I've just acquired a DPMS upper with a non-removable carry handle...

In your opinion, what is the best sight available for under $300?

Use will be brush-browsing for targets of opportunity up to 200-225 yards, and possibly a bit of house-clearing from time to time.

When I carry my A2 afield, it wears a Millet Zoom Dot on top of the carry handle. Eye-alignment is fast and comfortable, but one does need to be sure the mount is better than "hand tight".

The cost is a little more than you want to pend but it is wel worth it in the long run. In 2004 when I deployed to Iraq I picked up a mount that fits in the carrying handle and an EoTech (model that takes AA batteries). The base is adjustable for heigth (available from Brownells - I'd tell you the name but I'm not home) and mounts the EoTech over the handguard in front of the handle. It allows the standard sights to be used looking through the EoTech.

I zeroed the issue Iron (small aperture) for 300 meters. Then I turned on the EoTech and adjusted it so the 1 moa red dot just sat on top of the front sight post with good sight alignment of the issue sights. This gave a 250 meter zero with the Eotech dot.

The sight base and set up is simple and very souts though I did add a small lock washer between the lock nut and the handle. I don' know if this was really needed or not as I did it when I first mounted it.

In the +1 year of deployment I removed the base twice from the M16A2 and when remounted it went back to perfect zero. Batteries lasted a long, long tie and I never had any go dead while in use. I did change them out before every operation anyway. The ones I removed gave good service in the small CD player so whatever battery life left was not wasted. The Battery charge indicater on the CD player always showed 1/2 charge or more. I didn't worry at all about battery life.

The Eotech mounted that way was the most accurate (1 moa dot vs 4-6 moa for the others) of the "dot" type sights I tried and I tried all of them extesively in country. On CQB I always aquired the arget and shot first. I hit every time with a very small group in the center of the targets. It was very, very fast (faster than any other sight or method and much more accurate than "instinct" because I aimed) by just looking over the top of the rear sight with both eyes open and puting the red dot on target and pulling the trigger. With the short range rear sight up (large aperture) it was almost as fast and most often still fast than other sights or insinctive shooting. Accuracy was phenominal!

I use the same mount and Eotech on my own AR now. With the 1 moa dot I am every bit as accurate with it out to 300 yards as with the iron sights and as accurate with all but the highest powered (not kept on my tactical AR anyway) of scopes. The set up will cost about twice what you are thinking of spending but will be well worth it. Just something for you to consider.

Larry Gibson

Thanks very much guys, especially you Larry, for taking the time to give me the full scoop on what you use.

Being an old guy who lived through the great depression, am not sure I want to leap for a $600 sight right now in this economy, but as things become more predictable may very well do it anyway.

Alberta Canuck, I hope you haven't bought your optics yet. Because I remembered you mentioned you had the upper with the non-removable carry handle.

I would avoid any optics that require the sight to be mounted above the carry handle for the following reasons:

With the carry handle the iron sights are already 2.6" Height Over Bore (HOB). Any optic that you must mount OVER the carry handle will increase that measurement by more than an inch.

In addition to sighting problems, this higher sight will force you to raise your head up to see through the sight. An awkward situation that also ruins proper cheek weld.

There are several red-dot type sights can be mounted over the handguards in a ‘scout’ type mount (i.e. Trijicon Reflex, Aimpoint Comp M, Colt C-More, the OKO, and probably others I'm not aware of). When mounted, they keep the HOB close to the 2.6" HOB of the iron sights.

If I were you, I'd check into these before making a decision.

If you really want to go with optics that require higher mounting, I would recommend that you go to a flat-top upper.

Look at "C-more" sights. In your price range here in Tomball, Texas anyhow.

Robert

If I wanted optics on a AR with a carry handle, I'd buy a flat top upper receiver and change it out.

With the proper tools, a guy can change out receivers in less than an hour.

ZM

First off, I thank most all of you for your suggestions. I haven't bought anything yet, but now have several things to look at, to the credit of you folks and the valuable ideas you've given me.

As far as changing to a flat-top upper, ain't gonna happen! Had I wanted a flat-top, I would have bought one of those rather than this one.

Matter of fact, I already have a full-out, heavy, fluted stainless barrel, complete Bushmaster flat-top upper assembly for this rifle, with a high quality NightForce variable mounted on it. That is NOT what THIS upper is about.

This upper is not a wannabe sniper/benchrest rifle. It is going to be a handy, 16" barreled, quick to aim well, "take care of urgent business from 2 feet to to 200 yards rifle".

Though I asked about sights, not just optics, the comments on optics suited to the purpose described are all very welcome.

But THIS thread is about "what is the best sight for the upper and the use described?" It is NOT about what anyone thinks I SHOULD have bought as an upper.

All opinions in response to my actual question are welcome here,and I thank you guys for the helpful suggestions you've given. Incidentally, money is not in tight supply here at all YET. My comment about not wanting to spend $600 for a sight at this time is because my view of the future is not yet very clear. One thing I learned from the last depression is that a guy needs to know when to pull back a bit and be a little frugal. It may turn out to be unrequired, but perhaps not, too. A little extra held aside in the accounts doesn't hurt most of the time.

Fine, be that way!

Look at a Hakko 4x21 red dot carry handle scope. I've seen a few pics of them and the folks at that big AR site like them. They look like the same scope Colt used to put on AR's before the flat top receiver came into existence.

CDNN used to sell them but they're not listed in their current catalog.

quote:

Originally posted by Zeke:
Fine, be that way!

Look at a Hakko 4x21 red dot carry handle scope. I've seen a few pics of them and the folks at that big AR site like them. They look like the same scope Colt used to put on AR's before the flat top receiver came into existence.

CDNN used to sell them but they're not listed in their current catalog.

Thanks, Zeke. You have a good sense of humour. I also appreciate your latest suggestion; I will look at the Hakkos.

On re-reading, am sorry how blunt my last post came across. Really just wanted to get back on topic and prevent it from breaking out into a free-for-all between the "carry-handle" afficianados and the pro-flat-top folks. Was not intended to address you personally or to offend you. Thanks for understanding and coming back with a good idea.

No harm no foul.

I have both, but I prefer the A1 sights on my slickside carbine.

As I said earlier, the folks at that big AR site seem to like the Hakko scope. It might be worth looking into.

ZM

Here's a pic of my setup-it's very comfortable, very stable, and very quick to acquire. Anyone that'll tell you different simply hasn't tried it. Like it stated earlier, just make sure the nut is more than hand tight.

I deleted my post and will make no further suggestions. Sorry to steer your thread off topic.


Terry

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
As far as changing to a flat-top upper, ain't gonna happen! Had I wanted a flat-top, I would have bought one of those rather than this one.

Matter of fact, I already have a full-out, heavy, fluted stainless barrel, complete Bushmaster flat-top upper assembly for this rifle, with a high quality NightForce variable mounted on it. That is NOT what THIS upper is about.

...... It is going to be a handy, 16" barreled, quick to aim well, "take care of urgent business from 2 feet to to 200 yards rifle".

Though I asked about sights, not just optics, the comments on optics suited to the purpose described are all very welcome.

But THIS thread is about "what is the best sight for the upper and the use described?" It is NOT about what anyone thinks I SHOULD have bought as an upper.

Alberta Canuck, for speed and down and dirty accuracy, the scout mounted red dots are the way to go. That is...... IF you are determined to go with the fixed carry handle.

For your stated purposes, I'm also assuming that you want a sight with low/no-light capabilities. The scout red dots are the best for that purpose too.

If you are willing to give up a bit of speed, the illuminated iron sights will work too.

For your iron sights, I'd just recommend getting a tritium front post and tritium rear aperture replacement for your current sights. You can get by with the tritium front post only, but the front AND rear combo works better.

There's a reason this guy in the photo has that crap on his butt stock. Not a good solution for quick short to medium range use.

Juggernaut - Thanks for posting the pic of your rig with the Millet on it. that looks very much like it would work fine. I was not aware they made the handle inserts which would take Weaver -style rings. The ones I used to get for my previous semi & full H-Bars only had their own rings, not slots for other mounts too. That alone is worth the whole thread to me. I m still going to look at pretty much everything suggested and let the gears grind slowly along (as always) in my cranium before buying, but I immediately like the small size of that Millet.


DaMan - Thanks for your extra pics and comments, too. I want the carry handle for a couple of reasons...one, for carrying the Mattel gun. With barrels of 16" or shorter, I find the balance point of the rifle seems to be right about where the magazine or the action/handguard joint are, so the carry handle is a more convenient way to carry it part of the time, when trekking fair distances.

But even more to the point, I guess maybe my experiences in both the depression and in northern Canada bush keep telling me it never hurts to have the original "iron" sights available too. With the carry handle, it came with both front and rear sights of course, as is normal to us older critters. So, I like the insurance policy that provides.

Zeke - Thanks for the added comment about the Hakko looking like the original Colt sight. I used to use the original Colt scopes on both my H-Bar M-16, and on my original semi-auto AR-18. They worked just fine for the purposes described. But since I have been away from full-auto and other similar contoured rifles for about 25 years now, am hoping through this thread to get a feel what what other options are out there, and how well people rate them. Is nice to hear there is still something available that looks like a product I have already used and liked.

Terry - I do not recall your post, but I DO recall being happy to see you join in. I usually find anything you have to say is worth considering. I didn't take anything you said as steering the thread off course, or else I WOULD remember it. Sorry to see you go.

Best wishes,

AC

Update: I believe the OKO reflex is no longer available.

Mepro also makes a carry handle reflex but it's about $460 with mount.

Trijicon carry handle reflex goes for about $420 with mount.

If you go to AR-15com or some of the similar sites they often have links to surplus Israeli military handle-mount scopes that are cheap (about $100 earlier this year) and functional.

I have the original Colt 3x handle scope on my SP-1 and if this sample is typical, do not be tempted! It is without a doubt the worst piece of glass I've seen, short of the spyglass on my grandaughter's Fisher-Price pirate ship!

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
If you go to AR-15com or some of the similar sites they often have links to surplus Israeli military handle-mount scopes that are cheap (about $100 earlier this year) and functional.

tiggertate, I'm not saying I don't believe you..... but could you be more specific than just "go to AR-15com"?

What exactly are these "$100 Israeli specials"?!!!

Aimpoint with 10174 forward carry handle mount and QRP mount/ring.

Eotech forward carry handle mount.

When the IDF stopped using the M-16 a very large quantity of their standard issue mil-spec scopes went on the surplus market. They look very much like the Colt; straight tube and handle-mounted. I'd be lyin' if I said they were still $100 but the reviews were positive. Haven't looked for them since I wasn't wanting that type for my SP-1

T

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
If you go to AR-15com or some of the similar sites they often have links to surplus Israeli military handle-mount scopes that are cheap (about $100 earlier this year) and functional.

I have the original Colt 3x handle scope on my SP-1 and if this sample is typical, do not be tempted! It is without a doubt the worst piece of glass I've seen, short of the spyglass on my grandaughter's Fisher-Price pirate ship!

Thanks for the tip on the Israeli-used scopes. I'll go take a look.

As for the Colt 3-X scopes, I believe I mentioned earlier that I have owned several of the original Colt 3-X sights, used them on both M-16s and AR-180s, and was quite well satisfied with them when shooting in semi-auto mode.

Perhaps you got one which should have been interecepted by the quality control ladies at the assembly line. Or, maybe you were using it for a purpose it was not intended to fill. They are not intended as varmint or long-range tools so far as I know.

At the moment, I am more inclined to try one of the red-dot sights, but that is still not a final decision.

I may have a different model. The field of view is miniscule; completely inadequate for combat. The lenses have developed cataracts. I hope mine is an anomaly.

BTW - The scopes that tiggertate is referring to were the 3 x 20 El-Op Eyal.

The Israelis got rid of them for good reasons.

Personally, I like a carbine with an A1 style sight/handle and a free float handguard with rails at four positions. Then you can mount the optic of choice on the top rail. Cowitness the sights thru the optic and all is good.
You don't get "precision" accuracy but it will do for shots to 200 yards.
I'd think one of the metal handguard / rail systems that installs securely would be adequate for most of the duties a carbine would normally be used for.
ymmv

best sights for a fixed carry handle gun allready come on it.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
best sights for a fixed carry handle gun allready come on it.

I disagree. Both A-1 and A-2 carry handle versions can be improved with A-2 type tritium front post and rear aperture sights.

ive fooled with triniums on rifles. I have a marlin that dave clements built me with them. there great for low light and for close up but lack precision for long range shooting. To me nothing beats a good old black blade up against something. At least in the day time.

quote:

Originally posted by DaMan:

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
best sights for a fixed carry handle gun allready come on it.

I disagree. Both A-1 and A-2 carry handle versions can be improved with A-2 type tritium front post and rear aperture sights.

Personally I do not like the issue iron sights on ARs at all. There are a lot of iron sights I DO like on rifles, but none of them were issued on AR-15s.

So, for me, I do believe of the ones mentioned so far, I will go with a red dot or holographic sight. As I mentioned when starting this thread, the MAX range at which this rifle will be used is 200-225 yards, and it may well be used in the dark or at least twilight on occasion, at distances as close as a couple of feet.

The irons are comforting as back-ups for times when the others may go South, but the issue sights will not be the primaries.

Actually, I could likely get by with just a green laser beam....

Either way, I don't want to try to rely on sights that can't be seen at all under some conditions.

Not to be discouraging but I've found that holo sights at night (even on low settings) block the target completely at night. Its like looking into the sun to me. Same for the illuminated retcule on my Nightforce scope. For me, a laser and conventional optic would be preferable.

quote:

Originally posted by tiggertate:
Not to be discouraging but I've found that holo sights at night (even on low settings) block the target completely at night. Its like looking into the sun to me. Same for the illuminated retcule on my Nightforce scope. For me, a laser and conventional optic would be preferable.

Yeah, my Aimpoint is useless at dawn and dusk too. A non-illuminated scope does much better under those conditions.