Due to the raised optics rail on my STG-556’s it hasn’t been easy setting things up for proper cheekweld. Because of weight & rail space considerations I’ve gone w/the Aimpoint Micro which I like a lot. However, the std LaRue mount was too tall, the mid-height mount was usable w/BUIS but didn’t have optimal cheekweld. The lowest LaRue mount is almost too low (requiring solid cheekweld but I have no problems running tactical drills w/it) but cannot be used w/BUIS because even when folded the BUIS block about 1/4 of the bottom view through the Aimpoint.
Now, if I was going to the sandbox I’d want BUIS, no question about it. However, in light of Aimpoint’s proven ruggedness, the ability to use the Aimpoint Micro itself as a crude close-in ghost ring should the battery/switch/electronics fail, the likelihood of ever having to use my STG’s for HD/SD and my desire to keep weight down (I’m in my 50’s now, can’t hump a heavy load all day like I used to) would it be practical/prudent to use just the Micro w/great cheekweld and forgo BUIS altogether or have BUIS w/the tradeoff being greater weight & less optimal cheekweld? Thx!..
Tomac
STG w/mid-height mount & MI folding BUIS:
STG w/low mount & no BUIS:
See if you can make it work to just use the Aimpoint as a big ghost ring sight. If yes, forget the BUIS. Or get a Hk 416 front sight combined with the Hk height mount.
I think somebody could/should make a basic blade-type front site that was the same height-above-rail as the centerline of an Aimpoint Micro. If designed correctly, it would be pretty non-obtrusive when using the micro, but would instantly create a rutimentary ghost-ring arrangement when the micro was off, or somehow failed.
Aside from the obvious use here, it could be just the ticket for low-profile use on PDW-concept type weapons.