Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So you want to buy an AR-15, huh?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Well, I finally got my upper from CMMG. Now i just need my lower parts kit from Del-ton. I ordered them at the same time. Anyone else have that problem?
    sigpic
    Quando Omini Flunkus Moritati! (When all else fails, play dead.)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by BigGreyS View Post
      Well, I finally got my upper from CMMG. Now i just need my lower parts kit from Del-ton. I ordered them at the same time. Anyone else have that problem?
      So...when did you order it?
      sigpic

      In Memory
      Officer J. Sanders
      EOW 12-15-2008


      Loyalty...Duty...Respect...Selfless Service...Honor...Integrity...Personal Courage

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FiremanMike View Post
        I don't understand how that works, seems like it would shoot low, as you're raising the rear of the gun slightly to get the front site in the hole, clearly I am confused..
        That bugged me too. Intuitively it seems that looking across the top of the sights for a close quarters shot ought be flat, and then by raising the rear sight to look through the peep you'd have a low point of impact. However, 7 yards is a very close shot. Maybe using the 7y sight the weapon's angled up, so that in those 7 yards the bullet can climb the inch and a half of the sight height so that point of aim and point of impact meet, with the bullet continuing to climb past 7y and *high* at 100y. In the 100y sight the weapon's more flat as there isn't much drop to worry about. That would make sense to me.

        Would also mean the 7y sight could be used again at a long-range shot.
        **Not a LEO**

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FiremanMike View Post
          I don't understand how that works, seems like it would shoot low, as you're raising the rear of the gun slightly to get the front site in the hole, clearly I am confused..
          Everyone who shoots knows that bullets travel in an arc. At 7yds the 5.56/.223 is like a laser beam. No arc. To sight in at 7yds you have to elevate more than for 100yds because of the distance between the sight and the bore centerline or you'll be shooting that distance low.



          Evidently Paul Howe did his math and came up with a formula that would allow him to develope a rear sight that when sighted in at 7yds would allow for a secondary sight directly beneath it to be automatically sighted in at 100yds. It's so freaking simple that I'm surprised no one has ever come up with it before.
          sigpic

          "Po Po coming through!" all rights reserved DJS



          'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'

          http://www.snipercompany.com/

          M16/AR15/M4 Armorer

          Comment


          • Either that or he made a sight, found out how far out the point of aim and point of impact crossed, and began promoting that as the ideal short-range distance

            Hrm. Assuming 2400fps average between 0 and 100y there's a ... 2" drop or so? And assuming a 2.1" inclement at 7y that's 28" up at 100m. Over someone's head. Aiming at center mass you want a 6" climb tops. So you're good on the top sight to 0-25y or so. That covers most urban/dense wooded environments, I imagine.

            It's a neat idea, but in retrospect I'm not sold on the idea. I'm sure Paul Howe's forgotten more about combat than I'd ever want to know, but looking across the top of your sight gives you a nice broad picture of what's going on around you. Dropping your head to take a peep involves, momentarily, losing your sight picture. Is a 2" shift in point of aim to point of impact (or whatever it is, will be slightly less than the height of the front sight post) in close quarters worth having to do trig for your top sight in an unknown distance environment? Having to gauge whether the target's 35y or 55y away for a 8-13" climb in your bullet? The incline to make it line up is too aggressive. Plus you're using more of your rear site, so cowitnessing with an optic becomes trickier. This is an irons-only approach.

            At first blush it seems really amazing. If you need to make snappy, precision, in-house distance shots where 2" high or low makes a difference, it's ideal. There's just this fuzzy area between 40y and 100y where to use the top sight you're having to consciously aim at someone's navel or groin to hit them in the upper chest, and dropping to your lower peep restricts your view and takes time that anyone with a standard sight doesn't have to. Beyond 100y I imagine shots take more careful aim anyhow, and dropping to the lower sight wouldn't be as much of a burden.

            EDIT:

            Used a calculator for bullet trajectory, things weren't so dire, but they were bad.

            Using the top sight:

            3.7" high at 25y (sounds OK)
            8.7" high at 50y (shooting at his navel)
            13.3" high at 75y (guy's wondering why you're aimed at his frank and beans)

            On a more positive note you cross zero again at 500y or so, but I sure wouldn't want to take shots at that range without an optic. Maybe I need new glasses.
            Last edited by TimK; 05-13-2009, 10:23 PM.
            **Not a LEO**

            Comment


            • I'm sorry, Tim, but you are COMPLETELY missing the point...

              I don't even feel the need to address the issue.

              EDIT Ok, I addressed it below. Disregard this post...
              Last edited by jwise; 05-14-2009, 11:03 AM.
              J. Wise

              AR-15 - AK-47 - NFA Trusts - My Pick - Carry Guns - 1911s

              "Some say you can tell how the world stands by the prices of AK-47s...." Chit2001

              Any comments contained herein regarding the legality of firearms, or the application of law, are strictly applicable to Texas. If you live in CA, NY, IL, MA, D.C., etc., the above comments will probably shock you, and should be read for educational purposes only. Most likely nothing I write will apply to you.

              sigpic

              Comment


              • I'll admit, I'm lost. Is the point of the top sight to get a quick and dirty zero so you can sight in the bottom ring with minimal follow-up shots, and then be useful as a close-quarters open sight as a secondary function? Wouldn't firing at 7y and zeroing at an inch and a half low do the same thing with a traditional sight, while still allowing for a smaller backup optic to easily pair with glass or a dot of some sort?

                ...Is it that the traditional sight's a ring and the open sight on top gives better visibility in close quarters?

                Maybe I'm just not fully appreciating how often someone's irons lose their zero and need to be reset?
                **Not a LEO**

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TimK View Post

                  Maybe I'm just not fully appreciating how often someone's irons lose their zero and need to be reset?
                  Huh???
                  sigpic

                  "Po Po coming through!" all rights reserved DJS



                  'Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?'

                  http://www.snipercompany.com/

                  M16/AR15/M4 Armorer

                  Comment


                  • The concept behind the sight is twofold.

                    First, it gives the shooter a SURGICAL point of aim that is "on" at close range. While this isn't really a big deal in 99% of shoots (1.5" isn't enough offset to worry about when aiming Center of Mass), it can mean a LOT when taking a shot that requires PRECISION, as in a hostage rescue shot, shooting at a very small exposed portion of the target that is otherwise behind cover, etc...

                    The original concept was simply a regular A2 large peep with a notch cut in the top. The final iteration seems to be somewhat different, in that it appears to be a small peep set inside a large square shaped piece of steel with a notch cut in the top.



                    I'd prefer the original concept, and here's why: when I'm running iron sights, I like to be able to see more than what is viewable through the peep sight. I like the large peep, as it almost disappears from my vision, since I'm focused through it (I hope that makes sense.) With a large square piece of steel, my vision is blocked except for what I can see through the peep, which is a small peep. That's no bueno.

                    The notch seems to almost be the "primary" sight in this last concept, instead of an ancillary sighting system as in the first.

                    With the notch as the primary sighting system, it functions well, because it operates like "open" sights, where the shooter can see EVERYTHING above the sight plane. This is good. I presume the intent would be that the notch is used in CQB environments, where the shooter is really just doing a flash sight picture anyway. If the need arises, he can take his time and get a surgical shot off by using the notch.

                    The peep really becomes a secondary sighting system, used only for distance shooting (maybe it becomes primary around 50yds or so.) While the 25-100yd range is the trickiest for me (close enough that time matters, but far enough that you have to be precise in your shooting), this seems to be the disadvantageous range for the CSAT sight. The peep should be the primary sight, but it is hampered by a narrow field of vision created by a small peep and a solid square piece of steel.



                    The second function of the sight is that it allows the shooter to get a rough zero at 7yds (where a spotter is not needed to tell you where you are hitting), so adjustments can quickly be made to get you "on." Fine adjustments are then made at the 100yd line while shooting through the peep. This basically takes the place of Paul Howe's CSAT targets he uses, which have a 1"X1" shaded square just below the "X" in the bullseye. At 7yds, the offset makes the bullets strike the square instead of the X, thus giving the shooter the ability to make adjustments for the square while holding on the X. Pretty ingenious...

                    I love the idea behind the sight, but not as a primary sighting system. I would love to have one of the prototypes I got to handle last year, that were basically just a large peep with a notch cut in the top. That's the one that I would want...
                    J. Wise

                    AR-15 - AK-47 - NFA Trusts - My Pick - Carry Guns - 1911s

                    "Some say you can tell how the world stands by the prices of AK-47s...." Chit2001

                    Any comments contained herein regarding the legality of firearms, or the application of law, are strictly applicable to Texas. If you live in CA, NY, IL, MA, D.C., etc., the above comments will probably shock you, and should be read for educational purposes only. Most likely nothing I write will apply to you.

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • I'm glad I wasn't misunderstanding the sight. I didn't do a great job of explaining myself, but you and I share the same concerns.

                      Not that it matters for me, being the complete civvie that I am! It's affordably priced though, so not a great hardship to try it out and see if it works for you.
                      **Not a LEO**

                      Comment


                      • Anyone have any experience with the Bolt Carrier Groups from G&R Tactical? Good, bad?
                        Last edited by WinterBoarder; 05-14-2009, 11:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WinterBoarder View Post
                          Anyone have any experience with the Bolt Carrier Groups from G&R Tactical? Good, bad?
                          I have 2 of the G&R Tactical BCG's.
                          They are M16 carriers and the gas keys are staked properly. The bolts aren't mp tested. But G&R will stand by the product.
                          I haven't had any issues but I've only had them a month or two.
                          With today's availability I wouldn't hesitate to get another one. I plan on upgrading to a LMT or BCM bolt when supply catches up again.
                          Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

                          Comment


                          • My CMMG out the box:



                            1 month later:





                            MI FF rail in a few weeks
                            +VLTOR offset light mount
                            +SOG VFG
                            +Black XT covers
                            +FDE ladder rail covers
                            Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity

                            Comment


                            • nadler20, what sling is that?

                              Comment


                              • http://www.lapolicegear.com/single-b...al-bungee.html

                                I like it, plus it's a good price. It comes with two adapters and the bungees are tight. However, I can't speak much to the long term durablility as I've only had it for a couple weeks.
                                Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 5297 users online. 316 members and 4981 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X