Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/4/2005 9:54:16 AM EDT
What does the US Army currently issue to the troops as a BUIS and Optics?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:38:18 AM EDT
Detachable carry handle and M68 CCO (Aimpoint M2). Those are 'issue', units however may use unit funds to make purchases for their unit's use.

Special Operations forces have items in the SOPMOD kit they can use.

Marines, of course, have their own options.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:32:55 PM EDT
Forest is correct.
Uncle Sugar also issues the QD Aimpoint mount and spacer for the M68 CCO. as for BUIS's the KAC sight and the Mactech sight's are in the system.

But a lot of units have the ability to use funds for different things, so there can be a variety of sights and mounts being used by different units. but for the average Line unit full of Snuffy's. its the Aimpoint QD mount .(if i were still in it would get swapped out for a Gen 2 LaRue and a TroyBUIS...)
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 2:49:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 2:52:13 PM EDT by jjniven]

Originally Posted By Harv24:
Forest is correct.
Uncle Sugar also issues the QD Aimpoint mount and spacer for the M68 CCO. as for BUIS's the KAC sight and the Mactech sight's are in the system.

But a lot of units have the ability to use funds for different things, so there can be a variety of sights and mounts being used by different units. but for the average Line unit full of Snuffy's. its the Aimpoint QD mount .(if i were still in it would get swapped out for a Gen 2 LaRue and a TroyBUIS...)



What makes you chose the Troy buis over the others?

What I'm wanting to do is get a Sopmod m4 but the newest variations of parts. I know the KAC BUIS is crap, so what's better. and the RAS, would you go FF RAS or DD?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:24:33 PM EDT
KAC BUIS is not crap. Troy locks up and has dual same plane aperaters. I sold my KAC FF RAS for a DD unit which is better in every way and cheaper too.
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 4:38:00 PM EDT
My unit got the RFI gear on Wednesday. While we were in line drawing all the personal RFI gear the unit was getting ACOGs and some other goodies for our M4s. We are on a weekend until Monday, but I can't wait to see what we got. The ACOG is a confirmed deal, but supposedly there are some other unnamed goodies as well.

Previously we had the M68s and no BUIS at all!
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 5:25:31 PM EDT
The proponderance of sights in the system are KAC, ARMS, and Matech. All are folders. The ARMS 40's and Matech flex and spring back into battey if hit or dropped, the KAC also gives if hit, but is pushed back into battery manually. The military requirerment is and remains that a rear folder must give/flex if hit, so it is less likely to break. The KAC is the most prevalent as it was adopted first. The Matech has only one aperture, small, the KAC has a lage aperture and a piece of plastic to push into the larger aperture if you want a small aperture. The ARMS 40's series all have dual small and large apertures built in.
Jack
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:29:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:35:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The proponderance of sights in the system are KAC, ARMS, and Matech. All are folders. The ARMS 40's and Matech flex and spring back into battey if hit or dropped, the KAC also gives if hit, but is pushed back into battery manually. The military requirerment is and remains that a rear folder must give/flex if hit, so it is less likely to break. The KAC is the most prevalent as it was adopted first. The Matech has only one aperture, small, the KAC has a lage aperture and a piece of plastic to push into the larger aperture if you want a small aperture. The ARMS 40's series all have dual small and large apertures built in.
Jack




The KAC/ARMS/Matech are all in service today for sure. A lot of groups (that can choose their own gear) are also purchasing the TROY BUIS.



C4



So how is the ARMS 40, which one would you recommend?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:41:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 6:47:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2005 6:47:22 PM EDT by jjniven]
Thank you! One last question, why is the Troy your favorite?
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 10:34:14 PM EDT
GG&G is a fave of mine......

Goverment Agency's are using these im pretty sure.....
Link Posted: 8/4/2005 11:21:37 PM EDT
The only sight I've seen over here (other than my own ARMS #40L) is the Picatinny Arsenal version (which I understand is the Matech one that was already mentioned?). Is the design by Matech but produced by Picatinny Arsenal? We only received these a few months before deploying in March - I think we were kind of late in the RFI process. I haven't seen an NSN for any other type of BUIS, so that's the only one we've tried to order.

We've had M68 sights for 4 or 5 years now but just received ACOGs last fall. I've also seen a fair number of Eotechs that I think units bought prior to deployment. Plus there's the odd assortment of scopes that people are mounting on their M16s and M4s, mostly right on top of the carrying handle.

I'm a little concerned about our ACOGs - almost all of them were way out of alignment last time we went to the range. They had completely lost their zero to the point where we had to put up large paper qualification targets to find out where the rounds were hitting - they weren't even on the paper with the zero targets. It looks like they lost their zero like a lot of scopes do when they get bumped around. Anyone experience this? Do we need to code out these sights, or does it happen with all of them?

Dave
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 3:56:20 AM EDT
ACOGs are good about keeping zero. They are not designed to be removed and reattached while maintaining zero, but you can get some aftermarket mounts that help with this.

Also, make sure you are zeroing your ACOG on an ACOG zero target designed for the altitude you are at and for your particular setup IE M-4 flat top mounted TA 01 w M855 Vs a M-16A4 with RCO w MK 262. Different target because of different ballistics. If you just zero like you would the irons at 25, you can be waaaay high at longer ranges.
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 5:29:36 AM EDT
Any issue papers or documents on what they are issuing?
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 7:15:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 3ACR_Scout:
It looks like they lost their zero like a lot of scopes do when they get bumped around. Anyone experience this? Do we need to code out these sights, or does it happen with all of them?



Dave,
If these are flattop mounted sights then you may have a problem, they SHOULD NOT be losing zero.

The only I can see if they lost zero and there wasn't a scope problem would be:

1) You got your rifle, but were given someone elses scope (assumes a flattop installation). Once a scope is zeroed to a rifle - it needs to stay WITH THAT rifle.

2) You are mouting the scopes to the carry handle. This is never a repeat-to-zero mounting option, your best bet is to keep the scopes on the rifle. I should note part of the problem is the screws that the ACOGs use through the hole are a bit smaller than the hole itself and depending how you mount the optic (against the front of the hole or the rear of the hole) you can throw off the zero. BTW it's best to mount it up against the front of the hole (push the scope forward when tightening the screw).
Link Posted: 8/5/2005 9:43:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
Dave,
If these are flattop mounted sights then you may have a problem, they SHOULD NOT be losing zero.

The only I can see if they lost zero and there wasn't a scope problem would be:

1) You got your rifle, but were given someone elses scope (assumes a flattop installation). Once a scope is zeroed to a rifle - it needs to stay WITH THAT rifle.

2) You are mouting the scopes to the carry handle.



Thanks for the replies, guys. It sounds like we may have some problems. My three Scouts that are carrying ACOGs have had them on their same weapons for the last 6 months or so. It's been 3 or 4 months since they had a chance to go to the range to shoot, and they've been carrying their weapons all over the place the whole time. They are all mounted right on the M4 upper receiver rail.

One of the guys had no problems with his ACOG - his still seemed to be on target. The other two had issues - one was shooting high, and his groups seemed to jump around randomly as he made adjustments to bring it down (it took him about 60 rounds and lots of adjustments to bring it on target, and he's a very experienced Staff Sergeant). The other guy was the one I mentioned above - we had no idea where his rounds were hitting until we put up a larger qualification target, and then the E6 had to make some large adjustments (2-3 full turns of both the windage and elevation dials) to bring it close enough to the center of the target so the guy could zero.

We don't have any of the ACOG zero targets, which I'm trying to get now, so that probably doesn't help, but those two sights appear to have some problems. We're going out to the range again in a week to check everyone's zero again, but we may have to turn in these sights. The armament shop already told us there's not much they can do with them at their level.

Dave
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 7:40:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 3ACR_Scout:
... The armament shop already told us there's not much they can do with them at their level.

Dave



Contact Trijicon directly then ship them the sights. Their customer service is pretty good.
Link Posted: 8/6/2005 4:33:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 4:25:19 AM EDT
The KAC is the issue sight in the SOPMOD kit but it is not well liked. Guys I saw with privately purchased rear sights (including me..) use the ARMS 40L mostly.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:21:32 AM EDT
I don't like the Matech/Picatinny BUIS, I had previously bought a KAC and still use it. One, I've never had a problem with my old CompM2 (before I went to HHC and had to give it up for a beat-up CompM), and secondly, the Matech is just big and clunky and a SOB to use with my PVS-14 rail mount and to clean in a high-dust environment. I'll never use the elevation adjustment, and I saw a lot of them last time that refused to stay down after a certain amount of banging around. I didn't have that problem with the KAC.

That being said, what 3/502 carries as ISSUE is the Matech BUIS with mostly CompM2 M68's and a smattering of ACOG's.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:32:53 AM EDT
The LMT "Cut Carry Handle" BUIS is also in the system. At present its issued with the LMT CQBR and ive yet to see a seperate NSN for it.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:47:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The ARMS 40's and Matech flex and spring back into battey if hit or dropped, the KAC also gives if hit, but is pushed back into battery manually. The military requirerment is and remains that a rear folder must give/flex if hit, so it is less likely to break.



I've always questioned the soundness of a BUIS that locks. It's gonna break easier than unlocked designs, IMHO. This is the reason I use the ARMS. Not only is the "give" there, but it automatically redeploys if hit.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:49:52 AM EDT
My unit just got our amall arms last month, brand new M4s with the Matech BUIS.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:07:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 12:07:50 PM EDT by C4iGrant]
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:13:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:


To the best of my knowledge there has NEVER been a BUIS that has been locked into the up position broken. Remember that you would first have to break the optic in front of it to even get to it (if it was even in the up position in the first place).






That may be but I suspect there are some broken ones out there. I'd be more worried about the sight in "stand alone" mode when the optic has failed and been removed. BUIS stick up like a sore thumb in those circumstances. If I were in combat under those circumstances, I'd prefer a spring loaded BUIS or, at least, one that didn't lock up. YMMV.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:18:26 PM EDT
So what's everyone's favorite the ARMS, Troy, KAC?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:35:22 PM EDT
I have ARMS #40A2s on both my carbines.

If the Troy was out when I assembled them I'd probably have gotten it. I've played around with the Troy and it really is a very nice (super sturdy) unit.

The only KAC I have is the 600M. Nice site for a precision/long range rifle but not one I'd use for a carbine (600M sight with a carbine is kinda useless for me). I'm using it on a 6.8SPC upper I'm building.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 12:52:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 1:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
I have ARMS #40A2s on both my carbines.

If the Troy was out when I assembled them I'd probably have gotten it. I've played around with the Troy and it really is a very nice (super sturdy) unit.

The only KAC I have is the 600M. Nice site for a precision/long range rifle but not one I'd use for a carbine (600M sight with a carbine is kinda useless for me). I'm using it on a 6.8SPC upper I'm building.



What unit has the best sight picture (looking down the rear) pictures by chance?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 1:25:10 PM EDT
Best sight picture? For long range shooting the KAC600M. For anything else I didn't see much a difference between the ARMS#40 and the Troy - look through aperture at front sight post and squeeze the trigger.

Biggest advantage with the Troy is they now come with same plane apertures (while it's a $35 addition to convert the ARMS#40 to that condition), So flipping between the apertures doesn't change the point of impact.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 3:30:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
Best sight picture? For long range shooting the KAC600M. For anything else I didn't see much a difference between the ARMS#40 and the Troy - look through aperture at front sight post and squeeze the trigger.

Biggest advantage with the Troy is they now come with same plane apertures (while it's a $35 addition to convert the ARMS#40 to that condition), So flipping between the apertures doesn't change the point of impact.



I have a 40L, and they sell for $109, with either the standard A2 Gov't aperture, or SP. I don't know why it would cost more than $10.00 to convert one either direction, as that is what ARMS charge for all spare apertures, and I don't think they offer aperture changes.
I don't like SP anyway, because if I want to shoot out to 200-300 meters, I want the small aperture just for the same reasons the military use it. I can't hit crap at that distance with a large aperture, compared to the small aperture with the built in bullet drop compensation and better distance sight picture.
Jack
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 6:29:42 PM EDT
On an M4gery 200m is nearly out of range anyhow, so I guess it's up to the Arms 40 and the Troy. What you guys think?
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 7:46:23 PM EDT
No, with some wear and tear to it, the spring-loaded Matech ones won't stay down. My squad leader's BUIS stuck up in the way for about six months until the popup arm/sight aperture snagged on a Hummvee tailgate and snapped off. Then the armorer gave him a new one.

It's just a crummy complicated design for a BUIS. I'll stick with the Knights. I just hope I can find the damn thing in this cesspool of a study. I took it off two assigned rifles ago and now aren't sure where I put it.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 8:40:21 PM EDT
The KAC has the same problem of being deployed at the wrong time, but even more so, because at least the Maytech has a semblance of a catch. However, the Maytech only has one aperture, a small one, no good for CQB. (close quarter battle). Neither the KAC or the Maytech have protected aperatures, and that make them more likely to break just like you described.
Both the Troy and ARMS 40's have dual protected apertures.
The Troy is only same plain. The 40's use the military standard for long and short distance aiming, or offer same plain in the dual aperture.
The Troy is the only one to lock in the up position, but opposite of military requirerments of always being able to fold rather than break.
The 40's have a positive lock down to eliminate accidental deployment. When it is deployed and if hit, they are more likely to fold and automaticaly rebounds into battery, rather than break.
It all depends on what you want, and how it is going to be used.
The 40L is my favorite, as I can get anything over it, just like the other three we are discussing.
Jack

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:42:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The KAC has the same problem of being deployed at the wrong time, but even more so, because at least the Maytech has a semblance of a catch. However, the Maytech only has one aperture, a small one, no good for CQB. (close quarter battle). Neither the KAC or the Maytech have protected aperatures, and that make them more likely to break just like you described.
Both the Troy and ARMS 40's have dual protected apertures.
The Troy is only same plain. The 40's use the military standard for long and short distance aiming, or offer same plain in the dual aperture.
The Troy is the only one to lock in the up position, but opposite of military requirerments of always being able to fold rather than break.
The 40's have a positive lock down to eliminate accidental deployment. When it is deployed and if hit, they are more likely to fold and automaticaly rebounds into battery, rather than break.
It all depends on what you want, and how it is going to be used.
The 40L is my favorite, as I can get anything over it, just like the other three we are discussing.
Jack




u work for ARMS do u ?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:47:34 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:55:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
I have a 40L, and they sell for $109, with either the standard A2 Gov't aperture, or SP. I don't know why it would cost more than $10.00 to convert one either direction, as that is what ARMS charge for all spare apertures, and I don't think they offer aperture changes.



Jack,
I have (and was commenting on) the ARMS #40 and the #40A2. If you want to convert one of those to 'same plane' you'll need to buy an XS-Sights Same Plane aperture which runs $30.

Now if ARMS has such a part for the #40 (especially if it's less than $30) I'm all ears!!

I don't have a 40L nor have I used one yet so I can't comment on it.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 7:11:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
I have a 40L, and they sell for $109, with either the standard A2 Gov't aperture, or SP. I don't know why it would cost more than $10.00 to convert one either direction, as that is what ARMS charge for all spare apertures, and I don't think they offer aperture changes.



Jack,
I have (and was commenting on) the ARMS #40 and the #40A2. If you want to convert one of those to 'same plane' you'll need to buy an XS-Sights Same Plane aperture which runs $30.

Now if ARMS has such a part for the #40 (especially if it's less than $30) I'm all ears!!

I don't have a 40L nor have I used one yet so I can't comment on it.



Thanks Forest, I never heard of a SP made for 40's, at least not from ARMS web. info. The ARMS adds only offer the SP option for the 40L, I guess for the commercial market. There again I wouldn't have a SP sight on my weapon. I like to have the distance comp option of the off set A2 military design, that SP doesn't work as well at distance as the A2 gov't standard.
Jack
Top Top