lets say i can't afford an optic..... [Archive]

skyugo

10-11-11, 00:33

What's the best iron sight setup?
it'll be going on a 16" middy with a midwest industries full length rail (no FSB sight)
most of my shooting will be inside of 100 yards. Would like this to be a go-to gun for home defense (of course). I'd like to do some fairly informal 2 gun competition and maybe a carbine course in the future.

I don't really think i need the full on a2 style range adjustment etc. I'd rather keep the sights durable and simple... I like shooting handguns due to the lack of dials and crap...

http://troyind.com/%20/battlesights/troy-battlesight-rear-di-optic-aperture-doa-fixed# perhaps this rear sight with a troy's HK style front (maybe with tritium in front?)

what else should i be looking at? I'd like to keep the pair of sights around the ~$150 range.

BCmJUnKie

10-11-11, 01:00

nimdabew

10-11-11, 01:04

I have Troy folding on my rifles without FSB's. I wouldn't hesitate to put a LMT front or a Troy folding on front either.

skyugo

10-11-11, 01:19

Over 2,000 posts and you dont know what sights!

Lol just kidding.

I have the HK style Troy front on the 11.5". I like them alot.

I have Troy folding rears on my ARs. Cant go wrong with those.

I dont know about the tritium fronts. I really have no desire to own them, thats me though. I prefer a light instead.

If youre gonn abe using it for HD then I wouldnt even worry about a tritium front sight.

Again thats my opinion.

cool.. i suppose the 50 bucks for a tritium post could go toward a TLR1...
Most of my posts here are in the pistol forum :o I was waiting to get called on that :D:D So yeah, just finalllly got myself back into the AR realm.. the economy was not so kind to me for awhile, but I've got myself back in college (mech engineeering) and have managed to scrape up enough coin to get an AR together. :cool:

are the non-folding sights any more durable/rigid than the folding? I would think yes. :confused:

broylz

10-11-11, 01:44

i prefer fixed sights unless you are using magnified optics.

look at PSA, they have a NC Star knockoff of the LMT fixed rear. the few non optic items ive messed with from NC Star have been fine. maybe not bomb proof but neither am i.

mkmckinley

10-11-11, 01:54

Are you going to use them as stand alone sights or in conjunction with a red dot? I agree with you that simpler is better. I can count on zero hands the times I've actually used the windage and elevation adjustments on an A2 for actual shooting and not just zeroing. For that reason I like simple, rugged irons. For a fixed rear you can get a very rugged sight inexpensively. I use the Larue fixed rear and it's extremely rugged and easy to use. DD have versions that look pretty good too. For a flip up rear I've been using KAC 0-300m lollipop sights and again, they're simple and rugged and have worked well for me. For a front I either use the standard FSB or Troy flip ups.

I personally don't like the HK style fronts, I feel the ring crowds the post and theoretically the ring can draw your eye off center. Some people say that the HK style front is faster because you can use the ring as a gross aiming point on close targets. I've tried it and have never been able to integrate it into my way of seeing the sights. I'm used to focusing on the front post both in carbine shooting with irons and pistol shooting. It's a little hard to explain so prepare for a run on sentence. For me to mentally say "ok this is a close target, I'm going to use the ring instead of the front sight" and then deliberately change my normal front sight focus is slower and less natural than just using my normal front sight post focus and accepting an imperfect sight picture in the name of speed. In other words I do the same thing with my carbine that I do with my pistol: get a sight picture that's just good enough to hit my intended target as fast as I can. I've used an Eotech extensively at work and the same principal applies. I never use the big 65 MOA ring for close shooting, one of the Eotech's touted benefits. I find it much easier to use the center dot all the time and just accept an imperfect sight picture if I'm shooting a close target quickly.

Tritium won't hurt but if you're using a weaponlight to ID your target you don't need it. Your white light will silhouette the front sight just fine.

Sorry to get so long-winded. I guess I've had too much coffee today. To sum it up, my suggestion would be:

Fixed irons/no RDS:
Larue, DD, or Troy fixed irons with ears and no tritium, standard FSB

Folding irons/ BUIS for RDS:
Troy folding or KAC 0-300m rear, standard FSB or Troy folding front. You can also find the Matech sights for cheap. They're good, rugged sights but I never use the adjustment feature.

skyugo

10-11-11, 02:01

thanks for the opinions guys...

how about those diopter rear sights as opposed to the standard A2? If it's faster I'm interested, but not if it's "big dots" faster where accuracy just goes out the damn window. :jester:

Failure2Stop

10-11-11, 02:02

If you aren't going to have an optic, go with a fixed rear.
I really like the LMT rear sights (not a knock-off, for Pete's sake), but a lot of that is just vestigal familiarity.
I also like the DD rear sight, and it's only about $65.
The CSAT replacement aperture is very appreciated by those that employ it a specific manner. Not for everyone though.

Even if you decide to get an RDS you can keep the fixed front and rear. The only reason I changed mine to folding was due to use of a magnifier in conjunction with RDSs and low-powered variables.

The strength and utility of a fixed BUIS combo is second to none.
I do recommend against a folding front sight.

rob_s

10-11-11, 05:08

Folding sights = more joints

More joint = more potential failure points

Folding sights = more parts

More parts = more potential failure points

I went through looking for a fixed rear sight for the BCM Dissipator I have. I wanted same-plane apertures with a small aperture that was actually worth using. I started a thread about aperture sizes here somewhere, but as is typical people were long on opinion and short on facts.

What I wound up with was the Troy fixed rear. It had the apertures closest to the A2 size but in a same-plane orientation which I greatly prefer. I didn't need to deal with the front sight because that's the whole point of the Dissipator, using the stock FSB. I shot it out to 200 yards at Randy Cain's Carbine 1 class a year ago and was very happy with my choice.

In general, if not using the stock FSB, I like to match front and rears. MBUS with MBUS, Troy folding with Troy folding, Daniel Defense fixed with Daniel Defense fixed. The hitch in this for what I'd suggest to you is that I'm not sure the Troy fixed front is out yet.

I would NOT suggest any front sight with circular ears that does not adjust the front sight post with the ears. Just because something *looks* like an "HK" front sight does not mean that it works like one. On the real HK system the entire front hood and post move together to form a system such that you can center the circle of the front sight in the circle of the rear sight. If the system you're using does not allow for adjustment of the hood with the post you're moving the post inside the hood and the alignment of the hood in the rear will not be the same. This is why the first-gen Troy sights are the circular ears and the later gen is the Y ears; the market asked for it after encountering problems with the original design.

My ideal iron sight setup for your stated use would be the Troy fixed rear and, if available, the Troy fixed front with Y ears. You can play with tritium if you want but many of the tritium posts require a full 360* rotation to get it back around to the tritium facing the shooter again which *really* limits your zeroing options. Barring the availability of the Troy you'll be mostly stuck with non-coplaner rear sight apertures in which case I'd opt for the Daniel Defense front and rear. I have them on two carbines as backup sights and like them fine in that application.

ASH556

10-11-11, 09:26

Having had tritium sights (front and rear) in an AR, I'm here to ask you to please not waste your money. The rear sight is an exceptionally bad idea, because unlike a pistol, the rear sight on an AR is very close to your eye and the brightness of the tritium that close to your eye will wash out your ability to look through the peep and see the dimmer front sight.

Likewise, having an illuminated tritium dot on your front sight does not make you fast like a red dot would, and you'll still need a light to identify/see your target.

As far as a recommendation on sights:

If you're never going to have optics, get fixed sights. I think the Daniel Defense sights are great and are priced well, too.

If you're only going to have a red dot and you don't mind a co-witnessed sight picture, same recommendation as above.

If, however, you think that you might like to have magnified optics, or, like me, you don't care for the co-witnessed sight picture and only want to see the dot, go ahead and buy folding sights on the front end. I don't so much buy into the "folding sights will break 'cause there's more moving parts" argument IF you buy quality on the front end (KAC, etc).

I ran a set of folding KACs in a Vickers class and had no issues whatsoever. I even shot cleaner and faster than a lot of the guys runnning RDS's.

Finally, to echo what others have said, avoid the HK style front. All you need to worry about is a consistent cheekweld. That will determine proper positioning of the front sight post inside the rear ring. Don't try to center the HK ears in the rear ring. As Rob has said, it doesn't work so well with AR sights b/c only the front post moves, not the whole sight.

rob_s

10-11-11, 09:47

I don't so much buy into the "folding sights will break 'cause there's more moving parts" argument IF you buy quality on the front end (KAC, etc).

It's not "will" as much as "can". In construction, joints are failure points. Every piece you add also adds (at least) one joint. If 0s are parts and -s are joints:

0-0-0 --> 3 parts, two joints.

add one part (bold) in the middle and you get

0-0-0-0 --> four parts, three joints. one more part, one more joint. If that part in the middle fails, the whole system fails.

There are exceptions with bonding adhesives etc. where the joint is stronger than the surrounding material but those are chemical bonds not mechanical joints.

ASH556

10-11-11, 10:06

It's not "will" as much as "can". In construction, joints are failure points. Every piece you add also adds (at least) one joint. If 0s are parts and -s are joints:

0-0-0 --> 3 parts, two joints.

add one part (bold) in the middle and you get

0-0-0-0 --> four parts, three joints. one more part, one more joint. If that part in the middle fails, the whole system fails.

There are exceptions with bonding adhesives etc. where the joint is stronger than the surrounding material but those are chemical bonds not mechanical joints.

I agree, but for me it's a reasonable tradeoff. Likewise, a bolt action will be more reliable than a gas-operated semi-auto because there are fewer moving parts and thus fewer failure points. However, the semi-auot has significant enough advantages to make the tradeoff worthwhile. Also, the mean failure rate falls within acceptable limits. In other words, just because something could potentially be a failure point at some point in the future, doesn't make it a real concern for failure based upon the amount of time it will go without experiencing such a failure as compared to the expected service life of the weapon as a whole.

Failure2Stop

10-11-11, 10:08

HK style front sights are an acquired taste.

I prefer them to traditional AR front sights, but I have significant training with weapons with hooded front sights where the irons were the only sighting system. I can shoot them faster at sub-50 meters without loss of precision (3x5" target area at 25 meters).

It comes down to training and experience, and if the entities you choose to provide your training do not like HK style front sights you won't get much out of them and find yourself fighting your gear.
Just because I prefer it doesn't mean that it's better for anyone else.

Re: Tritium front sights...
Save your money and invest in a light. They seem like a good idea, but it just hasn't panned out yet in the really real world. There might be a great option sometime in the future, but as of 10/11/2011, there isn't.

rob_s

10-11-11, 10:18

I agree, but for me it's a reasonable tradeoff. Likewise, a bolt action will be more reliable than a gas-operated semi-auto because there are fewer moving parts and thus fewer failure points. However, the semi-auot has significant enough advantages to make the tradeoff worthwhile. Also, the mean failure rate falls within acceptable limits. In other words, just because something could potentially be a failure point at some point in the future, doesn't make it a real concern for failure based upon the amount of time it will go without experiencing such a failure as compared to the expected service life of the weapon as a whole.

I don't want to get too far into this hijack, but there is no benefit to folding sights other than clearance for an optic that won't fit, or a personal problem keeping your eye focus where it should be. Both are situation/person dependent. The advantages to semi-autos over bolt-actions are numerous and apply to anyone using them (and the number of parts may not be as vastly different as some people think, especially when it comes to critical-function parts). As systems get more complex there are more parts that are not integral to the base function of the machine. If my stock on my AR cracks, for example, the gun can and will still fire. If the spring that holds my folding sight in the up position fails, the entire sight is useless. The ratio of critical function parts matters and as such the example doesn't scale.

The fact remains that virtually every part in an iron sight is a critical function part, and that almost all of them are also inter-dependent, thereby meaning that every part you add is one more part to fail, and therefore more potential to fail. With no functional benefit across all users to the folding nature of the sight, it should be avoided unless you are one of those users with focus problems or compatibility problems.

lethal dose

10-11-11, 10:32

Troy, DD, or LMT fixed rear if you don't want a carry handle. For the front, I'd have adco pin an fsb.

Magic_Salad0892

10-11-11, 12:53

LMT Rear/Chopped Carry Handle + CSAT Aperture, and LMT/DD front.

XS Front Sight Post is good too from what I know, I haven't used it though.

or

KAC Micro 600m Rear, and Micro Front.

markm

10-11-11, 12:57

BCmJUnKie

10-11-11, 13:38

If you want simple, good sights... the DD fixed sights aren't bad at all.

An A2 carry handle is optimal, but if you have a knob-o-phobia, the DDs are it.

HK sights on an AR are beyond retarded... especially if they're your primary sights.

I dont wanna be that "Purchase defender" guy, but I like the HK front sight.

Its on my SBR and I havent had a ton of time on it, but like
Failure to Stop said, its pretty fast in close.

Im not attached to it and not defending, I prefer AR sights, but its not bad so far.

Why dont you like them if you dont mind?

markm

10-11-11, 13:45

Why dont you like them if you dont mind?

Not at all. The sights aren't the end of the world... but most of the time when someone is running them... it's just because they're HKish... they have not other clue why. They're just HK, and the interweb told them HK is always better. ;)

I don't like them because I consider them a downgrade from the A2 field sight system which is second to none for a combat rifle/carbine in my opinion.

On the HKish sight systems the Front sight usually has some rounded shape to it which, for me, messes up the sight pic. The shape of the AR front sight ears are unmistakeable... you're not trying to reconcile what is rear app, and what is FSB.

As far as the rear. :confused: I don't even know what's going on with that thing. I tried it, and it sucked balls. I don't know... maybe if I threw everything I know about rifle shooting out the window and started from scratch... I might be able to learn how to make it worth a shit.

wahoo95

10-11-11, 13:47

I have the Troy HK front sight and love it. I found that I am faster and more accurate in close and at distance compared to the traditional AR sights.

Magic_Salad0892

10-11-11, 14:23

Not at all. The sights aren't the end of the world... but most of the time when someone is running them... it's just because they're HKish... they have not other clue why. They're just HK, and the interweb told them HK is always better. ;)

I don't like them because I consider them a downgrade from the A2 field sight system which is second to none for a combat rifle/carbine in my opinion.

On the HKish sight systems the Front sight usually has some rounded shape to it which, for me, messes up the sight pic. The shape of the AR front sight ears are unmistakeable... you're not trying to reconcile what is rear app, and what is FSB.

As far as the rear. :confused: I don't even know what's going on with that thing. I tried it, and it sucked balls. I don't know... maybe if I threw everything I know about rifle shooting out the window and started from scratch... I might be able to learn how to make it worth a shit.

I'm on board with about half of this. I actually really like the HK G3 drum type sights....

... for CQB. Anything past 100m. **** it. Go M4 sights. Otherwise those G3 sights aren't worth shit.

My main gripe for that type of sight is that the entire post thing doesn't move, only the actual inner sight post, which means that when I line up the sights ''circle in circle'' the sight is off, and I'm not hitting where I want.

Had to explain, but hopefully you understand.

Also, HK can toss my ****in' salad for making the rear drum sights require a ****ing tool to operate.

Failure2Stop

10-11-11, 15:40

Not a fan of the HK type rear on an AR.

HK sights on an AR are beyond retarded... especially if they're your primary sights.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm174/Fail2Stop/d7951c66.jpg

;)

maximus83

10-11-11, 15:52

Troy fixed sights are good and you could get a pair for around $100. The folding option really runs up the price. Also, if you want elevation adjustment on the rear sight, I've run the LMT fixed rear sight for years, and I recently saw these on sale somewhere for around $59 (Botach.com?), which is a steal.

BCmJUnKie

10-11-11, 16:19

Not at all. The sights aren't the end of the world... but most of the time when someone is running them... it's just because they're HKish... they have not other clue why. They're just HK, and the interweb told them HK is always better. ;)

I don't like them because I consider them a downgrade from the A2 field sight system which is second to none for a combat rifle/carbine in my opinion.

On the HKish sight systems the Front sight usually has some rounded shape to it which, for me, messes up the sight pic. The shape of the AR front sight ears are unmistakeable... you're not trying to reconcile what is rear app, and what is FSB.

As far as the rear. :confused: I don't even know what's going on with that thing. I tried it, and it sucked balls. I don't know... maybe if I threw everything I know about rifle shooting out the window and started from scratch... I might be able to learn how to make it worth a shit.

That all makes pretty good sense. I know what you mean about sight picture. I totally know what you mean about interweb misconception and buying "Names", I wanted to try it out for myself. And I only run the front.

I have shot with the Diopter sights before...not a real big fan. Im sure its "More you practice" type deals. So for me it was that lol.

I guess the main reason I wanted one is to try it out, and I run it on the 11.5", I wanted a larger aperature for closer distances. I LOVE my M4s FSB for longer ranges

Thanks for your reply. I just wanted to hear your opinion on it.

TOMTOM

10-11-11, 23:34

If it was going with irons only, i'd make sure I had a FSB. Especially if this is going to be a go-to rifle.

Pair it up with a DD fixed rear and you have a pretty goo setup, IMO.

Submariner

10-12-11, 16:30

My ideal iron sight setup for your stated use would be the Troy fixed rear and, if available, the Troy fixed front with Y ears.... Barring the availability of the Troy you'll be mostly stuck with non-coplaner rear sight apertures in which case I'd opt for the Daniel Defense front and rear. I have them on two carbines as backup sights and like them fine in that application.

At one point you used a CSAT rear sight. Do you still?

skyugo

10-12-11, 19:38

thanks for the opinions guys...

I'll probably go with either troy or DD (hey anybody wanna trade a set of either for a set of MBUS?)

one question in regard to mounting a front sight on a rail...

i have a midwest industries rail T12 one piece rail, i know, not necessarily top tier, but it feels very solid. I can discern no play between it and the barrel... It would seem to me that a free floated barrel with a solid handguard mounted sight would be an accurate arrangement...
This is not a benchrest gun, so what would be the issue?

NongShim

10-14-11, 19:51

I personally don't like the HK style fronts, I feel the ring crowds the post and theoretically the ring can draw your eye off center. Some people say that the HK style front is faster because you can use the ring as a gross aiming point on close targets. I've tried it and have never been able to integrate it into my way of seeing the sights. I'm used to focusing on the front post both in carbine shooting with irons and pistol shooting. It's a little hard to explain so prepare for a run on sentence. For me to mentally say "ok this is a close target, I'm going to use the ring instead of the front sight" and then deliberately change my normal front sight focus is slower and less natural than just using my normal front sight post focus .

This, and I'll add my own opinion...

The ring on the front end of the iron sight tree is great when you REAR sight is used to control the elevation, and the front sight post stays centered in the front right. That's why it is great on HK guns, because the front sight post stays centered, and the rear controls the elevation adjustments. It all revolves around the principle that your eye will naturally find the center of a round opening. That's why Palma sights have nice big globe front sights, with various inserts. Most of the time you see a post insert, but I've seen and used ring inserts...three rings, boom. That's why the iron sights for M24s use Palma sights, and pretty much everyone shooting iron sights in High Power (excluding service rifle, obviously) use this type of sight system.

That was my coffee fueled blurb to say that YES, a "HK style" front sight DOES aid in sight alignment. HOWEVER, if you make any adjustment to your front sight post height, you're doing it wrong. It's wrong, because your eye is naturally going to align the front and rear rings, really quickly...but your front sight post will not be centered, in the rear sight, so you're going to be creating an offset and miss your target. Second course of action is that you will slow yourself down by having to constantly realign your sight picture to actually get the front sight post in the center of the rear sight.

Additionally, and I say this as a fan of Troy iron sights and handguards, SKIP the tritium front sight. This one time at band camp, a red dot went down, and the shooter flipped up his irons. He was unhappy to see that he was lacking a front sight post. The design is shitty. It is a two piece design; the threads/flared notched portion is hollow, and the actual post itself is inserted into that and epoxied or otherwise held in place.