Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gene Econ
[Who is making these sights?
Not sure but I will find out in order to avoid anything else that company is making.
My view of this particular sight is that it is generally poor in quality and design. However, it is what is being issued so we use it to the best that it can give which is probably as much as anyone cared to design for a back up iron.
For better or worse -- the Army will eventually have no need for conventional iron sights anymore. If the Army continues down the path of this particular model, it will render itself obsolete as it is so poor that almost anything else will give better performance.
Gene
|
Finally - Something worse than the KAC BUIS. Nice to know the Army still spends its money wisely. I know you're not in the decision loop BUT - rhetorical question - why does the Army waste money on delicate, complicated (or both) BUIS'? There are better solutions available as you've already implied. So far I can't complain about the ARMS 40Ls I have for my carbines - and I don't worry about not having an adjustable range capability.
Training question - You appear to be in a position to talk to the troops regularly. Do any of them actually take the time to adjust their rear sight for range when the bullets are flying? (I won't even ask about the Aimpoints.) Personally I don't recall anybody ever doing it. Bad guys never presented exactly at the zero range and ranges always changed too rapidly to waste time screwing (literally) with sights. Once we had a battle sight zero we always used holdover/under when ranges differed from zero. Nor did I ever teach it as a viable method for anything except target shooting - not something I was ever interested in doing with a BUIS. So what's the point of the current issue sight? Again - I can't help but think/agree that the Army has wasted a lot of money on a POS.
FWIW - Peregrino