Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/7/2003 9:22:50 PM EDT
What are the lowest height aftermarket sights made for the AR-15? I want a set of sights that are closer to the bore. It's not an issue if I need to change the front sight tower housing as the existing housing is the standard one and is too tall. I'm looking at trying to slim down the top of my flattop receiver. Open sights will be the primary sighting system at this time with the capability of adding optics when needed. Thanks for the help.
Link Posted: 10/7/2003 10:20:11 PM EDT
Nope sorry. Have someone make you a custom set cause they dont exist.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 1:34:04 PM EDT
Wouldn't that negatively affect your cheek weld on buttstock, and throw off you natural body index for. The way my M4gery is setup, it feels very natural the way it comes. I agree theoretically that I prefer the sight plane to be lower to the axis of the bore, like an M1A/M1 Garand, but is your AR a range queen or a field gun?
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 1:42:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/8/2003 1:48:50 PM EDT by fizassist]
One option is the "iron" (plastic) sights for the H&K SL-8 rifle. They will fit a picatinny rail (with a little persuasion). They are about 1/2" lower than the standard AR sights. The only catch is that you would need a very solid forearm with a top rail the same height as the receiver flattop. If you had that, I think you'd be set. Edited to ad: while this might work, I agree that it's probably not a good idea. I find it hard to get my head down low enough to make that a comfortable proposition.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 2:24:57 PM EDT
Something low like the SL8 sights might be a possibility. I'm used to using an MP5 with low sights over the bore. I checked the idea of my cheek weld if I got lower sights. My two CAR15's both have telestocks on, so that was all I had to compare it to, and I felt that I could still get down if I got lower sights. The toe of the buttstock usually sits pretty high in my shoulder pocket the way I've mounted them. One of the CAR's is a safe queen, the other is a duty gun that I used for a while, had a change of admin and had to put it away, and with another change of admin we are gradually moving to putting them back in my car. I've always preferred lower profile sights that don't snag and such.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 7:44:15 PM EDT
If this is for duty use, I would seriously recommend staying with the standard height. Low and tight on the stock is great for benchrest/precision work, but if this is going to be a CQB gun, you're much better off keeping your head a little higher up and retaining a wider field of view. Tunnel vision kills. Just my $0.02
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 8:18:02 PM EDT
I just checked and the HK MP5 and Ar-15 sights are within about 1/10 of an inch of each other. The HKMP5 appears to have a low sight height but in fact it is height over the gas system that you are looking at. Height over bore is almost exactly the same. Want a lower drag system? The only thing I can think of is possibly the KAC folding front sight (RAS MOUNTED to a FF RAS) and a ARMS rear sight that will fold down when hit and pop back into position - which may help. I currently am using a PRI front sight and KAC 600M rear and they are both folded down (ACOG/DR optic does my sighting work). [b]I would reccomend you try a folding front/rear sight set and a good battle optic like EO Tech 552 REv E or Aimpoint- odds are you will never have to flip up the sights. these optics are low drag esspecially the EO tech.[/b] That said I have spent literally weeks at a time holding the M-16A2 with it's "high sights" in the woods and in and out of helicopters and vehichles and have never noticed them snag on anything... (maybe I am subconsciously avoiding snags on branches and gear before they occur?)
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 7:10:04 AM EDT
Since the AR has a straight stock how are you going to get your eye much closer to the boreline? At best it would be a funky kind of 'ear weld'.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 9:24:04 AM EDT
"That said I have spent literally weeks at a time holding the M-16A2 with it's "high sights" in the woods and in and out of helicopters and vehichles and have never noticed them snag on anything... (maybe I am subconsciously avoiding snags on branches and gear before they occur?)" Thanks for all the replies. I guess I never realized the MP sights were the same height as the standard irons on the AR. I'll have to do some brainstorming with how I use it to figure out in I need to go with a folding set or leave it as is. GreenO, my snag problem comes from the car. These days there gets to be more and more stuff thrown at me to mount or put in the front seat. The mount I have and the location I was able to mount it has the front sight tower snagging on various things within that car or cases when I withdraw it quickly or lock it back, depending on how I have to carry it. I have one case that has the insides ripped to hell from one snag when I had to temp use a car without my lock mount. I was hoping to find something along the lines of the FAL type front sights. They are much lower profile, but they also may be a similar height over bore and just appear to be lower.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 12:34:50 PM EDT
I do believe FAL sights are lower to the bore than AR sights (although I have never measured for this). While the sight plane is lower to the bore axis on a FAL than an AR, the FAL buttstock is also lower in relation to the receiver than the AR buttstock. So the height difference between the buttstock/cheek weld to sight plane is pretty much constant. Personally I like the ergonomics of my AR much better than my FAL...
Top Top