need BUIS recs for a DD MK18

[VolGrad]

I am about halfway through the wait for a stamp to come back on a Daniel Defense MK18. Intended use is a general purpose HD weapon and range plinker.

I have a Aimpoint Micro that I plan to put on top of a DD Micro Mount. I also have a LaRue high mount with QD throw lever but think I'll use the DD.

I think I'm going to put a TLR-1 at the 12 o'clock position.

I need to put BUIS on it. I'm thinking flip-up/down front and rear but am option to suggestions.

What do I want and why? Go ............

[Kyle Reese]

I've had excellent luck with both the folding Troy folding and fixed DD BUIS. Any budgetary constraints?

[EPF]

There was a fairly interesting solution to the 12'oclock light and sight combo posted at Soldier Systems recently.

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/11/28/grey-group-training-gives-us-the-lowdown-on-a-tangodown-prototype-rail-mounted-front-sight-prototype/

[wilco423]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/20/he7e7ype.jpg
I run the DD fixed front behind a TLR1s, and have been happy with it. It is in the sight picture, of course, but you get used to it pretty quickly. I find its nice to have it there all the time, and give an additional aiming reference in unusual color/lighting conditions. Plus, the DD front is light and bombproof. If you're shooting both eyes open, you'll find the sight and light aren't really an obstruction.

If the fixed front is not for you, then folding Troys are the standard. I'll upgrade the rear to a Troy when I get the cash.

[rjohnson4405]

One thing to consider is off set irons. I'm not a fan of how they look and I have no direct experience, but Kyle Defoor runs an optic and he said once it got really covered in rain drops it was hard to co-witness through the optic to the sights. In this case off set irons would work better, just something to consider.

[VolGrad]

I don't necessarily have any budgetary constraints.

I would prefer the fold down front and rear over fixed front but that pic is helpful so thanks for posting.

I kind of figured Troy was the standard but haven't researched it. Are there more than one version/setup from Troy to consider? Sorry, haven't looked yet. Yes, I'm lazy.

I've not really considered offset irons but I guess that makes sense. It's unlikely this rifle will ever see really hard use though so I think I'd prob prefer something that's "out of the way" as much as possible.

[LOKNLOD]

I've got a TLR1 at 12:00 with DD fixed front and rear on my SBR. I still have a good ol' ML2 rather than an T1/H1, so that may play a small role in how I perceive things.

The TLR is really close to obscuring the FSP and will actually be in your field of vision a bit. Given that it's sticking up, I don't see a great deal of value in getting the front sight flipped down out of the way.

[wilco423]

As Loknlod says, the TLR takes up the lower 1/5-1/4 of the T1, and the FSP brings that up to 1/3. As I said, it did take a little getting used to compared to a folding front, but I don't find it detrimental at all to speed, vision, or accuracy. If you think you might put a variable scope on it in the future, folding may be a better choice up front.

As for the Troys, you can sometimes find new take-off Noveske or BCM branded ones on the used gear boards for a little less than regular prices. But if budget isn't an issue, the regular ones are pretty widely available.

[JHC]

Gear Scout published a drop test of several major brands of rear BUIS and the cheap Magpul came out best or tied for 1st IIRC correctly. They are pretty good.

[Jay]

Having a 10.5" thats also about half way through the process, I have been wondering if there was any appreciable difference between standard Troys and the HK variant for a more close quarters home defense oriented gun. From photos the HK style would appear to give a slightly better sight / target picture. Thoughts?

Also any benefit to Tritium night sights on a carbine that will have an RDS & Light?

[LOKNLOD]

Having a 10.5" thats also about half way through the process, I have been wondering if there was any appreciable difference between standard Troys and the HK variant for a more close quarters home defense oriented gun. From photos the HK style would appear to give a slightly better sight / target picture. Thoughts?


When I had a set of Troys with the round front sight, I found myself wanting to align the concentric rings of the front sight hood and rear aperture rather than centering the front sight post - my FSP was not centered in the circle formed by the hood, so this resulted in misses. Of course this could be a result of something with my eyes, inexperience at the time, or just me sucking at existence in general, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Jay]

Of course this could be a result of something with my eyes, inexperience at the time, or just me sucking at existence in general

I am quite familiar with all of these phenomena

[EricP]

I'm in a similar position of looking for a folding front sight to fit behind a X300.

I haven't had the opportunity to shoot this setup, but I did get to handle it. A Troy AR style folding front seemed like it would be uncomfortable because the base of my thumb rested on the wing that protected the sight post. I did get a chance to try the HK style front, but I think it would work better.

[orionz06]

Fixed DD. Or invest in my next project... But really, get the fixed DD.

[VolGrad]

I just found a set of Troy flip us locally, Hk style front. I bought them just because they were readily available but am still going to explore all options so keep the feedback coming please. The LGS was crazy selling ARs as fast as they could process the forms. I bought my dad one while I still could. They were almost sold out and are one of the largest stocking Colt and S&W LE dealers in the country.

[JSGlock34]

I'm very pleased with the KAC BUIS and use them on my Noveske MK18 upper. Pricey, but solid and well designed. Not sure if you care, but I believe the KAC is most commonly issued with the MK18 (though I'm sure other makes can be found in service).

I've used Troys and they are excellent sights as well. I do like that the KAC sights are designed to fold before they break if subjected to pressure (not that I've broken any BUIS...yet).

[Jason F]

VolGrad- I don't know how I missed your buying a DD Mk18 (unless you didn't mention it), but it's been on my "lust list" for a while... I think now may be the time to finally pony up the cash before this craziness gets too far away from us.

Did you order through Clyde's or somewhere else? Bullseye Lawrenceville is literally 4 miles from my door, but I've had better service over the phone from Clyde's the few times I've called than I have face-to-face at Bullseye (unfortunately).

My thinking was the same as yours - general HD weapon. I've got a Bushy M4 right now and it's fine... but with the hope of adding a supressor at some point to a Mk18 and it's the perfect HD setup. Have you seen this recent thread on LF about Mk18's? (http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/27320756073)

[JMS]

I prefer to use fold-down BUIS across the board, Troys specifically. Very tough, if one is at all concerned with them taking a beating with the rest of the gun. If one wants basic fold-downs, I feel that they're worth the price, simply in terms of durability.

I never did like how much of a footprint the rail interface of their front BUIS has. It never interfered with my ability to grip up front in any way that wasn't solved by simply turning the BUIS around to face the other way...

....hell, sometimes my thumb would end up wrapped up OVER the front BUIS, and that never interfered with my sight picture...

...but the rail interface WOULD get in the way of how my light mounted, my ability to change out batteries and the like, be it on a quad rail or a VTAC tube. The button that releases the lock, in particular, was a PITA; the light got in the way of using that readily, and it got in the way of the light. On the basis of "I wanna grip the gun THIS way, across the board, how to set up components to match that...?" swapping out a major component like a forearm, getting a longer one for the sake of a BUIS...? Nah. So, try another front BUIS, says I.

I've had the KAC micros for rear BUIS for some time, mostly just because they're practicaly guaranteed to fit under just about any optic I put on the gun. USMC SysCom bought a buttload of these that ended up going on the M27 IAR, and to put on ARs so that Marines had a BUIS that fit under the RCO (and the RCO eye-relief spacer kits for A4s....), so having installed/handled/zeroed a couple-few hundred of the things...kinda influenced my decision to try them. I have to admit that I like the thought of being able to induce elevation adjustments if it ever came down to it...but that's a like-to-have; I take the "BU" part of "BUIS" seriously.

(On that note, there's nothing wrong with Magpul MBUS, but I don't like how mushy and indistinct the windage adjustments are on the rears, nor the polymer apertures. The fronts...if you put a polymer sight close to the gas block, and that block heats up, they can get a little weird in a hurry. Polymer rail covers don't require a zero, so the slight dimensional changes under heat don't matter; on sights, it does. The Magpuls are a "true" back-up sight because of this, in my mind. Somebody else using them as their primary, though, has ZERO effect on my guns, so no biggie.).

Anyway, I had recent occasion to get a KAC front folder, just for the smaller rail interface. MUCH better, there's nothing getting in the way of putting my light where I need it to be (I know that tape switechs are getting BETTER, but they're stil not GOOD, yet. I refuse to use them for anything other than lazerz.), nor with maintaining it; I realize that this aspect only truy affects what I'm after in terms of configuration. Gotta admit that the narrower front post they sport was a bit of a treat; never used anything but standard FSPs before that, another like-to-have. I also like the fold-before-break part. Overall, worth the extra $$$ to me. One thing withthe KAC rears...the windage knob on some of them will move when you flip them up/down. It's certainly not common, but is something to keep an eye out for; software solution is to witness-mark it and pay attention to it when flipping the sight.

I'd not have any problem going back to Troys at need, though. Still have mine, for the next gun or Just In Case....they're a good pick.

[VolGrad]

VolGrad- I don't know how I missed your buying a DD Mk18 (unless you didn't mention it).......

Did you order through Clyde's or somewhere else?.....

Have you seen this recent thread on LF about Mk18's? (http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/27320756073)
I didn't mention it.
I bought mine at Clyde Armory.
I rarely (almost never) visit LF. I'll check the link out later from home.

[Odin Bravo One]

I like Troy for the iron sight world. They are as good as anything out there, and better than most.

My hang up with the MagPul sights is that we have seen repeatedly where the sights failed to fully deploy. That will considerably change the zero. If we are going to BUIS's, then I would submit for consideration that a good number of things have already gone wrong, and if I need those BUIS's, I need them in the worst possible way, and I need them to be accurate. Not fully deploying is not going to help my cause any.

A little bit of dirt, mud, or crud can cause them to not only not fully deploy, but also fail to return to a fully deployed position after they partially fold under recoil. If I am going to bother with the time, money, and effort to buy, and install, and zero irons, then I want them working properly. A fixed front is tough to go wrong with, or a fixed rear for that matter. Though, as I mentioned above, I prefer Troy's, and I leave the front sight deployed. Troy has true same plane rear sights, allowing for precise zeroing, but use the larger aperature for combat use without a shift in POI. They also lock in the UP/Deployed position which is where I need them locked, not locked in the non-deployed/DOWN position.

I do not concern myself with co-witness because it does nothing to increase accuracy, actually slows down most people, it clutters my sight picture, and is completely useless when fighting at night. However, I leave my front irons deployed, in the event my optic (T-1 on all but 2 rifles) fails, I can use the T-1 tube as a rough rear aperature and get solid hits out to about 75 yards, buying me some time until I can get rid of the optic altogether, and deploy the rear as well.

As usual.........simply my opinion, and worth exactly what you paid for it. YMMV.

[Jay Cunningham]

If you intend on using the Micro optic, having deployed front and rear irons and a TLR-1 at 12:00 is going to work against the whole point of having a reflex optic. That's going to be a busy, cluttered sight picture.

I think that there are several configurations that work better than others. If using a Micro, I'd opt for a standard (center) co-witness with either a fixed or deployed folding front and a rear folded down. I'd mount a Scout light offset at 10:30 or 1:30.

Now if you were going with something that has a giant field-of-view like a Trijicon SRS I'd recommend fixed BUIS.

[JRas]

KAC back-up iron sights, if you want to go for broke

Use the LaRue mount, QD capability

[Jay Cunningham]

What is the utility of a QD mount on an iron sight?

[BWT]

I'd endorse Troy, I use a fixes front sight and a folding rear and I'm happy with them from Troy. If you don't want them to obscure sight picture in anyway get a folding set, or if you prefer deployed cut the price in half and go fixed.

I'd recommend Loctiting the set screw, I have had one vibrate loose. But other then that, IMHO you get fixed sight performance and durability from Troy folding BUIS.

ETA: The sights not vibrating loose would be how I could feasibly see QD mounts. However, if you're screwing a sight to a QD mount... You would have removed that benefit.

[VolGrad]

What is the utility of a QD mount on an iron sight?
I interpreted the QD comment to a rec to stick with the LaRue micro mount rather than my plan to switch to a fixed DD micro mount. I could be wrong.

[Jay Cunningham]

Ah. I think I see.

[dnittler]

If running a light at 12:00, the DD fixed rail-mount front sight has cutouts for easy acces to the light switches. I think Vickers might had some input on that design. I've run an Aimpoint with an A2 front sights post, and I never notice it's there – does not seem cluttered at all.

I like an absolute co-witness so my cheek weld is consistent, which means I need to run folding rear BUIS. I've got Magpul's MBUS 2 and they are awesome. A quick bump with the palm and they pop up. Press down to put them away.

The Troy sights are prettier, but they are hard to deploy (press button while pulling up).

Oh, and great choice on the MK18.

[TGS]

If running a light at 12:00, the DD fixed rail-mount front sight has cutouts for easy acces to the light switches. I think Vickers might had some input on that design. I've run an Aimpoint with an A2 front sights post, and I never notice it's there – does not seem cluttered at all.

I like an absolute co-witness so my cheek weld is consistent, which means I need to run folding rear BUIS. I've got Magpul's MBUS 2 and they are awesome. A quick bump with the palm and they pop up. Press down to put them away.

The Troy sights are prettier, but they are hard to deploy (press button while pulling up).

Oh, and great choice on the MK18.

Couple questions:

My Troy sights don't require any button to be pressed in order to deploy. They just pop up. Are we talking about different Troy sights?

Also, why the fixation on a consistent cheek weld when using an RDS? Isn't a consistent cheek weld completely unnecessary with an RDS, and sort of counter to the advantages of an RDS with its flexibility/ease of use in positions of compromise? If an absolute co-witness is required, then why not just use irons alone since you're basically running irons anyway?

Thanks.

[JMS]

My Troys also only require the button to be folded back down, not to be deployed.

As for cheek weld, it's still desirable on the sole basis that it's part of the fundamentals and the ability to consume the gun. An RDS is simply more forgiving during those times when one is unable to achieve it (no need to line up more than one point like with irons, no scope shadow as with a magnified optic), but the "parallax-free" label on those things should read "as parallax-free as these things can be made." Light passing through a medium causes parallax, period (SCIENCE! :cool: ), so keeping that dot centered in the optic eliminated that as much as it can be, so getting a consistent cheek weld regardless of sighting system is still a best-practice.

Pat McNamara includes a proof-of-concept for that as a part of his curriculum. During the BRM/zeroing portion, students will take the dot and put it in some corner or clock position of their RDS; usually means altering your head position/weld. Shoot for best possible group, using the same target aimpoint as usual. There's a POI shift in that direction. Ergo, a proper weld, if achievable, is a good thing.