I just received my first ever REAR Troy BUIS (been using FRONT BUIS’s from Troy for a while), and I was a LITTLE disappointed to see that they are not TOTALLY TIGHT when locked in the up position. There is fore-aft play. I really have no idea why Troy couldn’t create a SOLID bank vault lockup. Ball detents are not that hard to get tight.
I suppose since they are BACK UP irons, they will be ok though.
How does everyone elses Troys feel in the UP position? Are they SOLID, or is there slop fore and aft???
The other slight disappointment, is that they made the rear BUIS, where it will ONLY mount in the REAR-MOST position towards the CH, and I would have thought they would have made it where you could put it where you want (I would have liked to put it a notch or two forward of this rear-most position).
Anyhow, the above are not the end of the world, and I still like the sights.
There is just one more issue I would like to inquire about. I see that the REAR BUIS is setup, where the “default” aperture setting is for the LARGEST aperture, and I would LIKE to keep my REAR BUIS set to the SMALLEST aperture setting, when the sight is in the FOLDED DOWN position.
However, from the factory, this is NOT possible, as the small aperture setting creates an issue where the aperture will not allow the sight to be folded down completely.
I was looking at the sight, and see on the end of the main adjustment screw/shaft, there is an allen head hex head. Can this possibly be unscrewed, so that I could remove the sight aperture, and REVERSE IT so that the sight will fold down when the SMALLEST APERTURE is in the “ready” position???
I did not want to take this thing apart just yet, without asking if anyone else had done it before???
That large aperture hole is HUGE, and I don’t really see much use for it personally. I’ve just always liked smaller apertures, and would only switch to the large aperture if totally necessary.
Thanks for any help guys.
I will have to check about the “fore-aft play” when I get home. I dont remember mine having any.
As far as switching the aperture, I also want to know this. I saw the same thing on mine but was kinda scared of taking it apart. I also want to switch mine around so that I can keep it on the small aperture all the time.
Sorry I cant be of more help, but I will check mine for play when I get home in an hour and let ya know something.
If I’m understanding you right, on my sights, there is some “play” to it when flipped up. I’m thinking it’s designed that way to act kind of like a “shock absorber”?
Wouldn’t you want the rear BUIS as far back on the upper as possible, especially when dealing with a carbine length rifle? I don’t see that as being an issue really.
Bro, I could say some funny things here, but I assure you there is no “shock absorbing” feature built into a BUIS. You crack me up! I’m sitting here laughing my ass off!
I read back over this thread, and I don’t see PII mentioned anyhwere. Going through many possibilities in my head to no avail. Maybe I’m having a slow day? Please enlighten us.
I don’t see it as being a real neg, and I too think a rear sight should sit back fairly close to the shooters eye, but at the same time they didn’t have to design it where it obscures comfortable use of the CH.
As I said though, certainly not a dealbreaker, but working the CH before, certainly was much more comfortable and less obscured…
I speculate that the large aperture is the default because it is the most viable for cqb. If you need the accuracy of the small apeture you have the time to switch.Just my 2 cents.
P.I.I. = Preoccupation with Inconsequential Increments
It was a phrase that Col. Cooper liked to use when people got obsessively wrapped around the axle over little bits of minutae that in the end didn’t do anything to make them a more effective fighter.
I just zeroed mine Saturday. I noticed no movement and I am very pleased with mine. I will be installing a set of TROY sights on the .50 Beowulf I have on order.
Inconsequential as it may seem to others, if mine are loose, and most others are tight, I want tights ones.
I admit, I come from somewhat of a machining background, and I know how easy it is to get a ball detent right. (and I know how hard it is to get it wrong too).
No bashing meant, just simple product evaluation and comparison.
I realize some guys don’t mind loose sloppy weapons/components, but I simply cannot drop thousands on loose tolerances when the intended products weren’t mean to be that way.
If this sight was moving .050", I’d not have even mentioned it.
Benchrest shooters go to EXTREME extents to make absolute SURE their sights cannot even move a thousandth of an inch.
Now this is no benchrest rifle, so I refrain from being concerned until the sight actually reaches a point of being “loose”.
PII is such a loose viewpoint, which could be applied to literally any part of a weapon, and it ultimately depends on the end users preference for quality, QC, and end product design. I think “inconsequential” is going a bit overboard though, my good friend.
Can this possibly be unscrewed, so that I could remove the sight aperture, and REVERSE IT so that the sight will fold down when the SMALLEST APERTURE is in the “ready” position???
I know! I was just saying so as to relate. But I know what you mean bruddah! I’m with you!