Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/30/2003 5:46:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2003 5:47:51 PM EDT by Radmd]
I am looking for a folding front sight for a 16" shorty. Found the PRI at Ranger.
1. Any feedback on the PRI folding sight? Seems very expensive. Does it work with a removable carry handle rear sight?
2. Are there any rail mount folding front sights and who sells them?
Any Help appreciated

Rad
Link Posted: 10/30/2003 6:34:57 PM EDT
The PRI was selected by the SPEC OPS for the SPR sniper rifle, you can't find a better one as far as I'm concerned either. Your best off, buy not putting the sight on anything but the barrel. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 10/30/2003 6:46:12 PM EDT
PRI is awesome, and yes, it works with the carry handle. Another option is the GG&G. The GG&G does not have the desireable globe hood like the PRI, however, it has other features the PRI does not such as a bayonet lug (if that's your bag), and the capability to mount a sling swivel or rail on the sides. GG&G also makes a flip up front for a gas block with rail, as does Bushmaster (the BMAS unit), and DPMS. Most prefer the PRI unit, but if you want side rails or the bayonet lug, the GG&G is the only option. Also, GG&G generally insists that the barrel be sent to them for installation which can be a drag. You can install the PRI yourself if you are reasonably competant (removing the tower front sight is the difficult part). KAC also makes a flip front sight that is meant to attach to a Free Float handguard rail. While this is unconventional as it will not track with the barrel, neither do rail mounted optics. You can also get a detachable standard sight tower such as the Armalite unit (uses thumb knobs). My recommendation is if you don't need/want the bayonet lug, get the PRI, especially if you are free floating the barrel. If you want the lug, and possibly mount accessories (like a swivel, laser, or a light) to the gas block, get the GG&G.
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 2:59:30 AM EDT
What AK_Mike said... Also the KAC front sight is a bitch to get up in a hurry, its baisically impossible. The PRI would be better if the button was on the other side IMO and the GG&G is fast to get up but its no match for the PRI once its up as far as the sight picture. Also realise the PRI wont work with those combo front sight tools Bushmaster sells. You need one of the thin ones to get it to fit in the hood notch. Also consider this... you will never, ever use the bayonete lug for its intended role. Consider that before making your decision.
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 4:06:31 AM EDT
Apprecuate for the comparision and information on the PRI sight. Anyone have a photo of what the sight picture is through the large and small appearature of the ARMs #40 or the KAC 300 (for when the ARMs #40 does not fit [;)]? Was wondering how the outer ring appears in comparision to HKs? Thanks again John
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 4:21:56 AM EDT
The #40 works with the PRI front sight, that's what the gov't also issued. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 4:09:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/31/2003 4:12:53 PM EDT by Radmd]
Where is th ebest place to buy a PRI? Also can it be installed on a barrel with a permanant muzzle break ie the RRA brake or does it have to slide over the muzzle?
Link Posted: 10/31/2003 4:29:18 PM EDT
There is an advertisment on top of These pg's every few minutes I think, from mounting solutions plus I believe, that shows a PRI sight in the add. Jack
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 2:27:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/2/2003 2:31:36 AM EDT by Radmd]
Thanks for the Info. Now a new problem. I was going to change a new 16 shorty to a gas block with rail before the brake was installed. Thought I had plenty of time. Order has already shipped:):( Is there any way to get a PRI or other flip up mounted now? I am assuming the PRI cannot be opened enough to slip over the barrel. I have heard of 2 piece gas blocks with rails but never seen one. I have seen bushmaters clamp on (Clamps over their varmit gas block). I guess I could grind down the original sight base to the profile of their varmit gas block (Like they do). Or does any one sell a flip up with a 2 piece base. Any suggestions appreciated. Rad
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 5:05:37 AM EDT
OH OH,I think you f'd up the plan!
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:33:24 AM EDT
I think that pretty much says it. All of a sudden that front sight doesn't look so bad after all:) Well alternate plan? How does an ARM 45 attach?
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:47:18 AM EDT
The SIR's all come in either the M or C version. The M you can easily remove the Alum delta ring assembly by cutting the alum. coller with a dremel tool, about 15 min. time to install. The C versions do not require the delta ring to be removed. About 10 min. to install. Both have been simple to install and do come with a pretty god instalation manual. in color yet. It is a real nice set up. I'd go with one of the slim lines and you can see the various models at various advertisers here. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 6:53:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/2/2003 6:54:00 AM EDT by Radmd]
hey jack Can either of them be installed with the front sight still attached. My question I quess is if the C uses the delta ring is it a clam shell or does it slip over the muzzle like a free float handguard? Sorry for the ignorant questions just never seen one up close or never paid any attention till now. Does ARM have a site? I can find bits and pieces of info at the dealers but not specific installation instructions.
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:01:58 AM EDT
Go to the web. sight of the company that makes them. ARMSMOUNTS.COM, and you can see that the front sight, any front sight works with them and they do not have to be removed or changed. Both the C & M models use the top of the receiver and the standard barrel nut to attach iether version. The C version goes over and in front of the delta ring. It is very, very easy to install, as as been noted even a trained monkey can do it.:-) Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:21:47 AM EDT
Great thanks Jack!! Is there any advantage to the M model? It just looks like more work and would realy make a mess if I had to replace the delta ring to sell the upper without the mount. I saw the 58 midlength but did not see the slim lime versions mentioned. Have you seen this anywhere? Any way I'll search the dealers now that I know it will fit. Thanks Again Rad
Link Posted: 11/2/2003 7:56:51 AM EDT
Anybody have a pic of the Armalite detachable standard front sight tower?? Thanks
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:22:41 AM EDT
Jack, you keep talking about the Govt. selecting your sights. Tell us who? Because I know for a fact that 10th Mountain, 7th group and Delta Blue and Gold teams don't use your products.They use other companies products. And didn't the #40 lose out to GGG's A2 BUIS for adoption by DOJ DEA?
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 8:40:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 9:01:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 1919a4guy: Jack, you keep talking about the Govt. selecting your sights. Tell us who? Because I know for a fact that 10th Mountain, 7th group and Delta Blue and Gold teams don't use your products.They use other companies products. And didn't the #40 lose out to GGG's A2 BUIS for adoption by DOJ DEA?
View Quote
I believe the original SPR had ARMS 40's and PRI flip fronts.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 11:46:28 AM EDT
There seems to be another wanabe kid on here like the recently shut off one from Canada, that doesn't read to well and has a lot of nonsense to demo his ignorance of people and equipment. If I had a sight to sell like he does for the company he works at, I wouldn't be making up dumb statements of his "team", "need to know", "call William at GG&G he is a lot of help", etc, etc. This must be little Willy talking this trash to us. LOL
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 1:42:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Radmd: Thanks for the Info. Now a new problem. I was going to change a new 16 shorty to a gas block with rail before the brake was installed. Thought I had plenty of time. Order has already shipped:):( Is there any way to get a PRI or other flip up mounted now? I am assuming the PRI cannot be opened enough to slip over the barrel. I have heard of 2 piece gas blocks with rails but never seen one. I have seen bushmaters clamp on (Clamps over their varmit gas block). I guess I could grind down the original sight base to the profile of their varmit gas block (Like they do). Or does any one sell a flip up with a 2 piece base. Any suggestions appreciated. Rad
View Quote
Gas block by Yankee Hill. [img]http://members.cox.net/daphotoguy/gb.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.yhm.net/[/url] See this forum message for flip up sight to attach to it. [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=173011&w=searchPop[/url] Not as good a solution as the PRI but hey, gotta use what ya can.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 3:25:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By C4iGrant: You don't work for GG&G do you 1919a4guy? [:D] C4
View Quote
[crickets chirping]
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:00:20 PM EDT
( more like an owl) WHO-WHO? LOL
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:28:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 6:30:50 PM EDT by DevL]
As far as the GGG A2 vs ARMS 40 for rear sights the GG&G locks up in a more solid fashion while the 40 has a spring holding it against a buffer. This has no practical difference in accuracy but the GG&G feels more solid just like the GGG front sight fels more solid than the PRI. The 40 is a TINY bit faster to get up in a hurry. However the 40 has the large aperature up by default and the GGG A2 has the small aperature up by default. The large aperature is better for faster shooting and if you were to need the sight in an emergency the ARMS is better all the way. Also you would have to flip the GGG A2 at night to get to the tritium rears if you use those. Cant beat the PRI front ARMS 40 rear IMO.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 6:59:10 PM EDT
I still don't quite understand why you guys say the sight picture is "better" with the PRI front. You say that lining up the two circles is quicker than lining up a post in a circle. However, I don't see why this is a good thing. The front ring has no relation to actual zero, the front post does. I don't want my eye to be detracted by a ring in the front, I want it to focus on the post immediately. Could someone please educate me as to why you guys consider it better? Thanks.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:10:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wyv3rn: I still don't quite understand why you guys say the sight picture is "better" with the PRI front. You say that lining up the two circles is quicker than lining up a post in a circle. However, I don't see why this is a good thing. The front ring has no relation to actual zero, the front post does. I don't want my eye to be detracted by a ring in the front, I want it to focus on the post immediately. Could someone please educate me as to why you guys consider it better? Thanks.
View Quote
Think of it like the reticle on the Eotech. At close range, do you really think you're going to use the 1 MOA dot? Of course not, you're going to use the 65 MOA circle. You'll use the 1 MOA dot for longer distances where you can focus more on alignment. I just installed a PRI and I can tell you that the dual rings are very fast. It'll be much more effective at close range than the aperture and post will be. At close range, it will be plenty accurate to get minute of torso. Then at longer ranges you can disregard the ring and focus on the post. Think about the standard FSB. Do you really think your eye doesn't try to center the whole thing ears, post, and all? Of course it does, but you're focusing on the post so it doesn't matter.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:12:56 PM EDT
The POI is on the tip of the post when the circles are alligned. The rings have everything to do with the POI why would they not? I dont understand what you dont get? The circles allign more naturally and faster and with more precision than centering the post alone. If you allign the circles and put the tip where the POI is and shoot by centering the tip in the circle instead of centering the circles youd be pretty dense. The difference is minicule anyway, its practically the same but the circle hooded front is faster and more precise.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 7:49:15 PM EDT
Let me say it another way. SPEED vs DISTANCE. SPEED=CIRCLE CLOSE IN. DISTANCE=TIME TO CIRCLE-POINT PRECISE AIM.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 8:43:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/4/2003 9:05:39 PM EDT by wyv3rn]
Originally Posted By DevL: The POI is on the tip of the post when the circles are alligned. The rings have everything to do with the POI why would they not? I dont understand what you dont get?
View Quote
Because the post isn't necessarily in the middle of the ring. It might be adjusted into the upper 3/4 of the ring, or the lower 1/4. It all depends on the POI the rifle shoots to. The rifle won't necessarily shoot to the point the rings align to. Edited: The center of the rings aren't going to necessarily at the exact same height, and they aren't adjustable with a flip-up BUIS. This is why the post might be up or down and not centered in the front ring. As far as speed, I just don't see how it can be that much faster? You are still aligning 3 things (ring, post, target or ring, ring, target). I can snap a rifle into my shoulder and be on target in a fraction of a second. Only a TINY fraction of that fraction is spent aligning the sights, most of it is spent getting the rifle up. I just don't see where there is any time to shave. How much faster are we talking about in practical terms and is the loss in accuracy really worth it? Edited: Actually, for the most part, when I snap in the sights are already aligned (muscle & cheekweld memory) and it's a matter of getting the post on target if anything. I understand how a red dot can be faster, you only have 2 things to line up -- dot on target. In reality even it is only a tiny fraction of a second faster, but in battle that's an eternity. On top of that, there's no loss in accuracy, possibly even an increase in accuracy. It just seems the two rings would be "a fraction of a fraction of a fraction" with a great possibility for loss of accuracy. At intermediate to longer distances (100-300 yards) it's probably "a fraction of a fraction" slower as your eyes try to line up the two rings first before focusing on the front post. As for trying to center the entire standard A2 assembly, I don't think my eyes do that. I'm focusing on the post 100% and your eyes tend to focus on a center object and further more, they tend to ignore objects bend off in out-turned directions. If I recall correctly from what I read somewhere, this is why the ears have a curvature and aren't just pointed at a straight angle outward. Please don't take this offensively, I'm trying to understand. I've never had the chance to handle a firearm with dual rings.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 8:50:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By wyv3rn:
Originally Posted By DevL: The POI is on the tip of the post when the circles are alligned. The rings have everything to do with the POI why would they not? I dont understand what you dont get?
View Quote
Because the post isn't necessarily in the middle of the ring. It might be adjusted into the upper 3/4 of the ring, or the lower 1/4. It all depends on the POI the rifle shoots to. The rifle won't necessarily shoot to the point the rings align to. As far as speed, I just don't see how it can be that much faster? You are still aligning 3 things (ring, post, target or ring, ring, target). I can snap a rifle into my shoulder and be on target in a fraction of a second. Only a TINY fraction of that fraction is spent aligning the sights, most of it is spent getting the rifle up. I just don't see where there is any time to shave. How much faster are we talking about in practical terms and is the loss in accuracy really worth it? I understand how a red dot can be faster, you only have 2 things to line up -- dot on target. In reality even it is only a tiny fraction of a second faster, but in battle that's an eternity. It just seems the two rings would be "a fraction of a fraction of a fraction" with a great possibility for loss of accuracy. At intermediate to longer distances (100-300 yards) it's probably "a fraction of a fraction" slower as your eyes try to line up the two rings first before focusing on the front post. As for trying to center the entire standard A2 assembly, I don't think my eyes do that. I'm focusing on the post 100% and your eyes tend to focus on a center object and further more, they tend to ignore objects bend off in out-turned directions. If I recall correctly from what I read somewhere, this is why the ears have a curvature and aren't just pointed at a straight angle outward. Please don't take this offensively, I'm trying to understand. I've never had the chance to handle a firearm with dual rings.
View Quote
I really can't explain it in any more depth than I did so I'll just say that you should try and get your hands on a rifle with the PRI sight. It really feels more natural and the ring doesn't seem as obtrusive to me.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 9:01:56 PM EDT
I dont have to line up anything but the post on the target, the rings align thmeselves.
Link Posted: 11/4/2003 9:48:38 PM EDT
If you can, try to get hold of an HK type rifle, and take a look through the sights (say perhaps at a gun store). It's something you may have to see to appreciate.
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 5:17:32 AM EDT
Another way to try and explain. Real close in (thier on top of you, instinct shooting) you don't have time or need to aim, shoot from what ever position is fastest to get the job done. Rapid response to nail target/s that isn't/arn't on top of you,but could be, thus you need to quickly get on target/s and hit somewhere on it/them=circle shoot. Final,distance and time to align the front sight post for more pin point accuracy. Jack
Link Posted: 11/5/2003 6:24:45 AM EDT
Well, thanks for trying guys. I guess it's like you said, I'll just have to find a firearm with dual ring apertures and try it out. Thank you again, hope I didn't frusterate you too much. [:)]
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 3:48:18 PM EDT
I was looking at the pictures of the PRI with 2 screws. Is there an advantage to not using the sight tower holes for alignment? Other than the rare misaligned barrel. It seems to me the original attatchment method with maybe 2 aditional screws would be the most secure method. I looked at my RRA muzzle break it is only slightly larger than my .750 barrel any thoughts on getting a PRI over the break or would ths stress the sight clamp to much. Rad
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 5:01:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2003 5:02:02 PM EDT by JTinIN]
Originally Posted By wyv3rn: Well, thanks for trying guys. I guess it's like you said, I'll just have to find a firearm with dual ring apertures and try it out.....
View Quote
IMO almost worst than that, as you really need to try it out at speed when you are almost not looking at the sights (at least not with all of your attention as you would be when just looking at the gun ... if that makes sense). Which makes a good reason to attend your "local" subgun match and try out one of the MP5s (there are always MP5 at a subgun match) When leads into my question [;)]... looking at making a nice flat top 9mm subgun upper, possible with a folding front sight ... any experence with the PRI on the 9mm and some type of appearature rear (thinking of an ARMS #40 with the small apperature milled out to 2/3 ghost ring size for distance ... in the 9mm world that would be 75+ yards).
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 5:12:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Radmd: I was looking at the pictures of the PRI with 2 screws. Is there an advantage to not using the sight tower holes for alignment? Other than the rare misaligned barrel. It seems to me the original attatchment method with maybe 2 aditional screws would be the most secure method. I looked at my RRA muzzle break it is only slightly larger than my .750 barrel any thoughts on getting a PRI over the break or would ths stress the sight clamp to much. Rad
View Quote
I think they avoided using the original taper pin holes because there is too much variation in the location of these holes. The original PRI sight required you to mill out two slots in the bottom of the barrel which most were not willing to do. Now they offer two alternatives that are very easy to install. I think the best alternative would be to leave the bottom of the sight without holes so that holes could be drilled to match the taper pin holes on the barrel. Then the sight could be attached with taper pins.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 7:58:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JTinIN: When leads into my question [;)]... looking at making a nice flat top 9mm subgun upper, possible with a folding front sight ... any experence with the PRI on the 9mm and some type of appearature rear (thinking of an ARMS #40 with the small apperature milled out to 2/3 ghost ring size for distance ... in the 9mm world that would be 75+ yards).
View Quote
So are you thinking of just making the small aperature bigger than normal? I believe that the Ashley Outdoors makes what your are looking for. It is a same plane aperture. That means that there is no elevation difference between the two. The sideways movement on the windage screw is also compensated for. http://www.expresssights.com/tactical_sights.html Of course, it is $30 for a sight aperture. You could buy a few standard ones and experiment with them for that price. As far as being for 75+ yards, remember that on an AR, the sights are 2.6 inches above the bore. With that type of difference, a person can zero at 35 yards with a 9mm and be good to go from 25 out to 75+. Just a guess though.
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 8:31:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2003 8:34:53 PM EDT by JTinIN]
The $30 dollars spent on a [url=http://www.expresssights.com/tactical_sights.html]XS Sights[/url] sounds like a good option. [img]http://www.expresssights.com/images/tactical_sights_05.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.expresssights.com/images/tactical_sights_06.jpg[/img] Was thinking of two zero points, one that would be close for 25 yards for matches (in theory would go with 50 yards but the Indiana Subgun Match "bunch" came up with the little bells last year and have to sight fairly close) and the second would be what ever the other half of the sight was. The 50 yard zero maybe good enough for the steel targets and the two apperatures do allow a choice at closer ranges (I tend to use the MP5K-PDW with the 2nd from largest appearature)
Link Posted: 11/9/2003 8:58:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Radmd: I was looking at the pictures of the PRI with 2 screws. Is there an advantage to not using the sight tower holes for alignment? Other than the rare misaligned barrel. It seems to me the original attatchment method with maybe 2 aditional screws would be the most secure method. I looked at my RRA muzzle break it is only slightly larger than my .750 barrel any thoughts on getting a PRI over the break or would ths stress the sight clamp to much. Rad
View Quote
Well the holes are all differnt as already stated. The advantage to the 4 set screw for me is even though they dont go IN the holes for the taper pins they go in the slots where the taper pin holes are and secure to the bit of barel material that covered the taper pin holes. The PRI set screws are lower by about an 1/8 of an inch than my taper pins. This means once torqued down the set scews eliminate a side to side shift by being setagaints some barrel steel. The dual screw mount eliminates the problem of having to get all the screws to set up and maintain alignment aginst the holes they only partially insert into. The older 2 screw version that went through the holes had to have the barrel modified to have the sight attached. This new 2 screw version is by far the easiest to attach. By bypassing the taper pin holes all together its a definate at home project and requires no gunsmithing other than the possible removal of a pined or welded brake/flash hider. I was smart and put mine on BEFORE having my flash hider permamnently attached. Remeber though if you already have a permanantly attached devise it can still be removed. If you were going to go with a different brake then thats when I would go with the new front sight too. I would not suggest trying to stretch the front sight base to get it over a muzzle devise. Its lowe portion is steel and does not "stretch" very easily.
Top Top