Yup, the Troy does too.
I took a few minutes to check out the PRI and three Troys (2 regular, 1 di-optic). The PRI ball and detent system appeared to be more substantial and worked better than the Troy, but neither get my full confidence.
The GG&G MAD (I have the one with two versions of each aperture) has always worked for me. It has the added advantage (in my book) that the windage knob is at the base rather than hanging in the air. But, at least one gun writer intimated that he had great confidence in the MAD until it failed him. To his shame, he did not elaborate.
Here's what I think about the MAD problem. There is a small amount of play in the wheel (side to side) where the apertures are. This does not bother me, although the play has gotten a tiny bit worse over the years. My real concern is that some day some tiny bit of grit is going to get into the housing that contains the wheel, and the wheel will stop turning. Using the rule that Murphy made, it will jam between apertures, and there is no way to easily get at the workings to clear the grit.
OK. To sum up, here's my list of gripes concerning BUIS I currently own:
GG&G (standard): Tiny and thin button to release the sight. It does not seem substantial enough to withstand hard use. Same plane is pricey.
GG&G MAD: See above.
Troy: Weak ball and detent system holding the aperture in place.
PRI: Same as with the Troy, but slightly better.
Brownells (simple flip up): Good basic sight, but the aperture is too small and there is no system to lock the raised sight in place. The detent is pretty strong though. The windage adjustment is at the base (good) and the attachment nut is huge (good/bad, depending).
Magpul (Gen 1): No real complaints. I like the combo detent and spring system to defend the sight from drops. I don't like the top of the large aperture insert (it's flat). And the sight is plastic (not a fan). Works pretty well though, and it's the only sight I know of (except the MAD) with multiple apertures where you can flip up the sight to either the large or small aperture without further adjustment.
ETA:
Literally, in the light of day, I took another comparative look at the PRI and Troy sights' detent systems. Both appear (from the Mark 1 eyeball) to be similar in size. The Mark 1 finger test indicates that the Troy spring behind the ball might be a touch stronger than the PRI spring. What makes the PRI appear to be more solid comes from the deeper channel that provides the detent for the ball (i.e., the ball fits better into the PRI detent than the Troy). It also appears, without taking measurements, that the detent channel on my di-optic is shallower than the standard Troy.
Getting a really solid lockup might involve a deeper channel, stronger spring, or a more massive system altogether. Of course, all these come with costs. Carving a deeper channel in the aperture assembly would probably not bode well for the longevity of the sight -- you would lose the hard anodizing that protects the channel from wear. Unless you are willing to go through the trouble of pulling the sight apart and finding a stronger spring (which would, of course, create greater wear on the channel through flipping the aperture), I suggest lubing the channel occasionally to cut down on wear to the anodizing. This would help to preserve the status quo.



)?
Reply With Quote

Bookmarks