Last week I bought a set of Magpul PRO LR flip up iron sights. I got to try them out yesterday at the range and I am liking them.
The KAC 2-600m sight are still my favorite, but I think these Magpul PRO sights are well worth the cost.
Both the front and rear sight are very low profile. A very small footprint for either sight. Both sights have tool less adjustments. When I first unboxed the sights, I was very impressed with the heavy duty feel of the sights. The melonited case hardened steel should end up being a very tough, rust resistant sight.
I really appreciate how the mounting screw for these sights can be tightened by a screw driver or a 1/8 inch Allen wrench. The PRO LR rear sight has an elevation adjustment wheel unlike the Magpul PRO.
The elevation wheel is can be set from 2-6 with a single click in between each. The rear sight offers small and large apertures. The front sight post is a narrower match style.
I really like these sights, and I recommend them. These little steel sights feel substantial. I was worried at first that they would be too stiff and too small to deploy quickly, but since installing them I found that isn’t an issue. The adjustment are stiff, which I prefer so there isn’t a concern of accidentally adjustment.
The only criticism I can come up with for these are that the back sides when flipped up don’t have the best atheistic.
I also wouldn’t mind seeing a 100 setting for the rear sight.
Now I am no fan of ARMS mounts, so I’m pretty biased about that. I have this MK12MOD1 upper where I use the period correct ARMS 12H rings. I generally try not to remove QD scopes unless I have to, especially so with ARMS mounts.
On Saturday I found that after having removed the scope and reattached it previously, my zero had shifted 4 inches left at 100 yards. I figured this was a fluke and seemed excessive even for ARMS, so I removed the scope, cleaned the upper and mounting point on the scope rings, and remounted it. That moved the group 2 inches right and an inch down.
Quick detach mounts are awesome, but make sure if you use one, that it does return to zero. I am going to stick with Larue mounts on any of my serious use ARs.
For a variety of reasons I’ve been thinking a good bit about the USMC’s M27 IAR and the concept of the automatic rifle.
Generally my first thought is annoyance that the USMC wouldn’t buy anything cool until after I got out.
While I was in, along with having the M249 SAW, we also heard and believed that the USMC needed rifles. It was often said that we used rifles because of the greater accuracy, reliability, and lethality. I found it funny when we got to Iraq and the SAW gunners were issued PARA barrels (13.7 inch long according to FN). It made the SAW shorter than a M16. Even funnier is how we were told we needed 20 inched barreled rifles for fighting, yet the 16.5 inch barrel on the IAR is apparently good enough.
The M249 was a good light machine gun, but a fair automatic rifle. When you could stay in a stationary emplacement and lay down a wall of lead it was a whole lot of fun. Carrying it around and trying to engage rapidly was not so great. I think the biggest issue is that we generally did not have as much trigger time and confidence in the SAW. Guys graduated Bootcamp thinking they knew how to use the M16. Handing them a SAW was giving them a weapon there were not familiar or proficient with. Not to mention that the SAW was usually given to the new boots who didn’t know how to employ it well.
So the question becomes, does the increased portability and identical handling and controls to the M4/M16 make it worth giving up the capability of massive volume of fire of the belt fed.
Not to long ago I was working at an event geared toward helping people who have little to no firearm knowledge or experience.
Looking back at, and most of the other similar events I have been at I noticed at how much new shooters tended to prefer the shotgun.
Before they ever fire the shotgun, often the various people running or helping at these events will explain how you don’t need to aim, that the sound of racking a shotgun will scare off any intruder, and how the massive power of the shotgun can blast a grown man across a room. Then these novices proceed to fire a couple shots of birdshot at close ranges absolutely shredding these paper targets. When they go to try a rifle or pistol, it is fired at far longer ranges with no feedback as to hits or misses.
Now don’t get me wrong, the shotgun is a devastating effective weapon with the right ammunition and it may be the right choice as a home weapon for many of these novices. That said I think the combination of bad advice along with firing these very light loads at very close paper targets gives a false sense of effectiveness. I also think that new shooter when firing any weapon should be given some sort of reactive target(be it steel swingers, clay pigeons, balloons, shoot and see targets, etc) so they can see that they are hitting the target. That way they can also receive coaching if they are missing. A new shooting firing at a paper target at 25+ yards often has no idea if they are hitting or not, and will receive no help to correct problems if they are missing.
I remember one church group I was the Range Officer for; the minister showed off to his congregation his pistol grip only shotgun and explain how it was perfect for home defense and you don’t even need to aim it. He then proceeded to fire a shot from the hip that impacted about 10 feet above his target.
When there are people new to shooting, we need to prepare them for success, not failure.
I managed to purchase for my self an ACOG EREK cantilever adapter.
Now to be honest, I’m not exactly sure what EREK stands for. I’m guessing something like Eye Relief Extension Kit.
So why did I buy it? Because I wanted one. Some time back, I saw some pictures of the USMC trying a cantilever mount for the ACOG on the M16A4. Since them I have wanted to give it a try.
When you read about people complaining about the ACOG, the first complaint is always price, the second tends to be about the short unforgiving eye relief. Once you take that short eye relief of the ACOG and have to mount a BUIS behind it, combined with a fixed stock, it can be annoying. Personally, not only have I gotten used to it, I am rather fond of the ACOG mounted forward as I shoot nose to the charging handle.
So at some point the USMC had some adapters made up that moved the ACOG back and over the Knights 2-600m rear sight. This makes the ACOG easier to use with the A2 fixed stock. Now I tried to find pictures of it in use again, but I was unable too. My guess is that the USMC tested it and for what ever reason decided not to use them.
Why? I don’t know. Perhaps raising the ACOG up make it more unacceptable to damage or abuse changing the zero. It might not have been worth the cost. Or someone might have come to their senses and said use the M4 instead. In any event, I have one to use now, and it is rather nice. It lifts the ACOG up enough that the charging handle is easily accessible, and moves the ACOG far enough back that you don’t need to crane your head forward for nose to the charging handle.
All of us are human, we can all make mistakes. This goes doubly true for firearm companies.
A friend of mine purchased a Larue rifle on my recommendation. Much to our dismay, it did not function out of the box. (My punishment for highly recommending anything) It was short stroking. Closer inspection showed that one of the socket head hex screws on the boltcarrier key appears crooked. Most likely the head has broken off the bolt shaft allowing the Bolt Carrier Key to become just loose enough to cause the gun to short stroke. Larue Tactical is already replacing the BCG.
If you buy quality, you are less likely to have issues, but there is always the chance of problems. Test your gear.