Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/28/2006 10:29:44 AM EDT
Since it is apparently axiomatic that the closer the sights are to the line of the bore, the better the consistent accuracy, why has no one ever come up with a set of low profile iron sights for the AR? It seems like there is sufficient extra metal in just about every BUIS offering to make it work.

I can naturally seat my cheek down further on the stock so, at least for me, there is room. I don't need the sight line that high.

Therefore, there must be some other reason. I've not been able to find anything in the archives nor have I ever seen the question discussed. With all the other extras we have available and with the popularity of low profile sights on other platforms, it seems curious to me.

Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:15:59 AM EDT
I have no idea why there are no low profile sights or if there are, but with so many different brands on the market, I'm glad they are all fairly compatible with one another. It's one thing that I really don't have to worry about when I start building another rifle.

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 1:18:41 PM EDT
Ar15's straight line stock will make them very hard to use.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 1:22:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Duffy:
Ar15's straight line stock will make them very hard to use.



I'm not sure that's correct but I think it will vary with the shooter. For example, pretend that you didn't have any sights at all...in fact, you could close your eyes to be sure...then pull your AR up to your shoulder with a good cheek weld... like you would with any other rifle...then open your eyes and see where you are looking. I'd almost be willing to bet that for most of us, you'd be at least a quarter of an inch below where the current sight picture is. Perhaps the difference just isn't that much. Maybe that's why. Don't know.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 3:51:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 4:00:42 PM EDT by Duffy]
The AR15 designers must have people like me in mind when they designed the AR10 and AR15...there's about a 2 inch length between the bottom of my cheek bone and the middle of my eye balls, I would find it exceedingly difficult to use sights lower than that and still retain a good cheekweld.

My own experiences include a shottie outfitted with an AR type stock, an M1A outfitted with a Sage stock, and a Remington 700 in AICS with a cheekpiece. All of these weapons in their original forms have a drop in their stocks.
Shottie with AR15 stock: sights way too low. This is the reason some of them have AR sights to go with the stocks, or just use 1x optics.
M1A with Sage: have to move my head so my cheekbone rests on the wired portion of the stock, instead of the cheekpad it came with.
Remy 700 with AICS and AI cheekpiece: had to change my ARMS rings from medium to high to accomodate the addition of the cheekpiece.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:11:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Duffy:
The AR15 designers must have people like me in mind when they designed the AR10 and AR15...there's about a 2 inch length between the bottom of my cheek bone and the middle of my eye balls, I would find it exceedingly difficult to use sights lower than that and still retain a good cheekweld.



I guess that I've got about 1.5 inches from bottom of cheekbone to middle of eye. It's not a big deal. I've gotten used to it and with the EoTech, cheek weld is not that important. I just thought that -- with all of the other accessories out there -- someone might have looked into this before.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 8:32:54 AM EDT
I'm sure, maybe there's not much demand?
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:13:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Duffy:
I'm sure, maybe there's not much demand?



Yeah, that would appear to be pretty obvious since only you and I are having this conversation.

Anyway, thought I'd throw it out for discussion. It isn't as bad as a lot of stuff that shows up here.

Enjoyed the exchange. Thanks.
Top Top