AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/13/2011 9:01:44 PM EDT
Well, I guess I'm a bit to hard on stuff. I managed to break off my MUBS rear sight. Completely my fault. I hit the protective wings on the bench when I was moving from kneeling to standing.
|
I would bet that even a fixed UTG is much more durable than plastic sights. I will continue to drag my rifles through Magpul catalogs, but I would NEVER trust plastic sights. If every plastic part on my rifle broke, I could still aim and fire it. To clarify the mags aren't part of the rifle . My 20 pmags stay!
Just saying. 
|
|
its not your fault. any decent sight can handle that. ive sent one back to magpul and after that never really trusted them.
for 139 at primary arms you can get a set of YHM qds sights or for around 150-180 you can get a set of troys. magpul sights are not suitable for hard use. |
|
Yea, the argument that just because Magpul plastic mags are ultra reliable does not mean that every single component of an AR is a suitable candidate for plastic as a material. To put the argument to the extreme and to prove a point, how many of you would fire your AR if its chamber or barrel was made out of plastic???
The PMAGs are in fact very well designed and their shape, thickness, follower makes them very strong and dependable, certainly compared to those flimsy aluminum mags. The BUIS on the other hand sticks out and is a candidate to get slammed pretty hard and with a lot of torque as the OP found out. IMHO, this is not a reliable part when it is made of plastic. |
|
Quoted:
IDK. That sort of looks like damage from over tightening the screw to me. If you going from kneeling to standing & hit the site on the bench, it would to a top hit. Those pieces look like the bottom of the site. I'm not getting how it broke. The sight was folded and the AR was to my side as I was doing pistol drills. The way it caught was at a slight angle so it pretty much peeled the sight from the back to the front breaking the mounting points. As for sending it to Magpul, I'm not going to. As I already stated this was MY FAULT not a defect in manufacturing. So I would not feel comfortable asking them to replace it. I just made this posting just to show that yes the sights are cheap and useful but they do come at a price of durability. As for what will replace them on my rifle I don't know yet. |
|
Quoted:
Well did you return the sight to Magpul? Did they replace it? Inquiring minds would like to know... Right above your post. As for sending it to Magpul, I'm not going to. As I already stated this was MY FAULT not a defect in manufacturing. So I would not feel comfortable asking them to replace it. I just made this posting just to show that yes the sights are cheap and useful but they do come at a price of durability. |
|
Quoted:
They're plastic man. They aren't made to hold up to much, that's why they are cheap. Yip, sometimes you buy something that is lighter and they actually cost you more. The reason then is because they are specialized gear made to save weight but does not require you to give up durability, for those that race any type of vehicle, you know this well. The Magpul sights are meant to be for people who does not want to pay $200 for a set of BUIS, and you get what you pay for and that is not knocking Magpul - expecting to get the same quality and durability at a much reduced price is not reasonable regardless of what they are made out of. |
|
They could have been overtightened when installed, which could have caused a crack that predisposed it to this breakage––I'm just saying there's a lot to rule out before saying "polymer sucks get Troy ::echo:: Troy, Troy, Troy." True it's harder to overtighten a Troy, but properly installed maybe the Magpuls would hold up to almost as much; maybe the Troy would bend and you wouldn't know you had an issue until you needed it (unlike the Magpul's which gave instant feedback in this case).
Magpul would make it right but the OP thinks breaking a piece of equipment designed to take the very abuse he gave it was his fault, so he's gonna let it remain broken. That sounds good, but I'm not sure the logic is good. It's fine to post your experience, but why not let the company do what Troy does when their sights break (though with their super popularity and higher cost, the vast majority of Troy owners may (a) not use them that them hard on the occasional trip out of the safe, and/or (b) be more careful with them than they would with a $40 sight). That's not to say there aren't people abusing the hell out of their Troys with no problems––of course, there are people knocking around Magpuls with no problems too...and I wonder if there aren't more of the latter (based on the affordability, I'm thinking there might be a whole lot more Magpuls out there than Troys––even though almost all of the former would love to trade up to the Troy if they could)...more out there would also skew perception, since generally the negatives get more attention (though we've all read of super happy Magpul BUIS users). I got no dog in the fight, but I shoot once a month and my ARMS 40L doesn't get much abuse and hardly any use under the TAC30 or behind the XPS (though the AK gets more use than the AR anyway)...I'd gladly go polymer if I could make $5 and the sights were the same size/height––I'd take a #71L+$40 for my 40L any day. Maybe magpul isn't there yet, but we all know they're an innovative company––and, historically, polymer gets dogged at first, then accepted...like with those cheap plastic glocks...the whold shell is made of plastic, so they're obviously not durable––why not just make the barrel plastic too? ;o) I mean, I've seen several polymer Glock Kaboom pics online but no Kimber 1911 Kaboom pics; of course, for every one Kimber 1911, there are 2000+ glocks out there. And maybe I've seen pics of 4 of the 5 kabooms that have happened in 20+ years. I'll still take the cheaper polymer non-durable gun over the pricier, prettier steel thing any day...and I'll win the torture reliability test every time as long as it's just hard use and shooting...the vice-squeeze competition will go to Kimber. ETA: Yeah, I agree about leading a patrol...that logic is fair. But if you're mostly practicing in your garage and shooting paper, and waiting around for the liberals to come for you in the night, the Magpuls are fine for those on a tight budget. Use them while saving up for something better...chances are you'll have plenty of time to save. The polymer ARMS #70 are milspec and SOCOM bought them up I think––of course, they're reinforced though, so maybe they're tougher. Also, it's true, I do switch out my Glock sights––not because of the material so much as I like straight 8s...and, now, the Trijicon RMR with metal suppressor sights (the front one DID come loose––first time I've ever had a problem with a sight). |
|
Quoted:
They could have been overtightened when installed, which could have caused a crack that predisposed it to this breakage––I'm just saying there's a lot to rule out before saying "polymer sucks get Troy ::echo:: Troy, Troy, Troy." True it's harder to overtighten a Troy, but properly installed maybe the Magpuls would hold up to almost as much; maybe the Troy would bend and you wouldn't know you had an issue until you needed it (unlike the Magpul's which gave instant feedback in this case). Magpul would make it right but the OP thinks breaking a piece of equipment designed to take the very abuse he gave it was his fault, so he's gonna let it remain broken. That sounds good, but I'm not sure the logic is good. It's fine to post your experience, but why not let the company do what Troy does when their sights break (though with their super popularity and higher cost, the vast majority of Troy owners may (a) not use them that them hard on the occasional trip out of the safe, and/or (b) be more careful with them than they would with a $40 sight). That's not to say there aren't people abusing the hell out of their Troys with no problems––of course, there are people knocking around Magpuls with no problems either...and I wonder if there aren't more of the latter (based on the affordability, I'm thinking there might be a whole lot more Magpuls out there than Troys––even though almost all of the former would love to trade up to the Troy if they could)...more out there would also skew perception, since generally the negatives get more attention (though we've all read of super happy Magpul BUIS users). I got no dog in the fight, but I shoot once a month and my ARMS 40L doesn't get much abuse and hardly any use under the TAC30 or behind the XPS (though the AK gets more use than the AR anyway)...I'd gladly go polymer if I could make $5 and the sights were the same size/height––I'd take a #71L+$40 for my 40L any day. Maybe magpul isn't there yet, but we all know they're an innovative company––and, historically, polymer gets dogged at first, then accepted...like with those cheap plastic glocks...the whold shell is made of plastic, so they're obviously not durable––why not just make the barrel plastic too? ;o) I mean, I've seen several polymer Glock Kaboom pics online but no Kimber 1911 Kaboom pics; of course, for every one Kimber 1911, there are 2000+ glocks out there. And maybe I've seen pics of 4 of the 5 kabooms that have happened in 20+ years. I'll still take the cheaper polymer non-durable gun over the pricier, prettier steel thing any day. Yeah, but all my polymer Glocks get steel sights of some kind ASAP. Just sayin'....
|
|
Here lies the crux of the problem with this discussion, which is we are looking at this too narrowly i.e. only as black and white. FWIW, I have Troy sights on my AR, but guess what? I also have an XDM and XDSC, both of which are polymer pistols.
The point is this is not about whether “polymer” is good or bad, it is only about whether it is appropriate for a specific situation as a specific product. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with a polymer sight as long as you know that it is not going to be as robust and reliable as a steel sight. Because of this, you should only use it in an appropriate situation. For example, if your AR is only used for target shooting and you use the polymer sights as the aiming apparatus, what can be wrong with that – the answer is absolutely nothing. However, if you are leading a patrol in enemy territory and you ability to aim is critical to the survival of your platoon, then you are probably making a poor choice using a polymer sight. This is specifically why there is something called “Milspec” to prevent people from using inappropriate material and gear in such a situation. Again, there are many parts on a rifle where polymer is good and appropriate i.e. stock, hand guard, grip, etc. They work and work well, and guess what, they are actually “Milspec”, but unfortunately a gun sight is not one of them. So please don't make this a "polymer is bad" discussion. |
| Yip, there is no right solution for everyone. We are likely to have different budgets and also use for our rifles for different purpose, and so no “one size fits all”. The polymer sights have their place, people just have to know what they want/need, and buy the right stuff for their applications. |
AR Sponsor