Is PRI that much better then YHM?

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Is PRI that much better then YHM?

Posted: 1/4/2005 10:53:22 AM EDT

I'm insterested in the flip up front sites/gas blocks.

So far I've only found YHM which is $75 and PRI's & GG&G for around $180.....They both function the same but is the PRI really worth the extra $100?

Posted: 1/4/2005 11:06:38 AM EDT

[#1]

I really like my PRI sight. It has that ringed hood around the front sight post. I really like the ring in ring sight picture that I get with it. I just center the ring on what I want to hit, and if I need a more precise shot, I pay more attention to the front sight post. Same thought goes with my EOtech (ring with a tiny precise dot). See below for pic:

original post

Posted: 1/4/2005 11:31:14 AM EDT

[#2]

yes

Posted: 1/4/2005 11:32:34 AM EDT

[#3]

Care to explain why?

Posted: 1/4/2005 11:43:48 AM EDT

[#4]

A Yugo will get you from point A to point B just as well as a BMW. They both work, one is built much better.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:05:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
A Yugo will get you from point A to point B just as well as a BMW. They both work, one is built much better.

nice, very nice.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:10:49 PM EDT

[#6]

The function of a flip of site is very basic. The PRI offers no more bells and whistles like a bmw over a yugo.

Again....WHY?

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:11:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The function of a flip of site is very basic. The PRI offers no more bells and whistles like a bmw over a yugo.

Again....WHY?

If you have to keep asking, buy the cheap thing.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:13:31 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
A Yugo will get you from point A to point B just as well as a BMW. They both work, one is built much better.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:22:23 PM EDT

[#9]

quote]

If you have to keep asking, buy the cheap thing.

If I bought everything just because some guy on the internet told me too I'd own alot of junk right now.

I just want to hear some real reasons why one is better then the other, both use standard sight posts. Just because it's PRI doesn't mean it's better.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:26:58 PM EDT

[#10]

The PRI is essentially one piece - the YHM is two.

The PRI has nearly 100% of its barrel contact surface area acting as clamping force, making it much more stable - the YHM has significantly less clamping surface area.

The PRI is much more streamlined than the YHM.

The PRI locking mechanism is much more robust than the PRI.

On the positive side the YHM has the coveted bayonet lug, whereas the PRI does not, not yet anyway.

That's why I chose them over YHM, anyway.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:35:42 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The PRI has nearly 100% of its barrel contact surface area acting as clamping force, making it much more stable - the YHM has significantly less clamping surface area.

There is a new YHM version:

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:35:46 PM EDT

[#12]

I find the lug pointless and just something to hit, knocking off the front site base.

So I guess the next question: is a solid gas block with a flip up site stronger then? It most likely would be cheaper.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:37:07 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The PRI has nearly 100% of its barrel contact surface area acting as clamping force, making it much more stable - the YHM has significantly less clamping surface area.

There is a new YHM version:

How is that any different then the old version with the addtion of the lug and sling loop?

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:40:12 PM EDT

[#14]

The old one was not split in two and was held onto the barrel by two setscrews on the bottom. A much worse setup for stability. Realize that when the newer one is clamped onto the barrel, there will be a gap between the two pieces, which will reduce your clamping surface area.

OLD:

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:50:12 PM EDT

[#15]

That seems like a terible way to hold onto a barrel; set screws? Can some one post pics of the PRI design?

I've seen one that was sleeve....made by a smaller/custom company.

Posted: 1/4/2005 12:58:25 PM EDT

[#16]

Here's an end view showing two different designs. Both are crossbolt designs, but one has the cross bolts pass through the profile of the barrel and the other has the cross bolts pass completely under the barrel. There is a third, setscrew desing, but it is no longer produced.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:00:45 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
That seems like a terible way to hold onto a barrel; set screws? Can some one post pics of the PRI design?

I've seen one that was sleeve....made by a smaller/custom company.

Look at my response above (the one way at the top). Also check out my original post which is of my AR coloring, but just look at the pretty pictures.

I really like my PRI sight (got it on e-bay for only $60 way back when). The screws clamp the base on the barrel and if you get the proper size for your barrel, it is not a problem. If I were to buy another AR, I intend to keep the original front sight tower in place.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:02:59 PM EDT

[#18]

Hey come on, cut the guy a break you gear-queers.

The only reason the Gubmint picked PRI for the SPR over the Yankee Hill was because they only buy rediculously overpriced stuff.

The PRI is just another $5000 hammer.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:04:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Which one is better?

Also wouldn't going this route be stronger and actually cheaper:

MSRP is $130 and $40 for the block.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:06:00 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
The PRI is just another $5000 hammer.

I used to use those hammers and they were worth every penny!!

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:09:15 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Which one is better?

We are all giving you our opinions. It's up to you to decide which is better.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:13:22 PM EDT

[#22]

So just like everythinf for this stupid rifle I'm going to have to buy 3 different things to find the right one....

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:14:43 PM EDT

[#23]

Hey Mongo, that PRI on the right looks very familiar

Any ideas as to what it's gonna go on yet?

-cap'n

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:18:32 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Sign into Yahoo, you jackass.

Posted: 1/4/2005 1:20:44 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Hey Mongo, that PRI on the right looks very familiar

Any ideas as to what it's gonna go on yet?

-cap'n

Yes, it does. A little cleaning up, some touch up paint and it'll end up on this:

Posted: 1/4/2005 2:56:07 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Realize that when the newer one is clamped onto the barrel, there will be a gap between the two pieces, which will reduce your clamping surface area.

Oh, c'mon now; you're sounding like a physicist now

; The difference in clamping area due to that tiny gap is a 2% effect at most, more likely less than 1%.

Posted: 1/4/2005 3:00:44 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Realize that when the newer one is clamped onto the barrel, there will be a gap between the two pieces, which will reduce your clamping surface area.

Oh, c'mon now; you're sounding like a physicist now ; The difference in clamping area due to that tiny gap is a 2% effect at most, more likely less than 1%.

It's a little more than that. Wish I could find the mounted pic of one I saw. The gap between the two halves is pretty healthy - I estimate 1/8"-1/4". Calculate that gap to total barrel circumference and I'm betting you're in the 10% range or so. But you're right, I'm being a little picky. I will admit that those two knobs that jut out of it, where the bolts go, make it quite butt fugly.

Added pic - best I could do, but the closeup I saw of the flip sight had gaps at least this large, if not larger.

Circumference = 2 X (Pi) X radius. Radius = 1/2 diameter = 1/2 of 0.750 = 0.375. Pi = 3.14.

C = 2 X 3.14 X 0.375 = 2.355

A gap of 1/8" = 0.125 X 2 = .250

.250 / 2.355 = ~10%

Posted: 1/4/2005 3:59:28 PM EDT

[#28]

Well then why not get an Armalite railed gas block? It's fully covered....

Posted: 1/4/2005 4:03:38 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Circumference = 2 X (Pi) X radius. Radius = 1/2 diameter = 1/2 of 0.750 = 0.375. Pi = 3.14.

C = 2 X 3.14 X 0.375 = 2.355

A gap of 1/8" = 0.125 X 2 = .250

.250 / 2.355 = ~10%

Ok, who's gonna say it first ?

Posted: 1/4/2005 4:08:38 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Circumference = 2 X (Pi) X radius. Radius = 1/2 diameter = 1/2 of 0.750 = 0.375. Pi = 3.14.

C = 2 X 3.14 X 0.375 = 2.355

A gap of 1/8" = 0.125 X 2 = .250

.250 / 2.355 = ~10%

Ok, who's gonna say it first ?

I can't believe I said/typed that!!!!

Posted: 1/4/2005 7:03:02 PM EDT

[#31]

PRI all the way. Even my 3yr old can figure that one out.

Posted: 1/4/2005 9:08:43 PM EDT

[#32]

Well, my vote goes to the YHM, and I've owned and evaluated both types.

For one thing, I hate the ring guard around the front sight post. If you adjust the post for elevation, tht tip will prolly not be centered in the circle. Which can be distracing and confusing. No such problem with the YHM, which has open wings like the standard front sight tower.

The set screw attachment works just fine. Most match gas blocks use the set screw.

I needed three, and the YHM was more affordable.

My intended use for this unit: BUIS. Which means aside from zeroing anf practice I never intend to use it unless the scope goes tits up. In such a situation, one would pesumably never notice the "superior" design of the PRI.

Posted: 1/4/2005 9:29:25 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Realize that when the newer one is clamped onto the barrel, there will be a gap between the two pieces, which will reduce your clamping surface area.

Oh, c'mon now; you're sounding like a physicist now ; The difference in clamping area due to that tiny gap is a 2% effect at most, more likely less than 1%.

It's a little more than that. Wish I could find the mounted pic of one I saw. The gap between the two halves is pretty healthy - I estimate 1/8"-1/4". Calculate that gap to total barrel circumference and I'm betting you're in the 10% range or so. But you're right, I'm being a little picky. I will admit that those two knobs that jut out of it, where the bolts go, make it quite butt fugly.

Added pic - best I could do, but the closeup I saw of the flip sight had gaps at least this large, if not larger.

Circumference = 2 X (Pi) X radius. Radius = 1/2 diameter = 1/2 of 0.750 = 0.375. Pi = 3.14.

C = 2 X 3.14 X 0.375 = 2.355

A gap of 1/8" = 0.125 X 2 = .250

.250 / 2.355 = ~10%

I figure the gap in the picture above looks like about 1/21 of the diameter (near as I can get with a ruler on the monitor, 1/3 mm gap vs 7 mm diameter). That's 1/(21*3.14) = 1.5% of the circumference per gap, or 3% total gap. That's the total gap for the YHM. I would imagine the PRI gap is close to one side of the YHM, meaning the difference in bearing surface is 1-2%.

1/8" would be huge on the pic above (1/6 of the diameter).

Posted: 1/5/2005 2:11:02 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Realize that when the newer one is clamped onto the barrel, there will be a gap between the two pieces, which will reduce your clamping surface area.

Oh, c'mon now; you're sounding like a physicist now ; The difference in clamping area due to that tiny gap is a 2% effect at most, more likely less than 1%.

It's a little more than that. Wish I could find the mounted pic of one I saw. The gap between the two halves is pretty healthy - I estimate 1/8"-1/4". Calculate that gap to total barrel circumference and I'm betting you're in the 10% range or so. But you're right, I'm being a little picky. I will admit that those two knobs that jut out of it, where the bolts go, make it quite butt fugly.

Added pic - best I could do, but the closeup I saw of the flip sight had gaps at least this large, if not larger.

yankeehill.bizland.com/store/media/YHM-9390.jpg

Circumference = 2 X (Pi) X radius. Radius = 1/2 diameter = 1/2 of 0.750 = 0.375. Pi = 3.14.

C = 2 X 3.14 X 0.375 = 2.355

A gap of 1/8" = 0.125 X 2 = .250

.250 / 2.355 = ~10%

I figure the gap in the picture above looks like about 1/21 of the diameter (near as I can get with a ruler on the monitor, 1/3 mm gap vs 7 mm diameter). That's 1/(21*3.14) = 1.5% of the circumference per gap, or 3% total gap. That's the total gap for the YHM. I would imagine the PRI gap is close to one side of the YHM, meaning the difference in bearing surface is 1-2%.

1/8" would be huge on the pic above (1/6 of the diameter).

You're kidding me, right. You got 1/3mm from that pic, which isn't even to scale?

I measure it at nearly 1mm on my monitor, just by measuring that out of scale pic - which is nearly half as small. We need the pic of the installed unit. The installed gap is MUCH larger than that.

The gap on the PRI, when tightened is essentially nonexistant, closer to your 1/3mm than the YHM above. I'll try to post a pic later.

Borrowed from RustedAce:

Posted: 1/5/2005 5:11:22 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yankeehill.bizland.com/store/media/YHM-9390.jpg

I figure the gap in the picture above looks like about 1/21 of the diameter (near as I can get with a ruler on the monitor, 1/3 mm gap vs 7 mm diameter). That's 1/(21*3.14) = 1.5% of the circumference per gap, or 3% total gap. That's the total gap for the YHM. I would imagine the PRI gap is close to one side of the YHM, meaning the difference in bearing surface is 1-2%.

1/8" would be huge on the pic above (1/6 of the diameter).

You're kidding me, right. You got 1/3mm from that pic, which isn't even to scale? I measure it at nearly 1mm on my monitor, just by measuring that out of scale pic - which is nearly half as small. We need the pic of the installed unit. The installed gap is MUCH larger than that.

The gap on the PRI, when tightened is essentially nonexistant, closer to your 1/3mm than the YHM above. I'll try to post a pic later.

As I said, I measured about 1/3 mm on my screen with a ruler. The scale isn't important, only the ratio of the gap to the bbl diameter (7mm on my screen, .750" in real life). If you rotate the pic by 343 degrees and zoom in, you can count pixels. Diameter: 29 pixels, Gap: 2 pixels. Ok, so the gap to diameter ratio is 1/14.5 . That means the gap/circumference ratio is 1/14.5/3.14 = 2%. If the PRI gap is nonexistant, that means 4% total gap.

Edited to add: Those pixel numbers translate to a .750"/14.5 = 0.05" gap on each side for the YHM, about 3/64" or 1.3mm .

Posted: 1/5/2005 5:55:43 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
yankeehill.bizland.com/store/media/YHM-9390.jpg

I figure the gap in the picture above looks like about 1/21 of the diameter (near as I can get with a ruler on the monitor, 1/3 mm gap vs 7 mm diameter). That's 1/(21*3.14) = 1.5% of the circumference per gap, or 3% total gap. That's the total gap for the YHM. I would imagine the PRI gap is close to one side of the YHM, meaning the difference in bearing surface is 1-2%.

1/8" would be huge on the pic above (1/6 of the diameter).

You're kidding me, right. You got 1/3mm from that pic, which isn't even to scale? I measure it at nearly 1mm on my monitor, just by measuring that out of scale pic - which is nearly half as small. We need the pic of the installed unit. The installed gap is MUCH larger than that.

The gap on the PRI, when tightened is essentially nonexistant, closer to your 1/3mm than the YHM above. I'll try to post a pic later.

As I said, I measured about 1/3 mm on my screen with a ruler. The scale isn't important, only the ratio of the gap to the bbl diameter (7mm on my screen, .750" in real life). If you rotate the pic by 343 degrees and zoom in, you can count pixels. Diameter: 29 pixels, Gap: 2 pixels. Ok, so the gap to diameter ratio is 1/14.5 . That means the gap/circumference ratio is 1/14.5/3.14 = 2%. If the PRI gap is nonexistant, that means 4% total gap.

Edited to add: Those pixel numbers translate to a .750"/14.5 = 0.05" gap on each side for the YHM, about 3/64" or 1.3mm .

HAAHH!! I've got you up to 4% now, using your so called "pixel theory".

What'll it be when we get an actual installed pic???