Just like the title says…I want your opinion and why?
Are they really this equivalent?
I had a regular MAD and it sat a little cocked (as in not perfectly upright) on my Stag Upper. GG&G insisted that their sights conform to the 1913 mil-spec and that my upper must have out of spec rails. Part of the problem is that the MAD sight only locates on the two outer slanted parts of the rail and not on the flat part, exacerbating the effects of any dimensional differences. I knew something wasn’t right when I had to crank in a lot of windage to zero the thing, and thus compensate for the slant.
The MAD also occludes a lot of your view. If you are used to A2 apertures that you can see around, you may not like the MAD. Don’t think I don’t like the MAD, it’s a really clever design, and I like that fact that the apertures on mine were all in the same plane. It just didn’t quite work on my carbine, and of course YMMV.
For a variety of reasons, I switched the GG&G spring operated A2 BUIS with the XS same plane aperture and it fits much better. I like that fact that GG&G use allen head bolts on the rail clamp, and they provide a torque spec along with recommending loctite.
I don’t like much of anything made by ARMS. The ARMS 40L-P is OK, but I don’t like how it doesn’t lock in the up position, and I don’t like how you always get the small aperture first and then have to fold it down to get the large aperture. It’s pretty low in profile, that’s for sure, but the ARMS 40 series in general is much higher in profile than it needs to be.
There seems to be emerging agreement that Troy makes the best folding BUIS. They have same plane apertures, A1 windage adjustment that you can’t screw up on accident, and are lower in profile than most other sights - including the ARMS 40L. I just don’t like the flat head mounting screw. Getting enough torque on it to prevent loosening under recoil could lead to distortion of the screw head, or slipped screwdrivers gouging your upper.
+1 on the MAD. I never could get on with it for the reasons you brought forth; not being able to look around it was just plain odd.
As far as the ARMS 40 series of BUIS go…I’ve had two examples (40 and a 40L) that I for the most part liked very much. No, it did lock when upright but it didnt seem to care any as it shot just fine. In fact after my MATECH did a very fine impression of broken glass (after being hit with a SIM ROUND) I switched to the 40L until a new MATECH could be ordered and delivered to my unit. Funny thing is I didnt want to go back to the MATECH when it finely came in as I do think the 40L is a better BUIS (at least for me). Take care.
What’s the deal with the Matech? I’ve seen a few and they didn’t impress me much.
Why does the army think they need a 600m graduated-range BUIS? Seems like it’s kind of wishful thinking to be making hits at that range with a backup sight. Did anyone ever really use the A2 sight’s ranging drum in combat? I’ve always been led to believe that the A2 sight was developed more for service rifle competition than practical use, and that the A1 was really better for field use.
But I’ve never been in any of the services, so I have no real clue. Sorry.
-
Im with you on the MATECH. It’s a BUIS that sort of lost its way me thinks. I guess Uncle Sugar could have done worse…(he also could have done better
) -
Your right about the A2 rear sight. It works wonderful once its dialed in and your having a good day at Perry. While I never had any problems with it in a deployed setting Im guessing others probably did.
-
I never used the BDC knob of the A2 in Iraq having deployed there twice carrying one. I did much to the ??? of my fireteam leader use the larger peep more then the smaller one. After showing good results doing so other members of my squad followed my lead. Learn as you go I guess.
