Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: BUIS Comparison: Troy FBS & MI ERS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    8,194
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    BUIS Comparison: Troy FBS & MI ERS

    As part of another project, I had occasion to do some deliberate contemplation and comparison of the Troy Folding Battle Sight (FBS) to the Midwest Industries Emergency Rear Sight (ERS). The two are being weighed for adoption as a standard issue BUIS unit by some folks using Aimpoint and Eotech RDS units. These sights were chosen due to their design features, commonality with existing systems, and pricing. The former representing a folder at a premium price of $130-150, the latter representing a quality folder at a more moderate price ($80-100). The goal, to contemplate the relative differences between the two, and what might be characteristic of others priced within those ranges.

    These excerpts are part of a larger work. Posted here for those engaged in similar pursuits.

    FBS, mounted at T1, Colt LE6920. This sight mounts to the receiver and is retained by a rail engagement bar clamped via a cross-bolt screw. The screw head is recessed. The rail is engaged along the full length of the sight base on the right side, and ~1/3 of the length on the left. The cross bolt is adjusted with a common household flathead screwdriver or field expedient of same from the right side. The windage adjustment knob is recessed. No elevation adjustment. Dual sight aperture, with small and large on the same plane. Low profile. The sight is raised to position without activation of a control, and is retained in place by positive locking mechanism. Released by a push button mounted on the left side.









    ERS, mounted at T1, Colt LE6920. This sight mounts to the receiver and is retained by a rail engagement bar clamped via a cross-bolt screw. The rail is engaged along the full length of the sight base on the left and right side. The cross bolt is adjusted with a hex head wrench from the left side, and the screw head protrudes from it. There is no elevation adjustment. Windage adjustment is made through a conventional A2-type windage adjustment knob protruding from right side. Dual sight apertures, with same plane option available. Relatively low profile. Raised to position without activation of a control, and is retained in place by positive locking mechanism. Released by a push button on the left side.









    The upright ERS is a standard A2-type configuration and a seamless functional and near-seamless form transition from conventional -A2 sights. The upright FBS differs from the A2-type in form, and operation of the windage control, but not essential function. The FBS is much akin to the A1-type. The apertures of both sights are manipulated in like fashion. Both sights deploy to the upright position, and are retracted therefrom, in like fashion.

    Training of the end user for both systems will differ little from training on the existing fixed A2-type sight, primarily for deployment and retraction of the sight. The incorporation of same-plane apertures may be of note to those teaching aperture transitions.

    Same-frame views, FBS top, ERS bottom.









    Rear view, ERS (L), FBS (R). Differences in machining and tolerance are more apparent here.







    Bottom view, FBS (L), ERS (R)



    Screws, ERS (L), FBS (R). The MI screw is smaller in diameter than the Troy, longer OAL, and of longer threaded length, consistent with footprint.



    Screw/Rail Gap interface, ERS (L-T2), FBS (R-T1). When placed within rail gaps, the smaller diameter of the MI screw is more apparent, and a visible gap between the screw and rail side wall is visible, as well as the rail address. The Troy screw is in nearly full contact with the rails on either side.



    Movement of the ERS, mounted. Due to the screw diameters, the Troy mount demonstrates virtually no movement when placed loose on the rail and requires less torque to remain in position than the MI. The MI mount demonstrates the following visible movement when installed with slight tension on the screw, and requires a greater amount of torque to remain in position. Specific torque values were not quantified.





    The effect of this movement on POI will be imperceptible to minimal at shorter ranges, increasing with distance.

    Some cross bolt mounting systems such as these may produce yielding of the screw, especially with repeated removal and reinstallation. The small diameter, threaded length, and greater torque for mounting of the ERS would seemingly render it comparatively more susceptible to same, subject to further testing. User should monitor torque values, perceived, torqued, or observed via witness mark, for differential applications with each reinstallation.

    As always, making witness marks on parts with motion is indicated, as is applying thread-locker to pertinent fasteners.

    When deploying the ERS, ensure the correct sized tool is included with support gear.

    The ERS unit is now deployed alongside the existing FBS units for field evaluation. Further reports to follow.

    The ERS is available for ~$95 retail, and the FBS for ~$140. Both appear to be priced appropriately, and represent a good value for the end-user at those price points.
    2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Very nice comparison and analysis.

    One other observation: the Troy, regardless of which aperture is used, presents a flat surface to the shooter, and the concave side of the aperture is always fwd. The MI presents a flat surface with the large aperture, but when the small aperture is deployed, it presents the concave side to the shooter. Conventional wisdom is the shooter side should be flat and the fwd side should be concave. Not sure if that's a big deal for a BUIS on a carbine, evaluate accordingly.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    161
    Feedback Score
    0
    I carry both products in my shop and have had chance to use and evaluate both on calibers that put considerably more stress on the sights than they were initially designed for. While I would be happy to recommend either, I think it is fair to say that the Troy can absorb considerably more abuse and stay tight than the MI. This may not be a consideration for a back up. That stated the MI will live on my 50 Beowulf carbines and to date I have no failures to account, from a large number of customers.

    Bill Alexander

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Paducah, KY
    Posts
    138
    Feedback Score
    9 (100%)

    Excellent Review!

    Thank you very much for taking the time to type up this reveiw and supply the photos. With my current AR build only lacking BUIS and the Larue 9" rail (aside from the SBR/BATFE wait), I've been debating Troy vs <insert other brand here> for the past two weeks. You've definitely helped make up my mind.

    I'll be putting an order in for Troy FBS BUIS this Monday.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    S. Florida
    Posts
    316
    Feedback Score
    0
    another difference not mentioned is the Troy apertures are on the same plane. The MI ERS uses the A-2 aperture which gives you two different points of impact. I prefer the same plane aperture for a BUIS.
    Billy

    US Army Retired, NRA Life member, M/C mechanic, Gunsmith

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    128
    Feedback Score
    0
    Look at the MI SPLP (Low Profile) BUIS, I use it under my ACOG, It's a very nice BUIS. The troys are good but not any better then the MI SPLP.. The other MI BUIS will still fit under most optics but I would say go with the MI low profile out of the 3..

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Skintop, I love these comparisons and other photo essays you do. I need to save these links somewhere to send to people that want to get into "just as good" arguments.

    The MI is clearly NOT at the same level as the Troy.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    216
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thank you for taking the time to do the comparisons and for the write up. I love my Troy sites!

    Stan
    "In God we trust, everyone else keep your hands where we can see them."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Waukesha WI
    Posts
    740
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Thumbs up

    Skintop 911
    These comparisons are interesting but in this case i think you are missing some major points. For anyone to say or insinuate the ERS is mechanically inferior to any other sight on the market would be incorrect in my opinion .We have thousands in military service and ZERO I repeat ZERO have come back from any kind of problem or failure. These sights can take a hell of a beating and keep going as confirmed by Bill Alexander with the .50 beowulf. The other points you are missing are cost and training curve. We built the ERS to be cost effective and rugged with little or no extra training for the troop in the feild. This is why it has standard A2 controls and aperature. It was not designed to be the lowest on the market . I think you did a very good job on your review but i needed clear up these points. There is lot of good gear on the market and there is alot of personal opinions. We have of thousands of happy customers that will say the same.
    thank you
    TROY
    MIDWEST IND

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    8,194
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Alexander View Post
    I carry both products in my shop and have had chance to use and evaluate both on calibers that put considerably more stress on the sights than they were initially designed for. While I would be happy to recommend either, I think it is fair to say that the Troy can absorb considerably more abuse and stay tight than the MI. This may not be a consideration for a back up. That stated the MI will live on my 50 Beowulf carbines and to date I have no failures to account, from a large number of customers. Bill Alexander
    Thanks, Bill. Several folks report similar success with the MI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Battl3fr0nt View Post
    Look at the MI SPLP (Low Profile) BUIS, I use it under my ACOG, It's a very nice BUIS. The troys are good but not any better then the MI SPLP.. The other MI BUIS will still fit under most optics but I would say go with the MI low profile out of the 3..
    Thanks for your comment. I have no issue with your choice in sights, but I'm curious as to why you choose the SPLP over the FBS. You post that it's "not any better", and for your purposes, it might not be, but perhaps there's something else useful for the discussion? The SPLP is indeed a serviceable sight. What gives it the nod for you?
    2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •