UTG Pro Carry Handle Sight

[Gulfton]

From what I understand about 6/3 detachable carry handle sights, one full clockwise revolution of the drum from the 6/3 position all the way around and back to the 6/3 position covers distances from 300 meters to 600 meters. Using the RIBZ sighting method, the shooter can adjust the drum so that there are six clicks below the lower 6/3 setting for closer range shooting. So from bottom-out position to the 6/3 setting there are 6 clicks and then a full revolution of the drum to get up to 600 meter range, where the sight tops out or maybe has an extra click or two left.

Well, I've got a UTG Pro carry handle sight, and it takes 16 clicks to get from the bottom-out position to the lower 6/3 position. Then I can make 2 full revolutions of the drum and have one extra click beyond that before it tops out. What's going on here?

[markm]

A UTG sight will be a million miles away from correct manufacturing specifications in every way. I wouldn't use that for dialing up at all. If you're serious about using/learning the A2 field sight, get a real Colt/FN/BCM

[Curlew]

I don’t know what UTG uses on their carry-handle sight, but I do have one of their “Super Slim” fixed rear sights. On that, the elevation screw is 20 tpi = 0.050” per turn.

By contrast, the standard M16A4 / M4 detachable carry handle has 13.5 tpi = 0.074” per turn. An actual M16A2 sight (for the integral carry handle) uses 6.5 tpi = .154” per turn and an “8/3” elevation index drum.

I replaced some springs on the UTG in order to get it to track better and eventually got something kinda useable. But it’s definitely different from the standard DCH.

If you’re so inclined, you could do the math for whatever sight radius you have, and also look at trajectory tables for your choice of ammo. That would give you a sense of how well the sight’s range markings might match reality.

[bamashooter]

Can't answer OP question but can verify the UTG sights are built like a tank and as accurate and tactile as any others (colt) I've had loads of experience with.

[ViniVidivici]

I'm sure it's heresy to some here, bit some of the UTG Pro stuff made in the last few years is actually quite solid.

That said, if the "clicks" for this sight don't jive with what "should be", just get out and learn your dope with different sight heights at different ranges. Only way to be sure.

I'd do that anyway, no matter what brand of sights/optic I'm running. Never assume.

[Slater]

I think UTG is still trying to shake their Airsoft image and become a reputable parts maker.

[Stickman]

I think UTG is still trying to shake their Airsoft image and become a reputable parts maker.

Thats going to be a hard chore.

[Gulfton]

Can't answer OP question but can verify the UTG sights are built like a tank and as accurate and tactile as any others (colt) I've had loads of experience with.

The one I have appears to be a very solidly put together piece with hardly any play in the parts, the only problem being, apparently, that someone on the manufacturing end must have ordered a batch of the wrong kind of threaded stock. As others have pointed out, this can be worked around. I was just curious as to what the hell was going on, as in maybe there was something I was missing here.

[498cm3]

I have two of them, both choppers, one old and also I have the slim Pro version.
I am pretty much exclusive to A2/A3 irons across rifle & carbine platforms.
I have used them both for years, aperture flipped twice a day on them all.
For comparison I also use A2 fixed handle and a number of A3 removable handles as well. Max range 425m. All are Santos now, but I have run the 25/300m strategy a good bit, but now I prefer all to be Santos (improved 6/3 minus 6 or 8/3 minus 3). I have a lot of hand written notes, I move all of these removable sights across weapons fairly often, with repeatable and satisfying results.
First the only problem with old UTG chopper was the allen screw, it was a few thousandths too long on the bottom end, and when the wheel came round to that particular hole, the click was squishy and non-positive. I removed and stoned it, was an easy correction. Height on this matches well, stays tight, and for my purposes is comparable to my others.
The slim Pro chopper, that is actually a very nice sight, as long as you don't need a thumbscrew for quick removal.
As a shooter of irons, one aspect is particularly appealing when mounted on carbine radius...this piece sits aft an appreciable amount, and for an aging irons shooter, this is a boon. Both in bringing the aperture in closer and a little more clearance for the face under recoil.
I believe it is a smidge low, but not once has it been a problem, mounted I believe on one A4, two M4, and uno pistola. Confirmed at 50y, 100m, 200y, & 300m. The recoil lug is dope.
One other thing about the slim Pro, it doesn't take up a lot of real estate. I don't know if others like it, but my setup for the one ancient RDS in my stash, is slammed rearwards.
I don't need either of these sights, plenty of handles here I can chop or use as is...I actually like them.
Only brand loyalty I have is BCM.
I run dirty mutts. Spikes, LMT, Defense Procurement, CMMG, Hesse, J&T, S&W, Del-Ton, Aero, Fulton, to name a few.
That is just a couple observations, and I do apologize for pontificating while not addressing the OP. I might suggest, should you continue to use the carry handle, to take an allen wrench and re-do an improved Santos setup. Because the way it's set now just doesn't sound promising. You may be able to salvage it yet.
P.S. If you are just learning A2/3 sights, I do recommend getting a good handle to learn on.

[DoubleW]

I saw UTG and quit reading. Get an actual rear sight and start over. LMT, Colt, Knights, Scalarworks etc. Even the Aero Carry Handle Rear Sight is a great option. Zero reason to even entertain the idea of such a garbage rear sight.