time cutting an A1 upper and grafting an M1913 rail on the front of the receiver was cool.
I would use a 604 slickside upper and a 17" M16A2 barrel.
I think a BCM Dissy with Tritium front and rear's would be a great choice.
bkb, at one time cutting an A1 upper and grafting an M1913 rail on the front of the receiver was cool.
I don't know about "cool" but it was certainly the first evolution of the current flattop upper. Take an A1 or A2, cut off everything from the upper but the sight assembly, attach rail section to top of upper.
I'm sure someone better at google than me can find a pic.
Folding BUIS? Troys.
Fixed irons? Centurion HK Diopter set.
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o107/dickwholliday/Dsc03250.jpg
:blink:
whatever floats your boat, mang. i actually do remember some guys doing this, back around the time the A4 was getting issued... like 00/01 ish. personally.. i sported irons till about 07, and would use A2s as often as not, till then.
I wouldn't do it *now*, but at the time it was kind of the only choice. And also at the time there weren't BUIS available.
Now why someone would be doing it around 00 I have no idea. Actual flat-tops date back before that.
I wouldn't do it *now*, but at the time it was kind of the only choice. And also at the time there weren't BUIS available.
Now why someone would be doing it around 00 I have no idea. Actual flat-tops date back before that.
im sure they EXISTED before then, but what guns came with them installed, and how available were they? i don't remember really seeing any true from-the-forge flat tops till around '03-'04, commercially.
plus.. guys really didn't seem nearly so terrified to hack on their own shit back then. especially when you get could A2 uppers for like $30
I sold guns from 1998-2000 off and on. I recall selling flattop guns at the time, and buying them as well, and there being multiple clamp-on rear-sight options available.
I sold guns from 1998-2000 off and on. I recall selling flattop guns at the time, and buying them as well, and there being multiple clamp-on rear-sight options available.
well then i guess it was just to spite you, rob.
i'm sure the local selection was significantly better in florida than oregon, as it is now.
Irons only for me would be a fixed Troy (HK style) on a freefloat rail and a fixed LMT rear sight.
Johnny Yuma
04-17-11, 22:13
I sold guns from 1998-2000 off and on. I recall selling flattop guns at the time, and buying them as well, and there being multiple clamp-on rear-sight options available.
Colt's had the flat top with a removable "handle" in the early 90's ...
"Sporter Competition HBAR" if I remember ccorrectly ...6700's ?
The ones I sold as a dealer shipped from Colt's with a Tasco rubber armored scope and mount ...
Doc Safari
04-17-11, 22:16
I'm still in the process of developing my preference, so some of this is me thinking out loud.
First of all, I actually like the carry handle. Even though all of my AR's are flat tops, I want the carry handle mounted when I'm on a hike with my weapon. Being able to switch from shoulder carry to carrying the weapon in either hand with the carrying handle definitely cuts down on the fatigue I've noticed. The carry handle is also quick detachable in case I want to use an optic.
If I want to use an optic, I plan to mount an LMT backup rear sight because it too is quick detachable and because it should be the same height and have roughly the same zero as the carry handle sight. I plan to mount an Aimpoint in a quick detachable mount like those made by American Defense so that I can switch back to the carry handle for hiking.
Again, I'm in the process of putting this together so it could change.
Scotter260
04-17-11, 22:23
I'm just going into a "basic" phase, I've gotten rid of the MOE stock for a CAR, MIAD for a A1, MOE or railed handguards for stripped down M4 with streamlight mounts at 1 o'clock.
I'm also toying with getting rid of my ML3 for an H or T-1 but that will take some time. If that happens, I'll be using just a DD 1.5 rear with standard FSB on my SBR for a while. I do have Meprolight front post though for a reference point in the dark. On my back-up 14.5" w/ pinned BC 1.5 it's a standard FSB and detachable handle.
Lately I've had some issues using my Aimpoint, I just seem to get so darned bouncy that it detracts from my shooting and comparing groups shot with my Aimpoint or irons at 50 yards there isn't much difference. I don't believe I'm any less bouncy with irons, just that the dot seems to exacerbate my perception of it. Also, I know I have an uncorrected astigmatism so my Aimpoint dot is turning into more of a butterfly and I find this bothersome - just not enough to get glasses.
FChen17213
04-17-11, 22:40
Colt old school SP-1/CAR-15. Maybe DD 1.5 Rear and DD fixed front sight.
I'm still in the process of developing my preference, so some of this is me thinking out loud.
First of all, I actually like the carry handle. Even though all of my AR's are flat tops, I want the carry handle mounted when I'm on a hike with my weapon. Being able to switch from shoulder carry to carrying the weapon in either hand with the carrying handle definitely cuts down on the fatigue I've noticed. The carry handle is also quick detachable in case I want to use an optic.
If I want to use an optic, I plan to mount an LMT backup rear sight because it too is quick detachable and because it should be the same height and have roughly the same zero as the carry handle sight. I plan to mount an Aimpoint in a quick detachable mount like those made by American Defense so that I can switch back to the carry handle for hiking.
Again, I'm in the process of putting this together so it could change.
Are you carrying it by the handle? I always like carrying it with my thumb through the front of the carrying handle and the rest of my hand across the front of the magazine well. If we carried it by the "carrying handle" you would have your ass chewed and probably find yourself doing lots of push ups and mountain climbers.
You can carry a flat top the same way.
Doc Safari
04-17-11, 22:53
Are you carrying it by the handle? I always like carrying it with my thumb through the front of the carrying handle and the rest of my hand across the front of the magazine well. If we carried it by the "carrying handle" you would have your ass chewed and probably find yourself doing lots of push ups and mountain climbers.
You can carry a flat top the same way.
I have carried it both ways. :D
Why is it bad to carry it with just the carry handle?
Hell no it is fine. Its your gun. As long as you're safe.
...Why is it bad to carry it with just the carry handle?
You mean like a purse?
I suppose that'd be ok if it didn't clash with your pumps
Tactically it would be a little slower.
Hey it is a Man Bag!:sarcastic:
thopkins22
04-18-11, 02:18
I'm still in the process of developing my preference, so some of this is me thinking out loud.
First of all, I actually like the carry handle. Even though all of my AR's are flat tops, I want the carry handle mounted when I'm on a hike with my weapon. Being able to switch from shoulder carry to carrying the weapon in either hand with the carrying handle definitely cuts down on the fatigue I've noticed. The carry handle is also quick detachable in case I want to use an optic.
If I want to use an optic, I plan to mount an LMT backup rear sight because it too is quick detachable and because it should be the same height and have roughly the same zero as the carry handle sight. I plan to mount an Aimpoint in a quick detachable mount like those made by American Defense so that I can switch back to the carry handle for hiking.
Again, I'm in the process of putting this together so it could change.
This doesn't seem to have been addressed, but you can't just unscrew a bolt on sight(like a carry handle or LMT rear) and have it return to zero when you bolt it back on. It might be close, but it also might not be. The ADM mount you can probably get away with that, but even then it's not good practice.
bkb0000
This A1 upper is wearing the bbl you put the FSB on for me. Thanks again you did an Awesome job!
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=374&pictureid=1897
Doc Safari
04-18-11, 09:12
This doesn't seem to have been addressed, but you can't just unscrew a bolt on sight(like a carry handle or LMT rear) and have it return to zero when you bolt it back on. It might be close, but it also might not be. The ADM mount you can probably get away with that, but even then it's not good practice.
I was afraid someone was going to say this.
My original plan "A" was to run the irons with the carry handle and then ditch it when I have the funds for a good red dot sight. Guess I may go back to that plan.
Well I came into the Marines in 92 and carried an A2 until OIF 1 and those sigths just plain work. I really dont see the advantage of an A1 setup to be honest but I am far from an expert. I like that they are tough, have dual apretures and I can simply turn the dial to all the way to 500 yards and put the front sight on their chest.
I like that they are tough, have dual apretures and I can simply turn the dial to all the way to 500 yards and put the front sight on their chest.
You just made me smile with that line!
bkb0000
This A1 upper is wearing the bbl you put the FSB on for me. Thanks again you did an Awesome job!
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=374&pictureid=1897
That is a neat KISS carbine.
I like the Troys myself with the HK front sight.
Scoby
bkb0000
This A1 upper is wearing the bbl you put the FSB on for me. Thanks again you did an Awesome job!
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=374&pictureid=1897
the gun came out awesome.. i want one.
you get it out much? i just parted out my dedicated irons gun.... never shot the thing.
I just put the stock on yesterday. I am home with the kids this week for April vacation. I might get it out tomorrow! Not sure about the stock yet but love the upper. I just found a source for 15 slick side uppers for $115 and posted it in the Retro section. I bought this on TOS for $80.
Wayneard3413
04-18-11, 13:45
I have grown to like a Larue fixed rear with a LMT or DD fixed front.
Throwing in a CSAT aperture and tritium front is just icing on the cake.
Terlingueno
04-18-11, 17:15
I only use irons. On my AK's and my AR's. My Colt rifle is an A2 upper receiver and the carbine I built from Colt parts is an A2upper recveiver as well. Someday I might build a flattop to accomodate an ACOG or similar.
Heartbreaker
04-18-11, 17:45
I have been shooting irons only for a few months, using a KAC 300m rear and a Troy HK style front. I find the HK style hood to be a bit faster while a bit less accurate compared to the M4 style. As long as the front is fixed, there's a small aperture in the rear, and both sights are rugged enough to depend on 100% I'd be comfortable using it, there are many good options out there.
My irons-only gun is a Colt AR6520 with a HG mounted light and VTAC sling. Simple, cost effective.
lateralus180
04-18-11, 21:52
I prefer irons only. I run my standard LMT fixed front sight with the LMT modified carry handle [cut down] rear sight. :big_boss:
I'm far from an expert, but I like a standard FSB and the LMT rear sight. I like the fact that you can dial in elevation on the LMT. Wish the DD rear sight had that capability.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.