We actively train it as an option on a sliding scale of "how quickly do I need to shoot" after sights die.Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
Useful for hitting a torso out to 25.
However, one of the reasons our FTU encourages a C-clamp grip is also because it places your thumb near the front sight, making it quick and easy to flip it up. Front sight + tube body is obviously a huge improvement.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
I have been to pemi but it's a bit of a drive for me. I'm a member at bear camp, Other than that I use pits in ossipee. I see you guys are hosting some two gun shoots, I will absolutely be attending.
Used to be I just ignored dumb shit I read on the Internet.
I have too much respect for Todd’s memory to not publicly eye roll the dumb shit in this thread. 🙄
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
I mean, I’m a nobody when it comes to running a carbine, so I fully admit I’m lane drifting here. But, thinking out loud for a moment, isn’t this the reason why someone should pony up for the QD mount and run a set of BUIS?
I get it. Dot goes out and the etched reticle is hardly a total failure. But if the glass isn’t holding zero or is so smashed you can’t see through it, I’d imagine you’d be far better off shucking the optic and just flipping the irons up and moving on, no?
No worries, I'm so far out of my lane that I may as well be off-roading. :-/
My goal with my optic setup was (1) light weight; (2) etched reticle with adjustable ocular and (3) low power fixed magnification. For better or for worse in the upcoming zombie apocalypse, nothing else mattered to me. So I got all three of my main priorities met with a FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm scope (how weird is that on an AR?) in a Daniel Defense mount, the scope and mount together weigh 12 ounces. My old eyes can see the Fuddy duplex reticle just fine, and if its too dark to see it, I resort to white light.
FWIW, the scope has worked out amazingly well for me: crystal-clear optics, long eye relief and a forgiving eye box. It's allegedly tougher than nails (a well-vetted dangerous game rifle scope). The mount seems quite rugged without knobs, nuts or levers sticking out. Best of all, my limited processing power is not tasked with decisions on what power to select or how bright to adjust the dot (or reticle). It's one of those point-and-shoot affairs for the simple-minded.
After experimenting over the years with a variety of RDS and LPVOs, it's the first time ever that I no longer have any desire to further experiment with optics for this rifle. But then again maybe that's simply because I spend all my money on flashlights now.
While I love your very spartan concept of your AR, is a non-QD mount THAT much lighter than a QD mount with irons? Or at least adding offset irons to what you already have?No worries, I'm so far out of my lane that I may as well be off-roading. :-/
My goal with my optic setup was (1) light weight; (2) etched reticle with adjustable ocular and (3) low power fixed magnification. For better or for worse in the upcoming zombie apocalypse, nothing else mattered to me. So I got all three of my main priorities met with a FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm scope (how weird is that on an AR?) in a Daniel Defense mount, the scope and mount together weigh 12 ounces. My old eyes can see the Fuddy duplex reticle just fine, and if its too dark to see it, I resort to white light.
FWIW, the scope has worked out amazingly well for me: crystal-clear optics, long eye relief and a forgiving eye box. It's allegedly tougher than nails (a well-vetted dangerous game rifle scope). The mount seems quite rugged without knobs, nuts or levers sticking out. Best of all, my limited processing power is not tasked with decisions on what power to select or how bright to adjust the dot (or reticle). It's one of those point-and-shoot affairs for the simple-minded.
After experimenting over the years with a variety of RDS and LPVOs, it's the first time ever that I no longer have any desire to further experiment with optics for this rifle. But then again maybe that's simply because I spend all my money on flashlights now.
I have a 3-9 scope on one, a prism scope on the other. The only red dots are on a 10/22 and a couple bullseye pistols. No need for iron sights on any of them.
Last edited by Pistol Pete 10; 12-14-2019 at 02:46 PM.
The QD mounts I've used (Larue and Bobro) were two to three ounces heavier and definitely not as snag-free. The mount that comes with the Aimpoint PRO is QD, but that big honkin' knob sticks out like a sore thumb. For me a compelling reason for QD mounts on an AR is if I had multiple optic packages I wanted to be able to easily switch between. Maybe if I ever hit Powerball I'll buy one of those Trijicon thermal scopes and have my single-rifle dedicated optics in QD mounts.
I had a set of MBUS PRO offset BUIS on the rifle in the photo, but ended up selling them to invest the $$ in something else. I never even sighted them in, and I admit that was lame. I am also a guy who drove around with no spare tire in my car for over ten years, carrying only a small 12V compressor and a bottle of Green Goo. I figure my chances of needing a set of BUIS to save my ass is considerably less than needing a spare tire.
In any case, I cannot refute your sound reasoning, something I don't always employ myself.
If faced with the choice, the QD levers on a Laure mount would be much more snag-free than a set of offset irons.
The Larue mounts are indeed more snag-free than most others, save perhaps the Scalarworks mounts (which are IMO the pinnacle of mount design). If they were available for 1-inch scopes, I'd be mighty tempted to drop $400 on one.
FWIW, the MBUS PRO offset BUIS fold down very snag free, one of the things I really like about them.
Another point that floats around in my empty skull is that the typical AR free-float handguard, though relatively sturdy, can be (almost imperceptibly) deflected with sling tension (think High Power shooting with a sling). Additionally, I believe a free-float handguard could be tweaked/bent out of alignment perhaps even easier than the typical scope mount or scope, and IMO easier than bending a barrel (front sight mounted to the barrel). So while I appreciate the utility a good set of BUIS can provide, I'm not convinced they're any less prone to POA/POI misalignment due to rough handling than a scope mounted directly to the receiver.
This is not intended in any way to dismiss the utility of BUIS, just to articulate my own (perhaps unfounded) concerns of having a front sight mounted on a handguard.
Reply With Quote