**Updated/Edited 3/4/20**

Found a "Midwest Industries- Same Plane Flip Up" and am comparing it to the "Troy Battle Sight",

Why the hell does TROY sight ALSO have the "windage hash marks" on the front, facing away from the shooter
eye, SAME as the cup on the small Aperture???

I understood them going a different route but this makes me think the entire thing is backwards...WTF

Unless the Windage marks have since been fixed since this 2010 thread the pics were in. You would need to mount this backwards to see it properly being 2 aspects are off!

(Left= Midwest)
(Right= Troy




Any downside to the cupped, yet curved "small Aperture" on the "Same Plane" Midwest version, and will it match an A2 FSB?

Would love some feedback from anyone who own OR have owned BOTH Midwest AND Troy "dual aperture Flip ups"!!!

I looked through the small aperture from the FRONT side of my DD 1.5 small Aperture on the flat side and it was a disaster!

As I focused, The hole looked oblong from left to right (likely my eyes blurring each side due to a mild astigmatism) and the sight picture looked much smaller and more blurry, like a pinpoint hole.

Wondering if the Troy has the same effect, or of a tad larger hole?

Buy a quality carry handle in the EE. Chop it. Profit.

Get a used Aimpoint there too.

I like chopped carry handles but really need some flip ups.

Leaning toward Troy over the Midwest one, but is it true that Troy has the aperatures backwards?

If so, any benefit (like less glare)?

Can anyone verify between the 2?

Looking through any rear site and focusing on the front site will clear up your issue. Yes Troy makes a good sight and so is the magpul pro.

When you get your optic (reddot) the dot will also be fuzzy. Flip up the rear and look at the dot through the rear and it will appear crystal clear.

Kac micro 200-600 works to cut out the bloom.
Attached File

Yep, that's the reason I want something with a nice small aperature where things are clear with the front site, and also to aid on the dot being perfectly round (due to my astigmatism)

I've heard TROY mounts the small aperature backwards to where you view it with the flat part of the steel around the small aperature holr, and the contoured part facing forward.

Any advantage to this?

I may be mistaken tho, but seems I heard it's vice versa from other flip ups, being most have the Large dot with the flat part around the aperature.

When you deploy the Troy it will have the large peep showing. Just tip it down and you will have the small showing and yes the flat will face you. I have stigs in both eyes. Any rear sight I use is not a problem. If you want the small to deploy first get the magpul. You have to tip the small down in order to show the large by itself.

Every sight is different. Some have flat backs and some are concave.

Ok,

My Daniel Defense a1.5 has a concave area facing the eye on the small one.

I WILL say, it's hella blurry except in the very center, nomatter how close or far away from it your eye is. Looks like a little shadow in the center but it's really where the clarity begins. Of anything, it helps me know I'm centered being it's like a shadowy circle in which I know is dead center.

With that being said,
Have you ever tried both concave VS flat?

Any preference?

If so, do the Troy type with the flat rear eliminate some of the glare, or whatever makes the outer edges of the hole so blurry (I mention this being my old polymer Magpul MBUS didn't seem to have the blurriness inside of the hole. Not sure if it's the light hitting the concave part, or the finish glaring (which made it even worse until I removed ALL factory oil around the holes).

Is the Concave area "meant" to face the eye? Or do many companies do this?

I felt that it was kind of the taper the hole from just beginning out of nowhere, yet I've read it has something to do with the light and it supposably meant to help with "something" eye related.

With an astigmatism, maybe the Troy will be less blurry.

May look through my DD 1.5 from the opposite side and see.

Btw, have you or ANYONE READING ever tried the "Midwest Industries flip ups" in comparison to the "Troys Flip-Ups??

Seems to be a similar setup, a locking pin and not spring loaded to pop up (which seems to be just a Magpul thing) and also not sure if the aperatures are reversed on the Midwest one

I use to use nothing but TROY but have now converted over to MI Combat.  Only one aperture to deal with and the aperture is bigger than the small, smaller than the big, but works equally well at both jobs.  It is big enough for fast shooting and small enough for precision work.  That is now my go to sight for BUIS.

Yep,

I held a buddy's old AR that had a pair of TROYs with a single "Medium" Aperture and it seemed great, but due to my vision, I didn't get the 20/20 vision advantage that a small Aperture provides (well, just 20, being one eye, lol)

OP Update:

*Big news*

Apparently Troy does this with the cup facing away from the way being the M16/M4 were supposed to be that way (like all rifles with this sight system before them) but where mass produced inverted according to Hackathorn and Vickers, with the small Aperture facing the eye by mistake, it way meant to provide a better view of the target and more light by having some material missing on the opposite side of the hole. (I can find the quote, someone from Colt told the story of how someone fucked up decades ago)

Apparently that's why the concave cup is facing outwards on most old rifles, yet facing the eye on most AR sights, due to how the Mil had the setup wrong on accident.

Think of how a pistol's rear sights are, especially night sights and instead of just the square notch.all the way through, they are square at the rear but then open up outwards at the middle and front portion to provide a more broad sight picture, THAT is how the AR small aperture's concave cup was intended to do, but was mass produced inverted so they left it that way.

I personally noticed that on my cupped DD 1.5s small aperture, the top and also the concave outline has some raw steel (or aluminum¿) and it is creating a blur. Wondering what would work best there....

Due to that, I Guess Troy Battle BUS' should be G2G and have less surface area to have raw edges of flat, and if ever desired, I've heard you can always invert the aperture assembly it of you don't like it, you just have to be very careful due to ball bearings and not stripping it.

@coldblue could probably shed some light on that.

OP Update:

Tig, tell me what you think.

I almost just ordered a Troy set (also like the Spikes Gen 2) yet both have the cup on the opposite side!

I first didn't have an issue with this, was just curious.

Well, JUST did a test with a set of Fixed "Daniel Defense fixed A1.5s" where the cupped part of the small Aperture faces the eye (like all Mil-Spec sights) and decided to look through the hole from the opposite side at the same distance.

Due to the flat surface and the hole not being in a round concave area, when focusing (maybe from having a mild astigmatism) the hole of the DD sight from the flat side first gave a smaller and more blurry sight picture, then as I focused hard the hole literally turned to an oblong shape (from left to right, likely my eye blurring each side) and the sight picture felt nearly half the size as if restricted.

It seems that budget brands do it the classic way, and the 100-150 rears do it this way of "non cupped" small aperture's.

Is it due to them inverting the Aperture assembly and being made for guys who use the large Aperture the most? (Hence, Battle/Combat names in the title of most)

Anything from a reputable brand that has the cups the traditional way like my DD's, yet sleek like the Troy version?

The spikes gen 2 has like a slide down part to change the apertures, and backwards aswell....

Found a "Midwest Industries- Same Plane Flip Up" and comparing it to the "Troy Battle Sight",

Why the hell does TROY sight have the "windage hash marks" facing away from the shooter also???

So it's that AND the the small Aperture having the cupped area backwards??? WTF

These pics make me think they truly made a backward design, unless it's since been fixed since this 2010 thread the pics were in.

(Left= Midwest)
(Right= Troy





Any downsides to the cupped, yet "Curved/odd shaped cups and Aperture shape on "Same Plain" sights?

Could the non symmetrical shaped cups and bend of the actual Apertures steel on the Midwest version (left) possibly distort the sight picture worse than the "non cupped" Troy in my case, having an astigmatism?

(Such as light distorting the cupped area or circle where the steel bends at an angle above or below the circle, as the cups around the holes arent fully rounded on "same plane" aperatures, they have some abnormal shapes.)

Thank you for your time sir. Your knowledge/experience is invaluable.

@ColdBlue

Thanks for that advice, it truly sheds light onto things.

I changed the OP post to now where it focuses on which sight would likely give a better sight picture with a lack of blur (especially with an astigmatism in the mix)

The Troy is backwards, even the Windage hash marked are on the front, oddly, as if to be viewed when folded down!

Aperture cups are also backwards with Spikes and most of the more expensive/sleeker modeled dual Flip-ups.

Now, I'm looking at the "Midwest Industries- SPLP (Same Plain- low profile) flip ups which are pictured on the left, beside of the Troy.

They have the cup facing the eye, yet my Only concern is with the cup not being perfectly rounded and how the top of the sight bends to an angle (I guess to be "Same Plain", essentially to keep the POA/POI from shifting between both sites once zeroed) although it's the sight that I like, not necessarily that it has to be Same Plain.

With that being said,

Do you know if these type of apertures would bend light differently and possibly be more of an issue for my bad eyes than the non cupped Troy?


(Left= Midwest)
(Right= Troy




The one on the left, notice the cup shape, AND the shape of the Apertures at the tops.

(Have a slightly bare spot on the rear upper edge of some fixed sights and it blurs things, so that's how finicky my eyes are)

I looked through my A2 style small peep backwards (from the flat side) to see what the Troy MAY resemble and my eye blurred the hole to where it looked oblong shaped from left to right and the sight picture was smaller, so looking for any advice I can get, hopefully from some that have bad vision and astigmatism and have tried both types of these sites before.

OP, see your other thread regarding the hash marks on your Troy BUIS......

Not related to your basic question, but the ARMS 40 and 40L are spring loaded to pop up, and don't lock in place when up.  The 40L flips up with the smaller aperture in place, and it's concave facing the shooter.  It comes in both dual plane and same plane versions.

Actually,

A guy at Midwest with an astigmatism told me that the Midwest SPLP having the 45 degree angle on the small Aperture (and pear shape cup) reflects sunlight into the eye, especially the ledge and recommended the Magpul Pro!

So now it's between Troy and Magpul Pro.

I want to go with Magpul badly being the cup helps my eye transition the to circular hole, I viewed my DD 1.5 from the flat side and the hole blurred into an oblong shape due to not having the cup, so I guess the cup helps with the transition, the same way the actual hole helps with making a clear target or clearing up a red dot (making the light round into your eye)

Only thing now pushing me toward Troy is that I've read threads on the finish that the Magpul Pro's steel is treated with is causing guys with astigmatisms to see a blurry window affect (with A2 style, it's blurry on the corners but has a crystal clear spot in the center which I know where to put the post as it's like an open halo circle within the hole in a sense.

Not sure if I just try the Magpul, or just hope that maybe Troy has less of a glare than the greyish steel that Daniel Defense uses, or maybe a sliiiightly larger small Aperture and it may help the sight picture.

When flipping the DD 1.5 backwards to view the flat side, rather than a transition, it was like trying to peer through a tiny hole (plus the sides blurring and changing it's shape).

Hoping Troy used a matte black, as not sure I want to risk the Magpul issue, if it truly is an issue for many as I've realized the finish glare makes a huge difference. (One reason the small Aperture on the "Polymer" Magpul site is crystal clear, even around the edges.

Bare steel on the corners/edges doesn't help either, on the fixed DD 1.5 Apertures.

Ever tried both the PRO and Troy?

So it kind of has the non lock gripe that many have with Magpul?

I think I may try to Troy, if they have a matte finish, it may look much better than looking through the opposite side of my fixed Daniel Defense on the flat side, which has an oblong effect due to my eyes glaring the side corners.

I'm thinking bare steel on some of the inner edges aren't helping with this.

Was gonna go with Magpul Pro but hearing the small Aperture is extremely small and that guys with astigmatisms don't tend to find that clear spot in the middle of the blurriness, many make it out as if it's blurry all the way through.

Depends the person though I guess.

Topic Moved

I've heard great things, but I just can't get over the feeling that if your rifle accidently dropped ~ 5 feet up and landed on something hard like a rock or concrete, square on the site, that it would break.

@coldblue did you do any drop testing with the A2 / A1 sights when designing them?

Oh wow,

I didn't know he designed them.

Who exactly is Coldblue?

How would I go about finding one of those sir?

https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/sights/rear-sights/ar-15-tactical-micro-rear-sight-600-meter-prod105953.aspx

Also my favorite folding rear, always glad to see someone with the knowledge/experience base of coldblue agrees.

HERE

I'm not that familiar with the details of the gripes or with the Magpuls, but I understand there's some discussion about whether a sight is better locked up or locked down.  The ARMS sights are held up by springs and locked down by levers.  If I drop the rifle on the sight, will it be more likely to be damaged if it can flip, or if it's locked in place?  I'm not going to test with mine, but I imagine someone's done this.

IN STOCK HERE

@Tigwelder1971

Thanks, and DAMNIT!

That even has a setting for the 50/200 zero, and I have a damn Troy in route already. Smfh.

Would have jumped on that before now of I had of read the description when it was first recommend but was set on having dual Apertures "just in case". Smh

While on the subject, I may end up getting a Troy front also depending if I end up free-floating, so have a question for you Tig that has me baffled...

Ive read TONS of reviews of people saying that using Troy sights, (assuming the Troy front flip up and NOT an A2 FSB, although not sure), that they had to almost fully unthread the post for it to zero elevation wise....

YET, What I'm so confused about is I did a rough zero (mainly to roughly check Windage after getting back a replaced upper that had a Canted barrel & FSB) by looking through the chamber and centering a small object, and even inserted a "bore guide" (cleaning aid tool) which leaves a smaller centered window, and I roughly zeroed at 50 yards, I THINK....
BEING
On the A2 FSB, the actual front post came where the adjustment area was flush and level with the surrounding platform so started at "default" basically, I then had to adjust 4-5 clicks "downward" (clockwise) for the front post to match the alignment of what was centered in the bore (for the target to sit at the edge of the front post, alignment was checked many times and done slowly with alot of verification.

I know it's not exact, but between 25, 36, and 100yd zeroes that others often do, I don't understand how I basically threaded mine inward from "flush" several clicks to match up for a 50yd object, yet tons others claim they go almost unthreading the front post using the Troy! (Polar opposite direction in general)

Was using the DD 1.5 rear, the height is basically the same as the Troy rear, again, unless the Troy FSB is the issue, many didn't say as it was customer reviews.

Again, not sure if raising the post is needed with the Troy rear so badly w/ an A2 front fsb or IF the Troy Front flip up is the one in regard, but does it sound like I did something wrong from by going 4-5 clicks downward from "flush" via A2 FSB for a rough 50 yard zero?

Between common 25, 36, 50, and 100 zeroing distances, it's not gonna be polar opposite to my knowledge, unless the Troy front sight has a very low post, housing, or both! Unless I somehow oddly f**ked up badly with current sights doing that zero.

@coldblue

Very interested!

Depending on the answers of these questions, may return the Troy upon arrival.

1.
Is this a "small" A2 Aperture, or slightly larger like a "medium" Aperture?
(The small one helps improve vision via sight picture, so the medium lone Aperture versions don't work for me)

2.
With the "2 setting" being great for a 50/200 zero, will the other settings be properly calibrated aswell?
(Like using the "RIBZ" modification on a mil style rear sight?)

3.
Do they make a matching "front sight" for free float rails?

@coldblue,

Brother, thanks for the info!

That front sight post is very thin, which I like!
One thing that many front sights lack IMO, being even at 50 yards, the front post is normally wider or as wide as a 3" target.

I try to go by the saying "Aim Small, Miss Small", seems very plausible and a good rule of thumb imo.

These look like the sights for it!

I never knew these existed, and I assume the "tactical" version that's like 100 dollars extra, (that lacks the elevation setting) is a "medium" size, as some dont like having a lone "small" Aperture so KAK lightly made it to fill that nitch.

Apparently you can buy a 3 dollar "plug in" Aperture insert for it to make it small app size.

Thanks again man, and if on the off chance that you have a "spare set" by any chance for a decent deal that you have no use for, give me a hollar!

Would love some but a pair would cost more than a "Holosun" RDS that I've been looking into, so it's a tough decision being really would like to try out their RDS which most claims to be shockingly true quality for the 200-225 price tag (in comparison to Aimpoint, EOtech, and the Trijicon tech that it supposedly is similar to)

Thanks again!