New Irons Inbound

[NH Shooter]

I've been running irons-only on my 16" BCM rifle, of the Daniel Defense fixed type. Very nice sights but I've been wanting to try something different. The fact that I may sometime soon roll with one of the new green dot MROs in an absolute co-witness mount also factored in. So today I placed an order for the following;

31832

I've always been a fan of the H&K style sights. When I found this PRI with a thumbwheel adjustment, I decided to look for a rear that would compliment it and satisfy my requirements;


folding for use with a dot optic (I prefer the rear out of my line of sight)
simple post construction that provides an unobstructed view as opposed to the blocky ear-type



Midwest Industries recently introduced their Combat Rifle sights, the rear just what I was looking for;

31833

This sight features a single aperture of .145" in size, compared to the .07" and .2" apertures of a standard A2 rear sight. This seems like it will be a perfect compromise for fast target acquisition while maintaining reasonable precision at longer distances. The post style construction will give an unobstructed FOV and in combination with the PRI front, provide the H&K style circle-in-a-circle sight alignment.

Additionally, I want to experiment with using only the front sight for engagements of about 50 feet or less, with the stock fully collapsed on an A5 buffer (11" LOP). I believe in conjunction with consistent cheek weld, using the front sight only should be wicked fast with suitable accuracy. I shall see...

Modern American Sporting Muskets are money pits but can be a lot of fun!

[rob_s]

I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Whenever I tried a fully-shrouded front sight like that I struggled with my eye wanting to center the circles even thought the tip of the sight is actually what moves, so that may or may not wind up in the center of the circle after zeroing.

I believe the original HK sights had a front sight that included the post and a circle in one piece that floated in the front, so that when done zeroing the circles were still centered as well.

[NH Shooter]

I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Whenever I tried a fully-shrouded front sight like that I struggled with my eye wanting to center the circles even thought the tip of the sight is actually what moves, so that may or may not wind up in the center of the circle after zeroing.

I believe the original HK sights had a front sight that included the post and a circle in one piece that floated in the front, so that when done zeroing the circles were still centered as well.

Having the post tip remain in the absolute center of the shroud would be ideal. Centurion Arms makes (or made) the sight construction you describe, but with an open top.

Of course the post always remains centered from side-to-side with the PIR, and where the tip of the post ends up vertically for elevation will also depend on the "hold" over the target.

The other factor that won't be known until the sights are actually mounted is the amount of daylight around the front sight shroud as viewed through the .145" aperture. Based on what I see through the two A2 apertures at the current 18.2" sight radius, I think it should be about right. Of course it also depends on the distance from the eye to the aperture, which can be somewhat manipulated with stock LOP.

In use, simply "aligning the circles" and ignoring the post will be the technique I will try for the close-to-intermediate range shots (can't define that range until I actually try it, but perhaps 20 to 50 yards), and use the post for greater precision and/or longer range. What I'm really interested in experimenting with is using the front sight only (rear flipped down, normal cheek weld) for engagements of up to about 50 feet. In combo with a WML to provide contrast, I think this arrangement could work well for in-house defensive purposes.

I'll update this thread with what I find.

[That Guy]

What I'm really interested in experimenting with is using the front sight only (rear flipped down, normal cheek weld) for engagements of up to about 50 feet. In combo with a WML to provide contrast, I think this arrangement could work well for in-house defensive purposes.


I always meant to eventually, one day, once I have the money for it, mount an optic on my AR. So for a rear sight I straight away got one that folds down (Magpul MBUS Pro), even though I knew I'd be using it as my sole sighting system for some time. Shooting with iron sights, during close range drills, I've managed to end up in a situation where my gear has managed to flip that rear sight down sometime prior to beginning the drill, and had to shoot the whole drill with no rear sight. If your targets are full size IPSC Metrics or something similar, I believe you'll find you can do pretty well at close ranges. (Never tried this intentionally, so I haven't tried pushing it and seeing how far away I can still get good hits, but let's say 30 feet and under at least.) However, with a shot that demands more accuracy, like having a no-shoot cover most of the threat target, it's not a really comfortable feeling trying to take that shot...

Never tried it with a WML, but I would definitely not be comfortable using that sighting system for real world use, outside of an emergency situation (like finding your rear sight just plain isn't there any more). Unlike with something like a bead sighted shotgun, where the bead is right above the barrel, that AR front sight is really floating out there in space all by its lonesome. There isn't the same sort of an aiming reference as looking down the barrel of a long gun with less sight offset.

Of course, YMMV. And it's not a bad idea to try shooting without the rear sight just to see what it's like.

[Hunter Rose]

I believe the original HK sights had a front sight that included the post and a circle in one piece that floated in the front, so that when done zeroing the circles were still centered as well.

This is correct. The HK Diopters make all elevation/windage adjustments off the rear sight only. When zeroed, the front sight post will always be in the center of both circles (the whole point for diopter type sights).

It’s why I never understood the Troy HK style sights, since they make adjustments on the front sight post. Looks to be the same issue for the sight the OP posted.

[NH Shooter]

I always meant to eventually, one day, once I have the money for it, mount an optic on my AR.

I've been burning $$ on ARs for about 25 years. In that time I have experimented with three different LPV scopes, a Leupold Prismatic (twice), two different versions of compact ACOGs, an EOTech and the Aimpoint Comp C3 and PRO. Each had its advantages and disadvantages, all were eventually sold.

After all of that experimentation I have settled on the KISS concept: a BCM 16" mid-length ELW upper with a 13" KMR rail and iron sights, on a BCM lower with an A5 buffer assembly, ambi safety and a SSA trigger. Accessories are limited to a sling and a QD WML. I am happier with this arrangement than any other I've tried: light weight, compact, great balance, utterly reliable function with more than adequate accuracy and precision for my needs.

I think the new sight arrangement will be an improvement over the DD irons I am currently using, but I won't know for sure until I spend some time with them. I'll be wringing them out real well in the coming weeks.

[HCM]

This is correct. The HK Diopters make all elevation/windage adjustments off the rear sight only. When zeroed, the front sight post will always be in the center of both circles (the whole point for diopter type sights).

It’s why I never understood the Troy HK style sights, since they make adjustments on the front sight post. Looks to be the same issue for the sight the OP posted.

Your analysis is correct.

[That Guy]

I've been burning $$ on ARs for about 25 years. In that time I have experimented with three different LPV scopes, a Leupold Prismatic (twice), two different versions of compact ACOGs, an EOTech and the Aimpoint Comp C3 and PRO. Each had its advantages and disadvantages, all were eventually sold.

After all of that experimentation I have settled on the KISS concept

Either your eye sight or training conditions must be much better than mine. I'm sure I'm a bit of a sunshine patriot compared to some here, but over the years I have done shooting in the dark, at dusk, in the rain, in heavily overcast, gloomy days... And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind as to the superiority of optical sights in more difficult shooting conditions, compared to iron sights.

I'm sure after a little while with your new MRO, you'll feel the same way. :)

[rob_s]

I'm really interested to try these. I don't know if they are... coplaner? is that the word? When the big hole and the little hole have the same centerline? I recall that being a big deal for me when I was picking irons previously, and I think it's how I wound up with the Troy, or BCM, or something?

https://scalarworks.com/shop/iron-sights/peak-fixed-iron-sights/

https://scalarworks.com/media/iron_sights/ops-fixed/scalarworks_ops_hero.jpg

[NH Shooter]

Rob, they are not. Here is a rear BUIS that is - https://www.gggaz.com/mad-back-up-iron-sight.html

That Guy, no doubt optics offer advantages on the AR platform, the value of which depends on the intended use/application. Of course there's no free lunch, with each optic option comes disadvantages as well.

One thing for certain - we're fortunate to have so many great sighting options available, including irons.

[NH Shooter]

I'm sure after a little while with your new MRO, you'll feel the same way.

This is why I've spent so much on trying all those optics on the AR platform: "Finally, an optic that should be perfect for me!"

Yes, a green dot MRO is tempting. I like green FO sights, so that new $500 optic should be amazing, even if the dot renders as a cluster of green grapes instead of red ones! Got to love astigmatism....

You mentioned that I must have good eyesight - actually quite the opposite. RDS (or GDS) render as globs, leaving me with greater accuracy potential with a good set of irons. Yes, the RDS is faster for target acquisition but if I have time to aim and squeeze, I'm at least as good with irons.

I like LPV scopes, they make me faster and more accurate, but because I never spent two or three grand on one, I was left wanting due to some optical/mechanical/feature shortfall on the sub-$1000 scope I had tried. On top of that (no pun intended) adding another pound or two so far over the bore axis changed the handling/balance of the rifle in a way I did not care for, the additional bulk/weight diminishing the "handy, light-weight" attributes that are of greater value to me in a "carbine."

So yes, I am aware of the advantages of various optic solutions for an AR, but I'm also acutely aware that each of them come with some baggage. For the role the AR carbine serves for me, a good set of irons remains the best option - and at the fraction of the cost of typical top-tier optic solutions it's less painful to experiment.

Just one old guy's POV, fully cognizant that others have undoubtedly arrived at different conclusions.

[WobblyPossum]

Rob, they are not.

Are you sure? The Scalarworks website says the apertures are on the same plane.

[LOKNLOD]

I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Whenever I tried a fully-shrouded front sight like that I struggled with my eye wanting to center the circles even thought the tip of the sight is actually what moves, so that may or may not wind up in the center of the circle after zeroing.

I believe the original HK sights had a front sight that included the post and a circle in one piece that floated in the front, so that when done zeroing the circles were still centered as well.


This was my experience with set of Troy sights with HK-style front once upon a time. Great example of trying to copy a cool feature without really understanding it... I've been avoiding the combo ever since.

[NH Shooter]

No doubt having the tip of the front post perfectly centered vertically within the aligned circles is the most intuitive way to use this style sight picture.

Some say that even if the post is not perfectly centered, it's really just a matter of aligning the circles and then placing the target on top of the post, much as you would place the dot of an RDS on the target without the dot being perfectly centered in the FOV. Maybe not as intuitive, but maybe not a deal-breaker for some either.

I will start with the post adjusted to appear perfectly centered and see where the POI is at 50 yards. If the POI coincides with POA at some distance between 25 and 300 yards (even with some minor elevation tweaks of the post), I think it will be quite workable and just a matter learning the needed hold over/under for other distances. If it's way out, I may need to try something else.

[NH Shooter]

Some say that even if the post is not perfectly centered, it's really just a matter of aligning the circles and then placing the target on top of the post, much as you would place the dot of an RDS on the target without the dot being perfectly centered in the FOV.

The sights are mounted and initial impressions are positive.

I took some measurement with a set of calipers, including height from rail to top of post on the DD sight which was previously adjusted for elevation. Transferring that measurement to the PRI sight, the top of the post is .045" below the vertical center of the hood (the I.D. of the hood is .600"). The post may need to be adjusted upward when I sight it in as the old sights were adjusted with a bit of "six o'clock hold" that I can't seem to shake from my Bullseye days.

Though I can see the .045" when looking at the front sight, it does not seem the least bit distracting when looking through the sights. In fact, the tiny bit of extra room on top of the post seems natural, leaving room for the target.

The MI rear sight is very nice, locking solidly in both the up and folded-down positions. The .145" aperture works well with the .600" I.D. hood of the front sight, leaving plenty of daylight between the two to easily line them up perfectly concentric. I find my eye drawn to the post, not the hood, and focus on the post alignment to target is as intuitive as using an A2 sight. The biggest difference I'm finding is that the concentric circles are easier/faster to align precisely than the A2 front sight through the A2 rear sight.

I will grab a few photos tomorrow and post them. If all goes to plan I will be spending some time at the range with the new sights this coming weekend. At this point I am encouraged these sights will work as planned.

[NH Shooter]

32111
The PRI sight seems well constructed and finished. I do wish the cross-bolt was positioned in the base so that the front of the sight was closer to the end of the rail to maximize sight radius.


32112
With the post height transferred from the sighted-in DDs this set is replacing, the tip of the post measures .045" below the center of the hood opening (.600" I.D.). I had a bit of "six o'clock hold" dialed-in with the DD sights, so the post may end up getting raised a bit more. As is, when viewing through the sights, the post tip slightly under dead-center does not seem to be an issue for me.



32113
Top view. The WML is a 400+ lumen 3P Lego in a QD mount, weighing 6.6 ounces in total. I like being able to easily remove it when not needed.



32114
The MI rear sight. I'm impressed with its construction using steel components and strong detents holding the post in position.


32115

32116
MI rear in the deployed and folded-down positions.


32117
New sights on my KISS BCM. Looking forward to some range time with these new sights!

[Guerrero]

32112

I guess these are supposed to be run "gangsta-style" with the gun canted 90 degrees.









;)

[Chuck Whitlock]

I don't know if they are... coplaner? is that the word? When the big hole and the little hole have the same centerline? I recall that being a big deal for me when I was picking irons previously, and I think it's how I wound up with the Troy, or BCM, or something?

I just replaced any A2 apertures with XS same-plane apertures:

http://www.xssights.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=993118&CAT=8276

I did this with my previous agency's rifles when I was the armorer.

[NH Shooter]

Spent some time with the new sights, at distances from 45 feet to 200 yards. Quick summary;


At 50 yards and beyond, accuracy seemed to suffer a bit with the .145" aperture vs. the .072" small aperture of the A2
At 50 yards and in is where this sight set up really shines with what I feel is faster target acquisition, alignment and shot-release
While my uncorrected vision enables me to see the front sight sharply, beyond 25 yards or so I struggle to align the sights on the target
Wearing my corrective lenses, the target is plenty sharp but the front sight post is a blur



After sighting in at 50 yards off a bench, I set an IDPA target at 200 yards and went after it from an unsupported prone position. My first group was actually fantastic, four shots in about a 4-inch group just to the left of the A-zone and the fifth shot about 10 inches away just under the A-zone. I dialed-in some more windage correction and got into the center of the target, but never reproduced a group that good. I think it was mostly due to my growing wobble zone and not-so-good trigger control more than the sights.

Setting up at 50 yards, I fired three strings of 10-shot groups from the standing position. For each shot, I started at the low-ready, shouldered the rifle and fired the shot as soon as the sight alignment looked good. No timer, but I'd say I took about two seconds for each shot. The vast majority of the shots ended up in the A-zone, a few falling just outside of it. At this distance and making this kind of shot, this sight set-up seems to work really well. For these shots the stock was extended to the normal position, about a 12.75" LOP.

I then set the target at 15 paces away, which is the longest shot possible inside my house. In this scenario I kept the stock fully collapsed (about 11" LOP on an A5 tube) but with the rear sight folded down. Same drill as before, starting from the low-ready, quickly shouldering the rifle with attention to a consistent cheek weld, and releasing the shot as soon as the front sight was on the target. With the rear sight folded down and target focus, the shots broke very fast. For CQC inside my home, I'm convinced that with consistent cheek weld this is an entirely viable technique.

I then did the same drill but with the rear sight up. In this case I just got the front hood somewhere in the ghosted rear peep and fired the shots. It was noticeably slower for me as I took an extra split-second to reconcile the rough sight alignment.

Below is a photo of the results: the group on the left (shots circled) was sans the rear sight, the second group (lower right) was with the use of the sight. Interestingly the POI was affected much more than the actual precision of the shots;


32155

Conclusions


This sight set up seems faster to align on-target than the standard A2 sights
Precision was not enhanced, perhaps a bit of loss
The post not being in the vertical center does not bother me
Front-sight-only at close range is wicked fast and offers a beautifully unobstructed view, 100% target focus
Even with my astigmatism, a RDS/GDS would probably give me more consistent results beyond 50 yards




At least for now, these sights are staying on the rifle. For 50 yards and in, they're fast and accurate enough. That said, I will likely end up with a green dot MRO in an absolute mount, which I think the front sight will work well with.

[NH Shooter]

Iron sights on a pistol work great for me - with my uncorrected vision they present a sharp sight picture and the target is adequately focused. Certainly within typical pistol engagement ranges, I count myself fortunate to have vision that works well.

I now have to accept the fact that while irons work fine for me on a pistol, they don't work as well on a rifle at typical rifle engagement distances. With my glasses, the target is sharp but the front post is a blur, making it difficult to see the post on the target. Without them, the front post is sharp but the target is blurry, especially as distance increases, making it difficult to see the target to place the post over. I feel handicapped either way.

A discovery I made last year while experimenting with my .308 bolt gun with a SWFA 10X is that I can adjust the diopter to render both the reticle and target perfectly sharp without the use of my glasses. I now have that scope set that way and it has worked out extremely well (glasses suck).

As I've stated previously, a RDS don't work especially well for me due to astigmatism. While a RDS would be an improvement over irons, I've concluded that for a rifle a magnified optic works best. While a couple of pounds of optic and mount on a 14-pound bolt action precision rifle is not a big deal, I want to keep my carbine as lightweight as possible.

So here I go again with another somewhat out-of-the-box trial: a mount and scope that will weigh 12 ounces combined, provide a low level of magnification, have an adjustable diopter eyepiece to focus for my eyes, and be from brands of known quality;

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/rimfire-scopes/fx-ii-ultralight-2-5x20mm

https://danieldefense.com/daniel-defenser-1-optics-mount-double-ring.html

The scope is not illuminated, but at 6.5 ounces is extremely light and has a well-established reputation for durability and optical quality. A simple duplex reticle with covered turrets. Five inches of eye relief with a generous eye box. With a 50-yard zero, POI will be +/- a few inches well past 200 yards, which is the envelope this rifle is intended to fill. Many have stated in reviews that at 2.1X actual magnification, the scope is very usable with both eyes open for up-close and fast shots. I'll be able to see both the target and reticle clearly - YAY! Yes, there are far more "AR appropriate" scopes available but this one checks the most important boxes for me. Purchased from B&H Photo for $260 delivered.

The DD mount looks great, weighs 5.5 ounces and was purchased from Amazon for $137 delivered. With this optic set up, my rifle unloaded will still weigh only 7-pounds, 2-ounces. For now, the rifle will be sans any BUIS.

To be continued...

[NH Shooter]

So I just installed this mount and scope, and it seems perfect for my needs. A few initial observations;


Scope and mount combined weigh 12.2 ounces
The clarity of the Leupold scope is excellent
Adjustable eyepiece allows for super-sharp reticle focus
Easy two-eyes-open use
The generous eye relief and forgiving eye box allow fast target acquisition
View through scope is more than sharp enough for defensive use down to arm's length range
In total dark, use of a WML renders the reticle sharp and easy to use
Due to low covered turrets and no protruding nuts or levers on the mount, the entire rig is really slick and snag-free



A couple of photos of the new glass set up. The more time I spend looking through this scope, the more I'm liking it. As mentioned previously, the view is sharp and clear (as is the reticle thanks to the adjustable eyepiece). Throwing the rifle up to the shoulder with both eyes open, this optic is also very forgiving with eye relief (listed at 4.9 inches) compared to scopes I've used in the past. This allowed me to set the stock LOP to where I like it (nose near charging handle) and still center the scope turrets in the mount. Another observation is that the ocular blocks very little of the view with nothing else (like turrets or rings) visible.

I'm liking the DD scope mount too - it's nicely sculptured and very streamlined with nothing protruding. The "Rock 'n Lock" mounting means that other than the rings, the mount is a monolithic piece. As a rudimentary check, I bored-sighted the scope and as far as I can see there will be no major windage adjustment required (the scope has 140 MOA of adjustment).

We've just got our first winter storm of the season last night and there's probably a foot of snow on the ground at the range, but I'll be making the trek there this weekend to get it sighted in.

32412


32413

[NH Shooter]

Well, I'm pretty damned pleased!

The sighting-in took place on the covered 100-yard range, starting at 50 yards. Nothing unusual sighting it in and by the third group-of-three, it was within a few clicks of the final adjustments made at 100 yards.

It appears the fine crosshairs subtend about or just under 1.5 MOA at the scope's 2.2x magnification. This actually allowed for as much precision as I was able to achieve with the VR-X Patrol set at 4x. After establishing a 100-yard zero, I fired a few groups from the bench. First, my go-to load which has always shot well with this upper, group measures just under 1-1/4" which is consistent with what I achieved with the VR-X Patrol;


32472


Next up was five rounds with Black Hills 5.56 77 OTM. Though not the most precise through this upper, it is nonetheless a pretty hot load. I was able to achieve a group of 1.5 MOA, consistent with using the VR-X - and with a POI very close to the 75 Gold Dot load;


32473


Finally, for grins-and-giggles I loaded up five rounds of Federal XM193. Yup, this is typically what I see with this load: the majority drill the center but a round or two always fly off into the Hinterland. The good news is the POI remains consistent (other than the flyers) regardless of load;


32474


50-yard Steel

Getting off the bags to standing unsupported, I set up my 8-inch round steel plate at 50 yards. I spent some reps just bringing the rifle up to my line-of-sight to see how easy it is to acquire the target. With a wide and clear view through the scope (and with a forgiving eye box) getting hits was easy. Maybe it's the Fudd in me, but I find the duplex reticle pulls my eye to the center and on to the target.

In terms of optical quality, there is some softness at the edges of the FOV. It's not readily apparent and I have to look for it, in normal use I simply don't see it. Otherwise it's clear and sharp - both the reticle and the target.

Maybe the Fudd in me again, but I really appreciate covered turrets on an AR. Make the adjustment, cover and forget 'em. This is why I was so pleased to see that the loads I use don't need any major adjustment going from one to the other.

Finally, even though this set up only weighs 12 ounces and cost under $400, there's nothing cheap or flimsy about it. The scope is renown for its durability on hard-kicking dangerous game rifles, and the DD mount is certainly robust. Though this set up is bare-bones in terms of features, I don't see it leaving much on the table in terms of quality and durability. The reputation for quality of both Leupold and Daniel Defense are evident in these products.

One final photo, taken as I was leaving the range;


32475