Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 11/22/2003 10:49:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 4:44:18 AM EDT by 123whisper]
These are pretty new.  They are all steel construction and have top notch build quality.  They have only one aperature hole, same size as small hole on A2 sight leaf on a detented down, spring up sight bar.  They have a BDC cam lever to adjust from 200-600 meters.  As they are currently made for the military, I am sure that they BDC is calibrated for M855.  However, like the ACOG BDC, I am sure that the trajectory curves can be shifted with initial zero to best fit with the round of your choice.  They have a standard windage knob.

 To flip the sight up, you put your thumb underneath the sight bar that hangs back past the flat top rail, and just push up to break the detent.  The sight bar will continue on up by spring power.

These sights have at least 3/8th of an inch more clearance than an ARMS #40 with a cut aperature when used with a large diameter scope.  If it is a small ocular'ed optic like a 4 power ACOG, then there is 1/2 inch more clearance between the ocular of the ACOG and the US army BUIS.  Fit with TA31 series body style ACOG with ARMS #19S is not available at this time because a #19S was not available to test with.  I believe it will fit, although I cannot say for sure.  Fits behind a TA31 on a TA51 mount

These are hosted on a free picture service with limited bandwidth, so you might want to save them to your hard drive for repeated viewing.  Yes, I am saving up for a gold membership.

View from rear with sight bar up, BDC cam lever with scale is on left

Rear view, sight bar down position, windage knob on right

BDC cam lever close up, intermediate line is used to set zero on 25M army zeroing targets

Bottom of sight

Front view with sight bar up

Right side view with sight bar up

INSTRUCTION SHEET(99K)

Disregard the spots on the instruction sheet, the sight comes pre-lubricated and some of it naturally finds its way on to the intruction sheet.

Ask any questions, start a debate about why it is better/worse than anything out there.  I have several of these and if there is enough interest, I will put a thread in the EE.  They come in heavy plastic bags with an instruction sheet.  Mounting screw has a drop of threadlocker on it already for preventing unexpected departure of sight and loss of zero.

I am not sure if I am allowed to place a price in a board outside the EE.  This is not really meant to be an advertisement.  Just an information post intended to promote some discussion.  Emails will be answered as promptly as possible and to the best of my knowledge.

MODs, if you find that this post is inappropriate, please notify me.  Thank you.

*editing pics*

*pics fixed*

*Further information in bold*
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:56:46 AM EDT
3rdtk is gonna rain on your parade if he sess this, he doesn't think too much of these sights.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:58:43 AM EDT
What is his problem with them?  Any secret fault?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 11:04:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 11:05:09 AM EDT by Duffy]
I don't mean to ruin your sales, hell I'm interested in one.  Months ago a member posted a pic and asked what it was, 3rdtk was the only one that knew about them.  I think he said that Picatinney produced these without anyone asking them, and in the field they'd break (can't remember which specific part/parts) and the users would toss them.  I'll try to find the thread, there was a second post about this BUIS after that asking the same question.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 11:18:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Duffy:
I don't mean to ruin your sales, hell I'm interested in one.  Months ago a member posted a pic and asked what it was, 3rdtk was the only one that knew about them.  I think he said that Picatinney produced these without anyone asking them, and in the field they'd break (can't remember which specific part/parts) and the users would toss them.  I'll try to find the thread, there was a second post about this BUIS after that asking the same question.
View Quote


I am not sure if I should say who makes them, but I cannot see which parts would break.  When 3rdtk said that they were produced without anyone asking for them, who is anyone?  Soldiers or higher-ups?

All the info that I have is freely available.  Google search "US army backup sight"  "US army BUIS" "US army M4 sight"  "US army M16A4" and various combinations to get contract info, dollar figures, and various other things.  Some things are password protected because they are intended for contractors only.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:07:28 PM EDT
I got one from 123whisper a month or two ago, he is the only guy I have seen to have one for sale.

I havent tried it out yet, hopefully this next week.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:43:31 PM EDT
I have no experience with it, nor have I ever seen one outside of photos from Iraq (where it seems quite heavily issued in the 101st Abn, but no where else).  

I can say I have no use for a [b]back up[/b] iron sight with a bullet drop compensator.  If Ive switched to my BUIS, Im not doing range estimation.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:11:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 2:14:35 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
I have no experience with it, nor have I ever seen one outside of photos from Iraq (where it seems quite heavily issued in the 101st Abn, but no where else).  

I can say I have no use for a [b]back up[/b] iron sight with a bullet drop compensator.  If Ive switched to my BUIS, Im not doing range estimation.
View Quote


Thanks for the info about Iraq and the 101st Airborne!

So what you are saying is that if your optic is broken, your engagement range is probably within battle site zero, or slight hold over range, making the BDC pointless?  Just searching for a more in depth reason.  Are you saying you would have no interest in it, even if the price was very reasonable?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:14:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 3:01:35 PM EDT by Duffy]
Edited, I don't wanna get Whisper in trouble [:)]
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:23:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
I have no experience with it, nor have I ever seen one outside of photos from Iraq (where it seems quite heavily issued in the 101st Abn, but no where else).  

I can say I have no use for a [b]back up[/b] iron sight with a bullet drop compensator.  If Ive switched to my BUIS, Im not doing range estimation.
View Quote

You would still estimating range and applying Kentucky windage.  However you won't be adjusting your sights.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 2:46:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
I have no experience with it, nor have I ever seen one outside of photos from Iraq (where it seems quite heavily issued in the 101st Abn, but no where else).  

I can say I have no use for a [b]back up[/b] iron sight with a bullet drop compensator.  If Ive switched to my BUIS, Im not doing range estimation.
View Quote

You would still estimating range and applying Kentucky windage.  However you won't be adjusting your sights.
View Quote


I do see your point, there is the risk that you could leave the sight turned to 600 meters and then shot over a close range target.  However, this sight is quite a bit easier to return to battlesite zero than an say an A2 upper.  All you do is push the BDC lever forward whereas on an A2 you have to spin it down and then feel for the flat spot on the elevation wheel.

Regardless of if one would chose to use the BDC or not, it is always there for the option.  95% of time, it would not be needed, but it is nice to have.  If you have an optic with a BDC ladder out to 600, then it is nice to have an iron sight that can do the same.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:17:27 PM EDT
They are referred to by the troops that have them as the rat trap. They keep breaking in the field. Not good for close in work with only a small aperature like an M16A2 sight has.
Snags on gear. Get the desert dirt in them and they jam up. If the aperature gets hit it might pop back up, depending how far it is pushed down as the catch to hold it down can grab it when you don't want it to. When the cam arm is raised for elevation, it won't go down if anything in the area gets stuck in there such as dirt, debri, twigs, then you have to stop and get it cleaned out to shoot closer in than the 500-600 meters you were originally at, not good thing to happen.   Etc., Etc., Etc.
Bad shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:23:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 5:36:31 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
They are referred to by the troops that have them as the rat trap. They keep breaking in the field. Not good for close in work with only a small aperature like an M16A2 sight has.
Snags on gear. Get the desert dirt in them and they jam up. If the aperature gets hit it might pop back up, depending how far it is pushed down as the catch to hold it down can grab it when you don't want it to. When the cam arm is raised for elevation, it won't go down if anything in the area gets stuck in there such as dirt, debri, twigs, then you have to stop and get it cleaned out to shoot closer in than the 500-600 meters you were originally at, not good thing to happen.   Etc., Etc., Etc.
Bad shootin, Jack
View Quote


What on it exactly breaks?

With both eyes open, the small aperature is not a problem on neither the A2 or any other aperature sight, at least for me.

The sight would have to be pushed down almost 90 degrees of rotation to be detented down.  I do not see this as a likely event.  Perhaps after I put one on a rifle and go around trying to make it detent down I will.

If the BDC lever is raise to make a long shot, it should be put back down right after shooting at the distant target, if at all possible so that one is using the 200 meter zero, just as one would flip to the short range aperature in the A2 after shooting at a distant target.


Just wondering about the problems that I cannot see.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:59:23 PM EDT
The aperature post has been breaking near the bottom.

TYPE-0 USMC not usms. Sorry.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:59:31 PM EDT
I have one and I love it.  Please tell me which part breaks?  Also how would this one differ from the KAC?  

Of course if it is up and you snag it on something, it, like everything else will break.  

How would this one differ in the accidental "opening" than say the KAC sight?  

I'm just sort of curious as to what exactly is breaking.  

I posed this question on the last thread and my question was not answered.  

Other than anecdotal information is there ANY first hand information on these?

I'm really not trying to be a smart-ass, but please give some concrete info on these.  

To me this sight is on a par with the KAC, BUT with the advantage of elevation advantages.  And I think these are even more sturdy than the KAC.  Of course I'm not an "operator" so I don't have any real world info, other than handling both systems just to name a couple.  

Finally, I have mine mounted under my TA-31F with room to spare, IIRC the 19S is taller than the TA-58.  
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:05:01 PM EDT
knobs on each side are a problem with snaging, plus add that protruding ramp.
The KAC 600 meter is much better for the longer shots. The #40 for QCB and out to 300 meters.
Jack
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:05:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 6:13:15 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By TNRonin:
I have one and I love it.  Please tell me which part breaks?  Also how would this one differ from the KAC?  

Of course if it is up and you snag it on something, it, like everything else will break.  

How would this one differ in the accidental "opening" than say the KAC sight?  

I'm just sort of curious as to what exactly is breaking.  

I posed this question on the last thread and my question was not answered.  

Other than anecdotal information is there ANY first hand information on these?

I'm really not trying to be a smart-ass, but please give some concrete info on these.  

To me this sight is on a par with the KAC, BUT with the advantage of elevation advantages.  And I think these are even more sturdy than the KAC.  Of course I'm not an "operator" so I don't have any real world info, other than handling both systems just to name a couple.  

Finally, I have mine mounted under my TA-31F with room to spare, IIRC the 19S is taller than the TA-58.  
View Quote


Thank you, I agree on all parts.  The way the spring operates the sight bar/BDC actually allows some forward give so I would think that it would be less likely to break.

Thanks for the info about mounting with a TA31!  I will edit to include that on the top post.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:12:25 PM EDT
The 101 had rejected them as terrible for some of the reasons I gave. They had chosen a dif. sight, but politic's via pressure from picatinny forced them on the that Div., sad but true!
Jack
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:17:45 PM EDT
 Ok, if they rejected them as terrible, this was based on what?  It probably wasn't field experience, given how recent recent the contract was awarded.  If it was lack of field experience, then they couldn't have judged them terrible, just unproven.

Which sight did they want if they did not want this one?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:51:14 PM EDT
The 101 like all front line units train daily and evaluate all gear in very realistic enviroments and scenerios, that's part of their jobs. The had problems with the things I have listed, no if's and's or buts. They are not the only units that rejected them to include the USMC. There are some other units that also got stuck with them besides the 101, whether they liked it or not.
Jack
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:06:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The 101 like all front line units train daily and evaluate all gear in very realistic enviroments and scenerios, that's part of their jobs. The had problems with the things I have listed, no if's and's or buts. They are not the only units that rejected them to include the USMC. There are some other units that also got stuck with them besides the 101, whether they liked it or not.
Jack
View Quote


Again, what sight did they want?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:05:49 PM EDT
Not to disagree, BUT, snagging?  Is it any worse than the rail grabber on the aimpoint?  I have the rifle sitting next to me and in order to snag, I have to find my way past the thumb nuts on the TA58.  The windage knob on the right is not ANY different than what you find on other sights.

Once again, what parts are breaking.  

And what "ramp" are you talking about?  The "wings" which protect it?  Jack this thing is made out of steel, it is not as fragile as you make it sound.  I suspect the KAC 300m will break faster than this one will, just by the fact that the "stalk" is longer.  

Yes, and which BUIS are they using/want?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:08:53 PM EDT
Probably the part that adjust elevation.  I guess they went with the KAC 300M?
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:21:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The aperature post has been breaking near the bottom.
View Quote


Jack, sorry, I missed this.

Ok, wouldn't the KAC be just as prone to this?  
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 5:10:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TNRonin:
Not to disagree, BUT, snagging?  Is it any worse than the rail grabber on the aimpoint?  I have the rifle sitting next to me and in order to snag, I have to find my way past the thumb nuts on the TA58.  The windage knob on the right is not ANY different than what you find on other sights.

Once again, what parts are breaking.  

And what "ramp" are you talking about?  The "wings" which protect it?  Jack this thing is made out of steel, it is not as fragile as you make it sound.  I suspect the KAC 300m will break faster than this one will, just by the fact that the "stalk" is longer.  

Yes, and which BUIS are they using/want?
View Quote


I agree on all points and here is why I think it is stronger than the KAC 300.

Let me clarify this, "stalk" or "sight bar" cannot be considerable longer.  Just can't, because both sights need to mate up with a standard sight height.  Maybe it is longer, but I don't have one to play with right now.

The sight bar of the KAC 300 and the US Army issue are about the same size.  US Army is steel, I don't know what the KAC is, allow I think it is also steel, but I really don't know.  The deal is that the KAC 300 sight bar is just a bar on a pivot with a stop to push it forward against.  So does the US Army issue.  BUT, the US Army issue has some forward give to it because of the BDC mechanism.  So with a sight bar of comparable strength, the sight that is going to last longer is the one that has some give to it, everything else ignored.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 10:24:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 10:26:51 AM EDT by TNRonin]
I think this is one of those, "I'm not jesting and don't call me shirley" things.  I meant to say the stalk on the KAC is longer and IIRC somewhat thinner.  

I really like the unsolicited Army BUIS because you get the elevation ability.  

Edited to add:  I have a friend in Baghdad that is a CWO in the 101st, I have asked him to look into this BUIS and get me some real info from the front lines.  When I first saw these, the 101st had already deployed and I suspect they were just about to get them.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:28:01 PM EDT
Got the NSN on this critter?

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:45:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 12:54:25 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By Chuck:
Got the NSN on this critter?

-- Chuck
View Quote


Yep, sure do.  From the one page of photo-copied intructions inside each bag with the sight.

BACKUP IRON SIGHT (BUIS)
PN 12996812
NSN 1005-01-484-8000

I have one in hand now, so any in-depth questions can be answered.

*edit*

[url=http://www.iso-parts.com/Public/Search_NSN_Results.aspx?NSN=1005014848000]NSN search[/url]

It doesn't really say anything, except "rear, sight".
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 12:58:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 1:01:18 PM EDT by FREEFALLE6]
I have both it and the Knights 300M BUIS. I like the knights 300M BUIS Better. The new one just takes up too much space IMO.
        FREE
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:07:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FREEFALLE6:
I have both it and the Knights 300M BUIS. I like the knights 300M BUIS Better. The new one just takes up too much space IMO.
        FREE
View Quote


Can't really refute that.  Of course it is going to be bigger, but it doesn't really take up any room that was being used anyways.

A sight bar with a windage knob and a mounting screw should be smaller than a sight bar, spring, windage knob, elevation cam, and mounting screw.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 2:21:41 PM EDT
The more room a sight takes up on the rear of the rail, the furthur away the Monocular, ACOG, NODS, etc. have to be pushed away from the eye, not good. The KAC 300 meter at least has the ability to have a large aperature by pushing out that tiny little pc. of plasic and hopefully can be found again. The #40 from ARMS is what they had chosen according to my sources.
Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 10:09:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
The more room a sight takes up on the rear of the rail, the furthur away the Monocular, ACOG, NODS, etc. have to be pushed away from the eye, not good. The KAC 300 meter at least has the ability to have a large aperature by pushing out that tiny little pc. of plasic and hopefully can be found again. The #40 from ARMS is what they had chosen according to my sources.
Good shootin, Jack
View Quote



The aperature on these sights is the [b]same size[/b] as the small aperature on a M16A2 flip leaf.  However as the sight bar is thicker, the dish is also deeper.  Minor difference that does not affect anything in use.

 Again, with both eyes open, there is no issue with "finding the hole"  because the sight is "ghosted" and focus is on the front sight post.  I personally cannot tell a difference in speed/ease of lining the sights up with a standard A2 sight leaf using big hole/small hole.  However, if having both eyes open is a problem for you, then get a sight with a larger aperature and it should help.  One of the largest aperature sights that is also closer to the eye would be the CAT sights by DPMS.  If you have problems with keeping both eyes open and "ghosting" then having the sight both larger and closer to your eye should help.  The design is solid, they [b]lock up[/b], are fast to bring up, and are low profile.  I know a place were I can get them for $85.

Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:00:22 PM EDT
What I'm refering to is the length of the sight base and amount the rat trap takes up in the use of cross nothches. The way it is set up, it causes you to loose two notches for practical attachment towards the rear, two spacers more than what the #40 and KAC 300 meter folders use.
Jack
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:17:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 6:23:04 PM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
What I'm refering to is the length of the sight base and amount the rat trap takes up in the use of cross nothches. The way it is set up, it causes you to loose two notches for practical attachment towards the rear, two spacers more than what the #40 and KAC 300 meter folders use.
Jack
View Quote


Jack, let me just make sure that I read this right.  [b]Two[/b] cross notches to the [b]rear[/b]?  [b]Rear[/b] meaning [i]toward[/i] the [b]charging handle[/b]?  I just want to be sure that I am understanding this correctly?
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 7:01:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
What I'm refering to is the length of the sight base and amount the rat trap takes up in the use of cross nothches. The way it is set up, it causes you to loose two notches for practical attachment towards the rear, two spacers more than what the #40 and KAC 300 meter folders use.
Jack
View Quote


Jack this is really starting to get old.  First it is breaking.  Well, I hate to tell ya this but the device is made of STEEL, or some sort of metal that magnets are attracted to.  I have NO doubt that KAC will break BEFORE this one will.  How much more will it break with the forward flex, versus say the KAC 300m which has no flex?

Then it "snags", well shit, compared to the two knobs for the TA58 it is a dream come true to not get snagged on crap.  And looking at the ONE IN HAND, I don't see how any strap can snag, on it.

Then it will accidently pop up.  Won't the ARMS & KAC "accidently" pop up as well if snagged correctly?

The sight uses the LAST groove on the A4 receiver, NO MORE.  It partially covers the other one but has NO impact on mounting my TA-31F, and going back ONE notch is not going to make or break this site.  Wow, one more notch than the KAC, what were the manufacturers thinking!  To hear you talk it takes up 3 notches which is not the case. The stalk/apeture does not extend past the end of the receiver.  I don't get where you are saying it consumes more space than the KAC, it is taller, and that is not an issue with the ACOG, nor the reflex I had previously.  I still have two notches available on the rail.  I will concede that it takes up more room maybe .5", but I will also state that I believe it is a better sight than the KAC 300m for durability (steel) and usefulness (elevation).  Especially for the price.

It's beginning to sound like you have never handled one, and are merely repeating what you have heard from some other nay sayers.  Would you please indicate who the nay sayers are, who are your sources?  

This is beginning to sound like a vanilla versus chocolate thing.  

I have a friend that is in Baghdad in the 101st, he is a C.W.O., I have him making inquiries.

And in all honesty, if they say it is crap, then I'll believe it.  I just will remember NOT to take into the desert with me.  If it won't allow the mounting of the optics (red-dot, NV), then I guess IF I have that much $$ sunk in the gear, I'll get the ARMS #40.  But for what I'm using it for, and for what it is being used locally for, it fits the tix nicely.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:47:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 10:23:45 AM EDT by 123whisper]
[url=http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/109359/6.jpg][b]INSTRUCTION SHEET(99K)[/b][/url]

Disregard the spots, the sight comes pre-lubricated and some of it finds its way to the intruction sheet.


Jack, I really don't understand what you are saying about two notches.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 10:24:53 AM EDT
I agree with everything said by TNRonin. I just don't see anything you are talking about happening to near the extent you are saying Jack.

The aperature post breaks off at the bottom. I am currently sitting here with the sight in one hand, and smacking the open sight bar into the palm of my other hand. I just don't see it happening. This sight is solid and made of steel.

Sticks, sand, debris isn't going to get in underneath the sight unless it is first raised to 600 meters. At the 200 meter setting, the sight sits flush with the base. And how is a stick going to get in underneath anyways? With an optic mounted back against the sight, it is going to be a very small stick, and a very slim chance that it will thread its way back underneath it. Sand will fall out when the rifle is pointed muzzle down. Again, just common sense, after shooting at 600 meters, the sight should be put back down to the 200 meter position so you don't shoot over any close targets.

The BDC lever area is very open, sand isn't going to stay. Any stick that gets in there would almost have to be pushed in by someone. In anycase, it would be easy to pop the twig out.

I don't know where your information came from, but try as I might, I just can't see the truth in it.


Link Posted: 11/25/2003 2:46:48 PM EDT
From the looks of every single weapon I've seen pictured on this site, dirt, twigs and abuse of any kind is not an issue.  I seriously doubt the weapons of our esteemed members see maltreatment of any kind.  If you are dropping 500-1000 bucks on an M-4, the last thing you are going to do is drop it in sand, IMT with it, throw it in a vehicle (without it being in a padded case).  So the argument about its breaking and snagging gear is moot.  99.9999999% of AR-15.com memeber M-4's will only see the inside of a case and the range.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:33:23 PM EDT
"Life is hard, it's harder when you're stupid." John Wayne, Sands of Iwo Jima
View Quote


C'mon, did he really say that?  Sounds like him though.  

Thanks for the input.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:00:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 101ABN327:
From the looks of every single weapon I've seen pictured on this site, dirt, twigs and abuse of any kind is not an issue.  I seriously doubt the weapons of our esteemed members see maltreatment of any kind.  If you are dropping 500-1000 bucks on an M-4, the last thing you are going to do is drop it in sand, IMT with it, throw it in a vehicle (without it being in a padded case).
View Quote


Not me, I have one rifle that has seen everything you list in the past 3 days, minus the sand.  Of course, it was a Mosin-Nagant, but a really good one for $70.  I have also completely submerged one of my pistols.  Of course, I detail stripped it and cleaned it afterwards.  I never plan on selling any firearm I own, so everything is just character marks!

Although originally applied in a much different context, the first one costs ya, but the rest are free also applies to scratches on guns.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 11:10:35 PM EDT
The sight looks good to me.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 8:30:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2003 8:32:25 AM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By Buey:
The sight looks good to me.
View Quote


They feel good in person too.  The tick*tick*tick of the BDC cam.  The solid but non-abusive snap of the sight leaf flying up.  The click*click*click of the windage knob.  Everything is very solid.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 12:10:22 PM EDT
Just from looking at this sight you can tell two things,

1 It is going to be a lot quicker than KAC 600M to adjust for range,

2 the aperature is poorer quality for match use (no sun shade)


[b]It seems like the Army made the mistake of issueing a 600M sight to 300m shooters.  If these were used by snipers they probably wouldn't be having as many problems with the sight. (the snipers are less likely to be dropping their rifles in the sand, or leaving aperatures up [given they would probably have been trained not to].)[/b]

My issue with KAC is that it has ajustments that allign with the side of the rifle, not the rear.  That means every ajustment requires the shooter to look at the side of the rifle.  This sight should be faster and has clearer markings for range (in white as oppoed to stampings in the steel of KAC.)
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 12:45:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Green0:
Just from looking at this sight you can tell two things,

1 It is going to be a lot quicker than KAC 600M to adjust for range,

2 the aperature is poorer quality for match use (no sun shade)


[b]It seems like the Army made the mistake of issueing a 600M sight to 300m shooters.  If these were used by snipers they probably wouldn't be having as many problems with the sight. (the snipers are less likely to be dropping their rifles in the sand, or leaving aperatures up [given they would probably have been trained not to].)[/b]

My issue with KAC is that it has ajustments that allign with the side of the rifle, not the rear.  That means every ajustment requires the shooter to look at the side of the rifle.  This sight should be faster and has clearer markings for range (in white as oppoed to stampings in the steel of KAC.)
View Quote


GreenO, your post makes a lot of sense.  It is MUCH faster to click this sight up or down than it would be to turn anything especially in turning back to an appropriate battle zero.  The sunshade idea I had never thought of, but I am sure that the military did not design this for punching paper.  A sunshade would complicate things, reduce light available, and not least, make the sight more expensive to produce.

I don't think there would be an issue with the sight breaking off, but any flip up sight is going to be less durable than a fixed carry handle.  Any piece of equipment is going to last longer with troops that take good care of it and are well-trained.

As for snipers actually using this, maybe, but I doubt it would be at 600 meters.  Can you estimate 600 meters close enough to hit without any sort of range finding optics?  No, and I doubt many in the military can either.  But given the option, I would rather have the option of dialing up long distance, rather than having to estimate, hope the estimate is right, then having to hold over, and hoping my holdover is right.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 6:38:16 PM EDT
The sight fits under an ACOG with a 19S, it does take up a bit more room on the receiver, though it only requires one rail (one closest to the rear in order for the elevation adjustment to work properly).  The stalk is spring mounted, when hit it'll go down and spring back.
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/pae7c0eb054f1232a23a1651f7f820a9b/fa74e8ad.jpg[/img]
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/pb953ab37c1c187783e0d2013eb70f524/fa74e8ae.jpg[/img]
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/p025da4501fde75fc4889dcb49610f545/fa74e5e7.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 6:45:43 PM EDT
Nice pics Duffy!
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:13:11 PM EDT
hehe whisper bet ya can hardly tell the little "incident" I had [:d]
I'm happy with the sight, I think it can use some refinement and trim some unneeded material, for instance the "ears" around the stalk and a better method of attaching to the rail.  I messed up the screw it came with, AND another one I bought from a local hardware store.  I torqued it with the usual amount of pressure as I do the KAC 300M, fortunately I bought a spare just in case [:)]  Don't tighten it as you would with an ARMS or KAC BUIS!  If you do, the thread size is 1/8.  I bought one that's slightly longer, after installation I cut off the protruding part, sanded it down and used a gun blueing solution to darken it, from the pics it hardly shows.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:17:18 PM EDT
Thanks for the pic Duffy. Can you do some comparison for us in sight placment measurements using a KAC 300 meter and ARMS #40, vs. the rat trap?
I did my thing well over a year ago and still remember it actually making the optics go further forward than one more notch. The various mounts out there to include the AIMPOINT, combined with NV, could not all fit on the remaining receiver rail, and the eye relief was unaceptable for many with the NV monoculars and ACOG.
This mon. I can get a chance to do the same thing and give the dim's, but I'd like to see if you get what I do.
Good shootin, Jack  
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:32:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
Thanks for the pic Duffy. Can you do some comparison for us in sight placment measurements using a KAC 300 meter and ARMS #40, vs. the rat trap?
I did my thing well over a year ago and still remember it actually making the optics go further forward than one more notch. The various mounts out there to include the AIMPOINT, combined with NV, could not all fit on the remaining receiver rail, and the eye relief was unaceptable for many with the NV monoculars and ACOG.
This mon. I can get a chance to do the same thing and give the dim's, but I'd like to see if you get what I do.
Good shootin, Jack  
View Quote


Sounds like a good idea Jack.  

I thought that ACOGs were not night vision compatible, or are you refering to some sort of helmet mounted unit?
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:53:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/26/2003 8:02:29 PM EDT by Duffy]
Sowee Jack, I don't have an ARMS 40 [banghead]
But doesn't the ARMS 40 take up the same amount of space, length wise, as the KAC 300/600M?

For this comparison I used a TA31, lest the TA11's front overhang covers the pic taken from above.  The TA31 is on the rifle with the Army's BUIS, the TA01NSN is on the rifle with a KAC 300M.  Both ACOGs are sitting on ARMS 19S, mounted as close to the BUIS as possible.

First, TA31 + Army BUIS.  Available rails left on the upper receiver: 2.
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/p60051cafb8b76353ddb96e01027902b4/fa74c9b2.jpg[/img]

Second, TA01NSN + KAC 300M.  Available rails left on the upper receiver: 3.
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/p6bbd5cd0af9dfd07ae2297f7c73593fb/fa74c9b6.jpg[/img]

Third, a top shot of both rifles.  TA01NSN + KAC 300M on LEFT, and TA31 + Army BUIS on RIGHT.
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/pb049e1e93372e7fa9a0f78241d120fdf/fa74c9b0.jpg[/img]

And fianlly, from an angle.
[img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid90/pfe055f2624ed442857dc99713de7f9af/fa74c2d2.jpg[/img]

So the Army BUIS leaves the user with one less available rail.  With a short eye relief optic such as TA01NSN, TA31 and such, it'll be now further forward from the shooter's eyes.
Link Posted: 11/26/2003 7:58:24 PM EDT
123 wisper
Two dif. things. The NV I refer to are the dif. monoculars that get droped in behind optic's like the issue AIMpoint. NV monoculars are able to be helmet or weapon mounted. When on a weapon it is always inportant to get the NV device as far back as practicle so the eye can close with the cup, so light does not give away the soldiers positon. The smaller body length standard issue ACOG is not as long to the rear as the one in the picture and is more forward and away from the eye that the one pictured, hence eye relief is poorer with the ranging fold down sight. If you hit the sight wrong it will not pop up, it locks down and you have to release it again. The #40 always sprung back if pushed thru brush, etc.
Jack
 
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top