Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Semiautomatic or Gas Operated Centerfire rifles, carbines and other gas operated rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 06-12-2021, 9:52 PM
Verdha603's Avatar
Verdha603 Verdha603 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Northern Arizona
Posts: 605
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I'm curious again.

What's your choice for BUIS for AR's and why?

Personally, I prefer metal over polymer, despite the price difference. If I were forced to choose, at the moment, the 'set' would likely be...

Magpul MBUS Pro (w/ LR Adjustable Rear).



My thought is that I don't view iron sights as "back up." I view them as the essential sighting system and any optic as 'enhancement' for specific purposes. Thus, I want as strong, adjustable, and reliable as I can get without breaking the bank or becoming overly specialized.
Only BUIS I use right now is the Magpul MBUS rear sight on my 16 inch mid-length rifle, with a fixed FSB. I consider it a "back up" if for whatever reason I damage or break my Vortex Strike Eagle 1-6x24mm optic (yes, even if that is a very unlikely event).

Zeroed the rifle with the irons with M193 ammunition, flipped the rear sight down, attached the optic on an ADM QD mount, zeroed that, and called it good. After verifying that even if I remove the mount and reattach it my optic doesn't lose zero, I can still go back and practice with the irons without any concern about losing my zero, and I do just that annually to make sure the irons will be good enough for me to hit a 12 inch plate from 25 yards out to 250 yards. For a low probability event, I most likely put too much effort even into that, but for a rifle I intend to be my current "jack of all trades, master of none" rifle, that I expect to be able to handle being beaten up a bit, its worth the additional time and effort.

Personally, I simply don't have any preference between metal and polymer, provided the manufacturer makes a quality product. Doesn't matter the material, if it works it works and if its garbage, its garbage, and I've seen metal and polymer examples of both. Right now the only two types of flip-up sights I don't recommend at all are any UTG products (aka cheap made in China sights better left on an airsoft gun than an actual rifle) and the MaTech rear sight. Used the latter in the Army on M16's and M4's, and after extended use the rear sight would not like to stay folded down and the elevation adjustment would be easy to bump up or down a position if it got bumped against hard objects.

As for whether iron sights are "primary" or "secondary" to me, that depends heavily on the individual firearm and the intended use of the firearm. Irons are kind of the only primary option if the firearm is old enough or you don't plan to mount any sort of optic in the first place, hence why my A2 AR-15 build is perfectly content just sticking to a set of zeroed iron sights.

While I'll readily admit I don't like the fact most bolt-action hunting rifles aren't even offered with iron sights anymore, that's also unfortunately because they're not marketed to be intended for close range shooting. Those that are tend to be labeled as "scout rifles" or "brush guns" instead. Honestly I consider that the least of my worries since I'm more concerned about the limited choices in left-handed bolt action rifles and rather limited caliber options as well (What can I say, I'm a proverbial hipster for not being part of the .223/.243/6.5 Creedmoor/.270/7mm-08/.308/.30-06 fanclubs).

If you told me I had to have a precision rifle capable of landing shots out at 1000 yards, then of course an optic will be the primary choice and frankly I'll most likely not bother with iron sights for it because of its intended use. Can someone with iron sights make hits out to 1000 yards? Yes, but for better or worse at long distances a rifle with a magnified optic is going to make it easier for the shooter to land hits at that distance faster and more precisely compared to the shooter with just iron sights. And if it's meant for long distance shots at 1000 yards, chances are I'm unlikely to suddenly want to turn around and press it into use as a close range brush rifle rapidly dropping targets at 100 yards and closer, since that's greatly deviating from the intended purpose of that rifle, and so I simply won't consider iron sights as a sighting system worth incorporating for a rifle with that kind of intended purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 06-13-2021, 2:32 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 2,643
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Verdha603 View Post
...As for whether iron sights are "primary" or "secondary" to me, that depends heavily on the individual firearm and the intended use of the firearm. Irons are kind of the only primary option if the firearm is old enough or you don't plan to mount any sort of optic in the first place, hence why my A2 AR-15 build is perfectly content just sticking to a set of zeroed iron sights.

While I'll readily admit I don't like the fact most bolt-action hunting rifles aren't even offered with iron sights anymore, that's also unfortunately because they're not marketed to be intended for close range shooting. Those that are tend to be labeled as "scout rifles" or "brush guns" instead. Honestly I consider that the least of my worries since I'm more concerned about the limited choices in left-handed bolt action rifles and rather limited caliber options as well (What can I say, I'm a proverbial hipster for not being part of the .223/.243/6.5 Creedmoor/.270/7mm-08/.308/.30-06 fanclubs).

If you told me I had to have a precision rifle capable of landing shots out at 1000 yards, then of course an optic will be the primary choice and frankly I'll most likely not bother with iron sights for it because of its intended use. Can someone with iron sights make hits out to 1000 yards? Yes, but for better or worse at long distances a rifle with a magnified optic is going to make it easier for the shooter to land hits at that distance faster and more precisely compared to the shooter with just iron sights. And if it's meant for long distance shots at 1000 yards, chances are I'm unlikely to suddenly want to turn around and press it into use as a close range brush rifle rapidly dropping targets at 100 yards and closer, since that's greatly deviating from the intended purpose of that rifle, and so I simply won't consider iron sights as a sighting system worth incorporating for a rifle with that kind of intended purpose.
I think you've captured the essence of the problem and, in many ways, it's often a 'generational' one.

In the old days, due to technology as well as intent, iron sights were considered to be consistent with the default purposes of the firearm. As technology has improved, many shooters, no matter the intended 'target,' have increasingly become specialized in their firearms selections and, thus, the number of firearms an individual has is often more than singular for the same or similar purposes. By contrast, in the old days (which weren't that long ago for some of us), you often simply had "one gun" for "all uses;" albeit, one handgun, one rifle, one shotgun, if that many.

My Great Grandfather was more a devoted hunter than my Grandfather. Yet, both had ONE rifle for hunting deer and they often hunted the same, basic area. My Grandfather had a .30-30 lever action (no scope) and my Great Grandfather had a scoped, .30-06 bolt action (though he also had iron sights, "just in case"). Both brought home meat on a regular basis. (Of course, my Great Grandfather also had a side-by-side shotgun for birds in 12 gauge.)

While the technology has improved, in some cases, markedly, there is, as crufflers points out, the reality that...

Quote:
Originally Posted by crufflers View Post
Some people have not had electronics fail them... yet
The same with scopes.

There is a difference between 'trust' and 'reliance' and many don't understand that difference. Would I 'trust' iron sights between, say, 200-300 yards? Depending on the firearm/caliber, yes; but, only up to a point. Would I want to be solely 'reliant' upon them beyond 200 yards? No.

Do I 'trust' optics, be they scopes or electronic in some form, at less than 200 yards? Again, up to a point, yes. (We don't need to go down the rabbit hole of parallax, variable power vs. fixed, dot size, et al.) Would I want to be solely 'reliant' on optics at less than 200 yards? No.

As you indicate, some of it is absolutely tied to intent. But, when speaking to AR's, particularly in .223/5.56, that puts us in the latter group; i.e., less than 200 yards, for the most part, in terms of my intended application/use. Just like the M1 Carbine in your avatar, the caliber has its limitations, no matter how much I like playing with it or how well it punches paper.

Another crucial factor is how you train with the firearm. Train with an optic rather than irons and you will play as you trained. But, does an optic make you faster/more accurate at closer ranges? That's a source of debate and controversy and, as I maintain, usually dependent upon how you trained.



If you don't know who Reid Henrichs is, look here; i.e., he's more than just 'some YouTuber.' (I was trying to find other examples on YouTube that I know, for a fact, used to be there as I've watched the videos. But, I'm not finding them at the moment. What I am finding is that some others are now 'age restricted,' meaning I'm not sure I can embed them here.)

The bottom line is that there is no question optics can help certain individuals and/or in specific instances. Just as, for some, they can also hurt more than they help; particularly if the individual doesn't know how to use the optics properly.

On the other hand, if I was hunting mountain sheep, would I want to be reliant solely on irons? No. But, neither would I want the trip to be over if the scope gets banged on a rock hard enough to 'break' it? Do I have a 'back up' firearm in the event of such circumstance? Yes. But, that firearm, sitting at the lodge or in the pickup several miles away, doesn't do me any good with the sheep I have in view and in range.

That was the perspective I was putting forth as my rationale when it came to selecting "BUIS." For me, the iron sights are the primary. That doesn't mean they are always used as the primary. But, it's that age-old question? If you have it "just in case," do you want the best or something else if "just in case" happens?

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-13-2021 at 2:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 06-13-2021, 3:07 PM
Verdha603's Avatar
Verdha603 Verdha603 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Northern Arizona
Posts: 605
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
I think you've captured the essence of the problem and, in many ways, it's often a 'generational' one.
I'm certainly going to have to agree with you on that. To me the 'generational' difference becomes especially prevalent if you grew up with firearms before the 1980's or during/after the 1980's. To me that's where a drastic shift in thinking came where instead of viewing firearms almost solely from a hunting/traditional sport shooting viewpoint, it took a sharp turn towards self-defense and "tactical" shooting. Being a 90's/2000's child, I never grew up in the "traditional" gun community, and in some ways I'm kind of grateful I didn't considering if such a group today is anything to go by, they would have likely made me never want to be a gun owner in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
In the old days, due to technology as well as intent, iron sights were considered to be consistent with the default purposes of the firearm. As technology has improved, many shooters, no matter the intended 'target,' have increasingly become specialized in their firearms selections and, thus, the number of firearms an individual has is often more than singular for the same or similar purposes. By contrast, in the old days (which weren't that long ago for some of us), you often simply had "one gun" for "all uses;" albeit, one handgun, one rifle, one shotgun, if that many.
And back in those days, that way of thinking made significantly more sense. Prices may look cheaper in hindsight, but firearms were still quite expensive back in the day, and if your buying an expensive product, it makes sense to do your best to find "one gun to do it all", especially if your on a budget. It's part of the reason that while I might not like it today, I can understand why a great many military surplus rifles got sporterized and turned into hunting rifles back in the day because that was cheaper than buying a new hunting rifle in comparison.

Back then manpower was cheap and machine work was expensive, making it so the "high quality" back in the day came from the fact having a person do the bluing or hand fitting of parts was cheaper than having a machine do it. Nowadays that has been largely reversed, which should be seen as a blessing since it means personal gunsmithing or hand-fitted firearms are seen as much more highly valued than ones machined en masse for a less expensive price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
There is a difference between 'trust' and 'reliance' and many don't understand that difference. Would I 'trust' iron sights between, say, 200-300 yards? Depending on the firearm/caliber, yes; but, only up to a point. Would I want to be solely 'reliant' upon them beyond 200 yards? No.

Do I 'trust' optics, be they scopes or electronic in some form, at less than 200 yards? Again, up to a point, yes. (We don't need to go down the rabbit hole of parallax, variable power vs. fixed, dot size, et al.) Would I want to be solely 'reliant' on optics at less than 200 yards? No.
Agreed, but at the same time it should be recognized that technology has improved greatly over time. The folks that were very critical about the reliability of scopes when they started becoming commonplace on firearms in the 40's and 50's were certainly not overreacting, considering the technology was rather new. Having shot scoped rifles with period correct scopes from the 1940's and 50's, they frankly come across as downright primitive compared to scopes made in the last 10-20 years. A lot of time has passed, and while I won't say a scope or red dot is 100% full proof, I'd certainly argue that most people aren't becoming over reliant on them when most of them have become durable and reliable enough to be considered capable of handling all but the worst you can throw at them. Heck, while I'll agree its an extreme outlier, but when a user can have their AR-15 go through a house fire and their Aimpoint red dot manages to still work afterwards, it tells me that I can't ignore the fact that modern optics can take a beating and still keep on ticking, something I can't readily say for older scopes or optics.

https://www.recoilweb.com/aimpoint-p...ire-65175.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Another crucial factor is how you train with the firearm. Train with an optic rather than irons and you will play as you trained. But, does an optic make you faster/more accurate at closer ranges? That's a source of debate and controversy and, as I maintain, usually dependent upon how you trained.
Agreed, it greatly depends on how you trained, but it also depends on what circumstances your shooting under. The greatest area of weakness for iron sights compared to a red dot or illuminated reticle on a magnified optic is if you have to shoot in low light or night time conditions. Even with a weapon light, an illuminated dot or illuminated reticle tends to be easier to put on a target compared to lining up your front post with your rear sight. We can certainly argue the merits of point shooting and what degree of sight picture is good enough for a defensive gun use, but for an aimed shot at dawn/dusk/night is where I see the advantages of an illuminated optic of some sort pulling ahead of iron sights. In daylight conditions I'll definitely agree it's a wash and you won't notice a significant difference between someone well trained on irons and someone well trained on an optic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
If you don't know who Reid Henrichs is, look ; i.e., he's more than just 'some YouTuber.'

The bottom line is that there is no question optics can help certain individuals and/or in specific instances. Just as, for some, they can also hurt more than they help; particularly if the individual doesn't know how to use the optics properly.
Oh yes, I'm definitely familiar with Reid. While I'm sure it's been awhile, but I can thank that fiasco regarding his falling out with James Yeager that got me to tune into him, and while I may have some disagreements with him regarding hardware choices, I certainly do agree with many of his points, especially with the two videos you linked. At the end of the day, it's the Indian, not the arrow that's more important (though at the same time that doesn't mean improving the arrow shouldn't be treated as solely compensating for a poorly trained Indian). I also am firmly in agreement that when introducing someone to firearms and teaching them the basic shooting fundamentals, iron sights should be first, not just for the reasons Reid mentioned but also because irons tend to make it easier for both an instructor and student to spot errors in technique, without a red dot or magnified optic to potentially hide potential training scars or errors in following the basics. Once you have the fundamentals down is when I start introducing people to optics, and because of that methodology it tends to make it easier for them to become faster/more precise more quickly because that baseline on the irons was already taught to them beforehand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That was the perspective I was putting forth as my rationale when it came to selecting "BUIS." For me, the iron sights are the primary. That doesn't mean they are always used as the primary. But, it's that age-old question? If you have it "just in case," do you want the best or something else if "just in case" happens?
And I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. At the end of the day, for me, if we're talking a modern rifle, I view the optic as the primary and the irons as the secondary because the former is the force multiplier that allows me to either hit targets further away more precisely or lets me shoot close range targets more easily (for me, since I fully understand folks that got raised with irons will most likely shoot those just as fast, if not faster than with a red dot).

As for the 'do you want the best or something else' question, I also tend to be of the rather controversial opinion that nothing is ever going to be the best, since at the end of the day your still having to give up something in exchange for something else your going to put more emphasis on. For me, the MBUS is 'good enough'; its not cheap and is not likely to break easily, it's able to be properly zeroed and hold that zero, and within reasonable ranges I have zero doubts that it will perform if the situation calls for it. If I was looking for 'the best' or the perfect rifle/optic setup, I'd most likely be spending thousands of dollars on a rifle and optic and still not be satisfied due to finding different things to criticize or consider as drawbacks to what I chose.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 06-13-2021, 3:44 PM
bigstick61 bigstick61 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,991
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I have two ARs, and one has a fixed carry handle. For the other one, I went with the LMT BUIS.

When it comes to BUIS for a general purpose carbine or rifle, I want a set that folds out of the way, doesn't lock to reduce chance of breakage if impacted while in the upright position, is capable of being used as the primary sight system if it comes to that (and thus should have the full range of elevation adjustment, plus windage adjustment), should have wider and narrower apertures, and should have some kind of protection for the apertures.

The LMT comes closest to meeting all of those requirements. The only ways it could be better would be to have a somewhat wider drum to permit the use of a true wide aperture instead of a medium one for the larger aperture, and markings on the base of the rear sight to use as an index with the marking on the drum for windage adjustment. One nice thing is that you can get it in Imperial or Metric units.

If I'm going to be shooting farther out, I prefer a smaller front sight post, so I replaced the original with a narrower one from Compass Lake Engineering.

While the rifle with the LMT sights doesn't have an optic, yet (and thus, they must serve as primary sights for now), I do intend to put a TA-33 on it down the road.

I went fixed-carry handle with the other one since I never really intended to put optics on it. Has A1 rear sights on the carry handle and a fixed FSB. It's meant to minimize the loss if I had to use it and couldn't get it back from LE here in CA. Even halfway decent optics add way too much to the cost relative to the rifle. I also like that retro look.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:22 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical