Did anyone ever come up with a 45 degree offset sight system that works well

[Artos]

What are your thoughts on the MI sights?? The kac's are currently unavailable & the MI's seemed to have mixed reviews.

[maximus83]

What are your thoughts on the MI sights?? The kac's are currently unavailable & the MI's seemed to have mixed reviews.

Can't recommend yet because I haven't tried them. Hopefully will zero and test next range trip.

Yes I've seen the reviews good and mixed, but glad I tried a pair anyway, like what I've seen so far. Only things that would scare me off are either the design was bad (it's not, actually they seem really well thought out) or if they turn out to be not durable/reliable enough for a fighting rifle. Until now I've used all inline sights and some trial and error with brands. All I use now are folding Troys (2 uppers), and one set of folding MBUS Pro, and one LMT fixed rear with a front FSB. Similar to your comment about the MI offsets, I've seen mixed reviews on the MBUS Pro as well, but I ended up liking those and really glad I got them. It's another subject, but interesting in that the MBUS Pro are set up well (like some KAC sights) for longer range shooting with irons, a skill set that I want to improve, and those sights have a really well thought out feature set for that. The takeaway being, one guy's review of these sights tends to be these are excellent and will also let you use for longer range shooting, while another guys review might be these are too bulky and heavy, they're complex, they have features I don't need, I just want basic BUIS in case my optic fails.

With the MI, I like the sight picture, the rear aperture is about right for my 55y.o. eyes to be able to focus quickly on the front post. The folding mechanism is sturdy without being TOO hard to fold/deploy. I would say not QUITE as bomb-proof as my Troys, but the Troys are honestly the gold standard, and the MI still feel super solid, both in the strength of the pic rail clamp, and the folding mechanism. When they fold down, they are super low-pro and do not snag on stuff, something I was concerned about since I will hunt with this rifle. Another factor--which RH shooters are probably less concerned about, since they have other offset RH sight options--is that these sights are COMPLETELY ambi, you can flip them around and use them either side, no goofiness like having to run them backwards on the one side. Believe it or not, it was tricky to find offset sites that met all these criteria: FULLY ambi, made in America or by one of our non-Chinese allies, folding down to a low profile, and not taking up too much rail space and not doing things like interfering with my scope. I think I had narrowed it down to 3 options: the folding offset Troy's, these, and Dueck Defense had some dedicated LH ones (but they aren't ambi, are bulky, and seemed out of stock everywhere, esp the LH ones). These MI came closest to everything I was looking for and were available. In the end if these don't work, I'll fall back to try the Troy offsets.

[Artos]

I'll look at the troy's...the reviews that got me were the weak mounting / screw?? You ok with that??

[maximus83]

I'll look at the troy's...the reviews that got me were the weak mounting / screw?? You ok with that??

Seen that critique, but didn't agree with it. I think they're pretty solid--not Troys, but solid. If you want bomb-proof reliability that's proven, definitely I'd stick with the Troy offsets.

[JediGuy]

Doesn’t the M110A1 use offset Troys?

[maximus83]

Seen that critique, but didn't agree with it. I think they're pretty solid--not Troys, but solid. If you want bomb-proof reliability that's proven, definitely I'd stick with the Troy offsets.

@Artos, I did a little more comparison of my new MI's to my existing (inline) Troy BUIS tonight. From pics on the Troy site, I'm pretty sure the design of the offset folding sights is similar to the inline folding sights, except for the offset mount. So even though I haven't gotten them to the range yet, a couple more observations:

1. I'm gonna revise my own comment here after comparing them side-by-side to my inline Troys. I actually don't think these are any less robust than the Troys, if anything they might be a little more beefy. They have super solid detents for folding and don't need a locking mechanism. I prefer that actually, as I will normally want to deploy or fold mine fairly quickly and won't want to mess with an added locking mechanism. The bit about the mount screws shearing is true, but I only saw a handful of reports on that. MI actually says they had a bad batch of screws go out, they'll replace if anyone got those, and the issue has been fixed. The ones I have seem rock solid. I torqued mine down to just a hair below the recommended 35 inch-pds, to play it safe.

2. I like the approach to using a single intermediate aperture size on the rear, rather than dual aperture like my Troys use. On a sight whose main role is BUIS or very rare CQ shooting/hunting, I value simplicity over a dual-aperture setup. The intermediate size is perfect for me, it's quick for CQ acquisition, lets in enough light and gives good FOV, and flexible enough to use from CQ to several hundred meters if needed. Will let you know how these hold up in actual shooting, but looking through them and my inline Troys at home, I definitely prefer this aperture.

3. I like how little rail space they take up and as mentioned above, the rear doesn't interfere with my NF scope when deployed (power lever) or my charging handle when folded.

Will update on how these shoot and if I run into the dreaded broken mount screw issue. But from a side-by-side with my Troys, I definitely like the design of these a little better.

[AndyLate]

~SNIP~

2. I like the approach to using a single intermediate aperture size on the rear, rather than dual aperture like my Troys use. On a sight whose main role is BUIS or very rare CQ shooting/hunting, I value simplicity over a dual-aperture setup. The intermediate size is perfect for me, it's quick for CQ acquisition, lets in enough light and gives good FOV, and flexible enough to use from CQ to several hundred meters if needed. Will let you know how these hold up in actual shooting, but looking through them and my inline Troys at home, I definitely prefer this aperture.

~SNIP~

This, a thousand times this. My biggest beef with the MBUS is that it "defaults" to a tiny aperature. I don't buy plastic sights for their accuracy potential and I don't want my backup sight to be useless at speed or at night when I first deploy them. At least Troy defaults to a ghost ring.

I drilled the Matech on my LMT "M4 build" and appreciate that MI ships with a similar, useful, aperature.

Andy

[Nutro]

I've always cringed at offset sights but I'm not in battle or 3-gun so I've never really NEEDED them. I'm more interested in them now.

[robbins290]

Today's options are much, much better than with an M21, having to strip off the optic to use irons to get back into a fight. They can be zeroed for both elevation and windage and some are-back-ups to an optical back-up.

You have three-gun game players, and you have guys who have been in combat whose optics have failed. Mine have failed in combat twice, two separate weapons separated by 18 years (an ART 1 telescope and an Eotech).



For left-handed:



For non-snag / flip-up on-call:

What brand are those off set ones? bottom pic, flip up ones?

[maximus83]

the reviews that got me were the weak mounting / screw?? You ok with that??

As mentioned mine are rock solid, here's the reply from MI after I emailed them about the earlier issue:

"The issue we had was that our screw supplier did not heat treat them correctly, and we sold about 5,000 units until we realized that the screws were bad, we have new screws now that we will send to anyone who asks for them, but your sights are not in the batch that were effected."