AR sights/optics?

[TSiWRX]

They won't do 4moa or better in my experience. It's entirely possible that some dirt got wedged where the pop up portion interfaces with the bottom in the up position which changed my zero big time. Folding then popping them back up may have let the grit come out and go back to almost zero.

Definitely a possibility that can't be discounted.

You also didn't by-chance get the PSTs, did you? Did the sights come from a reputable origin?

My point is that for the money there's better options as a main sighting system.

Both the Troy folding - as well as others of similar design, such as the MI - as well as even the DD fixed that we both touched on are each well over 2x the cost of the Magpul polymers.

That's the thing with the Magpul polymers: they fill a niche. Again, with my limited knowledge I don't know if anything else is a valid and proven choice at this price-point.

I have a good feeling that many folks wanting to use them are typically using optics and only use the buis occasionally. And I'm also willing to bet a pancake that they're content with grouping 7 inches at 100 yards.

Although that's not an invalid statement, I nevertheless think that it is too strong of an assertion/assumption.

Even given my very limited experience with this platform and the few hours that I've been in classes with the AR, I've had one set of classes that were dedicated to iron-sight use, and several students used the Magpul polymers. Granted, zeros were only printed at the 50, but given most of the groups put forward by the shooters, they would have been well within 4 to 7 MOA, even if that was shot at the 100. And given the amount of precision/accuracy we were held to at the 25, shots that were printing "barely on paper," as you describe (I'm assuming that this relates to your Appleseed experience, and that this was not at KD Appleseed distances) at that distance certainly would have been problematic and unacceptable. I honestly cannot remember any student's folding sights, be they the Magpul polymers or their metal "Pros" (this was before the LD variant, however; but I have not heard of problems with that, either) or Troy/MI/Diamond Head or various fixed sights (LMT, DD) being problematic, even as we repeated folded and deployed them during line breaks as show-and-tell to our fellow students.

[Brian D.]

Listen, Allen, I tend to go with jeep here on that assertion about the 7 MOA. I see plenty of people at these newer indoor ranges very happy with 3" 25 yard or 5" 50 yard groups with their tacticool AR's. They don't know any dang better..

[jeep45238]

They won't do 4moa or better in my experience. It's entirely possible that some dirt got wedged where the pop up portion interfaces with the bottom in the up position which changed my zero big time. Folding then popping them back up may have let the grit come out and go back to almost zero.

Definitely a possibility that can't be discounted.

You also didn't by-chance get the PSTs, did you? Did the sights come from a reputable origin?

Purchased when they were first released and from Midway USA. Maybe they've improved over the years, but I still don't recommend them.

My point is that for the money there's better options as a main sighting system.

Both the Troy folding - as well as others of similar design, such as the MI - as well as even the DD fixed that we both touched on are each well over 2x the cost of the Magpul polymers.

And my point still stands. THe money you'll spend on polymer folding sights is going to be money wasted the moment you upgrade to the real deal. Magpul rear sights (non-pro) come from midway at $37-55 a pop. Pro models are 80-123. That's not counting the front sight. DD fixed sights are $120 for both front and rear from Midway. Sounds pretty comparable if you ask me, especially since they don't impact the use of non-magnified optics.

That's the thing with the Magpul polymers: they fill a niche. Again, with my limited knowledge I don't know if anything else is a valid and proven choice at this price-point.

I have a good feeling that many folks wanting to use them are typically using optics and only use the buis occasionally. And I'm also willing to bet a pancake that they're content with grouping 7 inches at 100 yards.

Although that's not an invalid statement, I nevertheless think that it is too strong of an assertion/assumption.

I don't think the truth is too strong. Pancakes on the line!!!

Even given my very limited experience with this platform and the few hours that I've been in classes with the AR, I've had one set of classes that were dedicated to iron-sight use, and several students used the Magpul polymers. Granted, zeros were only printed at the 50, but given most of the groups put forward by the shooters, they would have been well within 4 to 7 MOA, even if that was shot at the 100. And given the amount of precision/accuracy we were held to at the 25, shots that were printing "barely on paper," as you describe (I'm assuming that this relates to your Appleseed experience, and that this was not at KD Appleseed distances) at that distance certainly would have been problematic and unacceptable. I honestly cannot remember any student's folding sights, be they the Magpul polymers or their metal "Pros" (this was before the LD variant, however; but I have not heard of problems with that, either) or Troy/MI/Diamond Head or various fixed sights (LMT, DD) being problematic, even as we repeated folded and deployed them during line breaks as show-and-tell to our fellow students.

THe event was a 25M, which thankfully did not happen again on the 500 yard line. I literally went from shooting 8 moa to not hitting an IDPA target at ALL between strings, and then back to on paper after folding the sights down and bringing them back up. I've learned quite a bit over the years with problems I've encountered once or twice on AR systems and the troubleshooting involved to fix it. I now refused to use a front sight mounted on a rail, a 1 point sling, or non-machined sights (prefer fixed, but I have a folding rear with the understanding that I'm intending to run a low powered magnified optic within the next few years

[jeep45238]

I forgot to mention that's key part that clicked for me on the magpul sights is watching a .50 Beowulf on YouTube that was using those sights. They folded under recoil with every shot, though it wasn't enough to lock down. That made me realize that they're probably moving a little under 5.56 recoil, and could explain the large groups I had using them compared to the same rifle with an aimpoint. I changed to fixed irons on it and suddenly did much much better.

I also learned that qd swivels are poor for shooting supported (came undone under recoil), free float mounted irons aren't great (tube flexes independent of barrel and shifts point of impact), the importance of GOOD optic mounts (Arms mount fell apart on the 500 yard line), how optic selection and mounting can alter weapon balance, balance vs weight, gas system vs buffer and spring selections, what's important for trigger components for different uses, magazine lip problems from certain manufacturers in certain calibers, but buying Hugh quality once instead of middle quality twice or poor quality thrice was the general end decision for most items.

For reference, my on my psiedo serious AR rifle I'm currently running a vltor a5 stock/buffer system, midlength gas, non-free float rail, fixed front sight, Troy folding rear, aimpoint micro mounted above the mag well, giessle trigger, magpul bad lever, moe grip, but bolt carrier group, and a 16" barrel with 1/8 (not a typo) for my go to rifle.

My play rifle is a Vepr in 5.45, with a lot of cheap surplus ammo and stock conversion.

[TSiWRX]

Listen, Allen, I tend to go with jeep here on that assertion about the 7 MOA. I see plenty of people at these newer indoor ranges very happy with 3" 25 yard or 5" 50 yard groups with their tacticool AR's. They don't know any dang better..

Hey, that might be how I shoot, but that ain't what I'm happy with!

But like I wrote, I don't disagree - I just think that it's too strong of an assertion, particularly with even the few folks I've seen in class.

Purchased when they were first released and from Midway USA. Maybe they've improved over the years, but I still don't recommend them.

Unknown if they've improved/fixed.

They certainly did have issues with the "Pro" model when they were first released, which were quickly corrected.

And my point still stands. THe money you'll spend on polymer folding sights is going to be money wasted the moment you upgrade to the real deal. Magpul rear sights (non-pro) come from midway at $37-55 a pop. Pro models are 80-123. That's not counting the front sight. DD fixed sights are $120 for both front and rear from Midway. Sounds pretty comparable if you ask me, especially since they don't impact the use of non-magnified optics.

Ah, but you're comparing polymer to metal, folding to fixed. That ain't exactly fair - and is also nothing that I've either skipped over or tried to hide, even beginning with my first reply to the OP.

In so far as my limited knowledge takes me the Magpul polymer folders are the only ones that fill that niche and are proven: the Diamondhead polys also are in that price-range, but I've yet to meet someone who has - or read about, for that matter - used them for a while.

I don't think the truth is too strong. Pancakes on the line!!!

THe event was a 25M, which thankfully did not happen again on the 500 yard line. I literally went from shooting 8 moa to not hitting an IDPA target at ALL between strings, and then back to on paper after folding the sights down and bringing them back up. I've learned quite a bit over the years with problems I've encountered once or twice on AR systems and the troubleshooting involved to fix it. I now refused to use a front sight mounted on a rail, a 1 point sling, or non-machined sights (prefer fixed, but I have a folding rear with the understanding that I'm intending to run a low powered magnified optic within the next few years

Those are interesting pearls for someone like me - and I'll definitely keep them in-mind. Thanks!

But heck, in terms of equipment failure, even my Aimpoint T1 failed.

I forgot to mention that's key part that clicked for me on the magpul sights is watching a .50 Beowulf on YouTube that was using those sights. They folded under recoil with every shot, though it wasn't enough to lock down. That made me realize that they're probably moving a little under 5.56 recoil, and could explain the large groups I had using them compared to the same rifle with an aimpoint. I changed to fixed irons on it and suddenly did much much better.

That's definitely interesting.

And certainly, if they somehow shifted when they flipped, that's definitely going to be an issue.

The other part that I have a worry on the Magpul polymers is the spring that holds them up: if that spring goes, then it's time to break out the duct-tape...that sight's gonna flop like a GSD pup's ears.

I also learned that qd swivels are poor for shooting supported (came undone under recoil), free float mounted irons aren't great (tube flexes independent of barrel and shifts point of impact), the importance of GOOD optic mounts (Arms mount fell apart on the 500 yard line), how optic selection and mounting can alter weapon balance, balance vs weight, gas system vs buffer and spring selections, what's important for trigger components for different uses, magazine lip problems from certain manufacturers in certain calibers, but buying Hugh quality once instead of middle quality twice or poor quality thrice was the general end decision for most items.

Again, these are valuable pearls for someone with as little experience as I have, so I do thank you.

So here's a follow-up:

Outside of the extremes of precision/accuracy - i.e. if I am only looking to hold a max of 4 MOA - how much of a detriment is a rail-mounted BUIS, provided that the rail (and, of-course, it's mounting hardware) is a quality item itself?

[Brian D.]

Listen, Allen, I tend to go with jeep here on that assertion about the 7 MOA. I see plenty of people at these newer indoor ranges very happy with 3" 25 yard or 5" 50 yard groups with their tacticool AR's. They don't know any dang better..

Hey, that might be how I shoot, but that ain't what I'm happy with!

But like I wrote, I don't disagree - I just think that it's too strong of an assertion, particularly with even the few folks I've seen in class.

I shouldn't have to tell you this but...a tiny, tiny percentage of shooters ever take a class or compete. Jeep stated he was talking about the majority of shooters, like the ones who only use 25 yard indoor ranges, or plink on somebody's farm, or maybe get a day pass to an outdoor range at one of the state parks. And, that's just the gun owners who get any trigger time at all in say five years.

[jeep45238]

Allen,

Sorry for not doing quotes, but post lengths were getting pretty long Bullet points though:

1. Regarding people you see in class vs. the range: Folks you see in class are generally more serious about things than your typical range bear and either do research up front, or go a class and run what they brung and find the flaws in their setup or see how much more effecient and easier it is to use something else or another manufacturer's version. My range toy is a vepr AK - mag changes are slow, there's no hold bolt open, malfunctions are more interesting, sights not as good, heavier and thus slower to transition. But it forces me to focus on fundamentals more than my AR, which is almost like cheating in comparison. Better fundamentals = better results at speed. Once I run out of my old stock of surplus 5.45 I'll probably sell the AK and move over to a WASR or dedicate myself only to the AR unless new 5.45 ammo drops well below 7.62x39 or 5.56 new ammo.

2. It is absolutely fair to compare folding polymer to fixed steel to folding steel. It's like trying to find the best pistol for you - most people would say I should have a Glock 19 and 17. Instead I have a Sig P225 and Beretta 92G, because that's the best spec per dollar for my specs. And as long as the front sight and center of the rear sight aperture is the same distance over the bore, it doesn't matter the brand so feel free to mix and match to get your desired setup. The thing with this rifle we're looking at is there are no sights at all, not even a front sight base. That approximately doubles the cost of sights right there. Budget was a key part to this discussion, but you also don't want to spend the money twice. If that's the case get teh cheapest UTG thing you can find to play with (about $45 from Amazon) until you decide what you want in the end. To get the cheap magpul folders you're going to spend almost $85 plus shipping to get them. To step up to their pro line of folders, which are steel, you're looking at $150+ shipping, and they're held up with a detent. That 'should' be repeatable as long as the joint is properly machined/ground and the detent has large enough of surface area to dig into the sight. And keep crud from getting in there. While yes, the DD fixed sights are $35 more expensive, unless a magnified optic is coming down the pipe it's a one time investment that won't have to be replaced later in ownership.
UTG sights($45):
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Model-Complet ... B015ZLPWCO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Model-Detacha ... B002PNHJGI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Magpul MOE sights ($85):
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Daniel Defense fixed sight set ($120)
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... el+defense" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Magpul Pro($150):
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Your Aimpoint T-1 failed, a good high quality red dot - do you want to resort to a poor quality iron that may or may not have the same point of impact as your optic? If you have to resort to duct tape to fix a sight, I'd question your equipment choice personally.

4. 4 MOA isn't an extreme, but honestly that's a point where quality hardware will make a huge difference depending on how you're shooting. Appleseed style with a supported sling, depends how hard you load up. I load up on my sling HARD, and the tube will bend to it's extreme and cause a complete miss on a 500 yard target. I've had it happen with Larue and Daniel Defense free float rails. With a non-free float, the barrel (and thus front sight) move with the handguard if there's enough loading, which I haven't been able to induce (bend a piece of ordnance steel vs. thin aluminum). I currently use a drop in rail with a locking cam that uses the factory handguard retaining hardware, and it's rock solid - but I have an A2 front sight base with a sling swivel riveted to it, this everthing moves together as a unit. My Troy folding rear sight has had no problems in keeping 4MOA standard. I don't have a bipod, but the last time I used a bipod on someone else's rifle I asked them if their rail was touching the barrel. It was nearly touching, but didn't impact the point of impact as an optic was the sighting system, and that was mounted to the upper reciever, and thus held constant to the barrel regardless if there's flex in the handrail. I load bipods hard as well, like a machine gunner does.

If you change the shooting position to unsupported, sandbag, standing with a sling, or anything else where you can't exert a large amount of force to the rail/handguard, then it becomes progressively less and less of a problem with less and less flex of the rail.




Caveats : I'm not an english major, professional instructor, professional shooter. Just little lessons I've learned that may or may not apply for you and your situation.

[ArmedAviator]

I'm sure the question's been asked before (maybe even by me? )...
...but the grandson's getting an M&P15 VTAC II later today.

Why not let the grandson choose what he wants after he does some research of his own?

[ESAFO]

I'm sure the question's been asked before (maybe even by me? )...
...but the grandson's getting an M&P15 VTAC II later today.

Why not let the grandson choose what he wants after he does some research of his own?

WHAAAAAAAAT

[Brian D.]

Allen,

Sorry for not doing quotes, but post lengths were getting pretty long Bullet points though:

1. Regarding people you see in class vs. the range: Folks you see in class are generally more serious about things than your typical range bear...

That's a bit of slang I haven't heard before. care to elaborate ?

[jeep45238]

I just made it up.

Smarter than your average bear...average range bear....typical range bear....

[BEAR!]

You called?

[jeep45238]

You called?

That's funny....my inlaws have a rotty named Bear. Small world

[Bruenor]

I have the Magpul polymer flip ups on one of my rifles as a backup, in case the Vortex Sparc fails or the battery dies. and also use them absolute co-witnessed with the red dot for longer shots.

For grins I shot the local club CMP match with scaled 100 yd targets using the Magpul polymer flip ups. The sight performed better than I expected, I was one of the top shooters for the match. No trouble hitting head sized steel at 100yds at the 3-gun match. Even after throwing the rile repeatedly into the dump barrels at the 3-Gun matches I've had no issues with the magpul polymer sights holding zero. The sights are adequate for what they are and their price point. The zero hasn't changed, no matter how many times I've flip them up or down. For simply tooling around on the range they work fine.
Are they as sturdy or precise as the NM removable carry handle on my 20" NM AR ? no, but nor would I expect them to be. If I were subjecting them to extremely hard use I would go for something a bit more high end, probably the Troy backup Iron Sights. The Troys or a set of 45 degree offset irons will probably be a future upgrade after, or along with, new optics for that rifle. Till then I really have no complaints about them.

It is true that you get what you pay for, Don't expect Mercedes quality at Geo metro pricing. but those guys shooting crappy groups at 25 and 50 yards should probably spend their money on training, rather than flashy equipment.

[TSiWRX]

Listen, Allen, I tend to go with jeep here on that assertion about the 7 MOA. I see plenty of people at these newer indoor ranges very happy with 3" 25 yard or 5" 50 yard groups with their tacticool AR's. They don't know any dang better..

Hey, that might be how I shoot, but that ain't what I'm happy with!

But like I wrote, I don't disagree - I just think that it's too strong of an assertion, particularly with even the few folks I've seen in class.

I shouldn't have to tell you this but...a tiny, tiny percentage of shooters ever take a class or compete. Jeep stated he was talking about the majority of shooters, like the ones who only use 25 yard indoor ranges, or plink on somebody's farm, or maybe get a day pass to an outdoor range at one of the state parks. And, that's just the gun owners who get any trigger time at all in say five years.

Ah, I get the drift, now. [ see below ]

-----

Allen,

Sorry for not doing quotes, but post lengths were getting pretty long

It's OK, not everyone is as compulsive as I am!

Bullet points though:

1. Regarding people you see in class vs. the range: Folks you see in class are generally more serious about things than your typical range bear and either do research up front, or go a class and run what they brung and find the flaws in their setup or see how much more effecient and easier it is to use something else or another manufacturer's version. My range toy is a vepr AK - mag changes are slow, there's no hold bolt open, malfunctions are more interesting, sights not as good, heavier and thus slower to transition. But it forces me to focus on fundamentals more than my AR, which is almost like cheating in comparison. Better fundamentals = better results at speed. Once I run out of my old stock of surplus 5.45 I'll probably sell the AK and move over to a WASR or dedicate myself only to the AR unless new 5.45 ammo drops well below 7.62x39 or 5.56 new ammo.

With this - as well as Brian D.'s perspective - I'm now properly frame-shifted. For some strange reason, I was hung up on what I physically observed first-hand, and wasn't thinking big-picture.

I'll blame my brain-fart there on being a single-parent this week.

2. It is absolutely fair to compare folding polymer to fixed steel to folding steel. It's like trying to find the best pistol for you - most people would say I should have a Glock 19 and 17. Instead I have a Sig P225 and Beretta 92G, because that's the best spec per dollar for my specs. And as long as the front sight and center of the rear sight aperture is the same distance over the bore, it doesn't matter the brand so feel free to mix and match to get your desired setup. The thing with this rifle we're looking at is there are no sights at all, not even a front sight base. That approximately doubles the cost of sights right there. Budget was a key part to this discussion, but you also don't want to spend the money twice. If that's the case get teh cheapest UTG thing you can find to play with (about $45 from Amazon) until you decide what you want in the end. To get the cheap magpul folders you're going to spend almost $85 plus shipping to get them. To step up to their pro line of folders, which are steel, you're looking at $150+ shipping, and they're held up with a detent. That 'should' be repeatable as long as the joint is properly machined/ground and the detent has large enough of surface area to dig into the sight. And keep crud from getting in there. While yes, the DD fixed sights are $35 more expensive, unless a magnified optic is coming down the pipe it's a one time investment that won't have to be replaced later in ownership.
UTG sights($45):
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Model-Complet ... B015ZLPWCO" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.amazon.com/UTG-Model-Detacha ... B002PNHJGI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Magpul MOE sights ($85):
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Daniel Defense fixed sight set ($120)
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... el+defense" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Magpul Pro($150):
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/si ... r_1=magpul" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ah, now that makes more sense. Thank you for explaining your thinking.

3. Your Aimpoint T-1 failed, a good high quality red dot - do you want to resort to a poor quality iron that may or may not have the same point of impact as your optic? If you have to resort to duct tape to fix a sight, I'd question your equipment choice personally.

I think you misunderstood my point: I was simply suggesting that even with an eye towards durability and reliability - and buying once - equipment failures are still not out of the realm of possibility.

The sight's adjustment mechanism failed. Luckily, I was at least able to get a consistent (if rather horrid) zero since we weren't gunning for precision in that class. It was decent enough that my vision was starting to become the physical limitation at the 165 or so (range limitation: 165 yards was as far as we could push it).

The BUISs on that particular gun are the DD fixed. Not for precision/accuracy so much as the fact that as an HD gun for me, with the typical engagement distances that I'm looking at, I want *instantaneous* transition-to-backup. I actually purposely did not use the BUIS to meet the BSA template at the 165 that day as I wanted to see what my visual limitations would be.

4. 4 MOA isn't an extreme but honestly that's a point where quality hardware will make a huge difference depending on how you're shooting. Appleseed style with a supported sling, depends how hard you load up. I load up on my sling HARD, and the tube will bend to it's extreme and cause a complete miss on a 500 yard target. I've had it happen with Larue and Daniel Defense free float rails. With a non-free float, the barrel (and thus front sight) move with the handguard if there's enough loading, which I haven't been able to induce (bend a piece of ordnance steel vs. thin aluminum). I currently use a drop in rail with a locking cam that uses the factory handguard retaining hardware, and it's rock solid - but I have an A2 front sight base with a sling swivel riveted to it, this everthing moves together as a unit. My Troy folding rear sight has had no problems in keeping 4MOA standard. I don't have a bipod, but the last time I used a bipod on someone else's rifle I asked them if their rail was touching the barrel. It was nearly touching, but didn't impact the point of impact as an optic was the sighting system, and that was mounted to the upper reciever, and thus held constant to the barrel regardless if there's flex in the handrail. I load bipods hard as well, like a machine gunner does.

If you change the shooting position to unsupported, sandbag, standing with a sling, or anything else where you can't exert a large amount of force to the rail/handguard, then it becomes progressively less and less of a problem with less and less flex of the rail.




Caveats : I'm not an english major, professional instructor, professional shooter. Just little lessons I've learned that may or may not apply for you and your situation.

^ Those caveats are noted, and even so, I still thank you for the time and the nuggets of gold.