You are talking about an M16 carry handle type sight. These have a "U" channel that allows you to use your irons if your optic takes a dump on you.You can get "see through rings " that will function as you want.
I was thinking hard today about which scope to get next, a 30mm or a 50mm objective. The shorter DOF of the 50mm has me hesitating, even though I'd love that light-gathering. It's especially significant when I'm pesting, since I use a bullpup and short-distance requires a lot of compensation.So I'm considering offset iron sights, to use anytime I'm shooting sub 20 yards, then the 50mm for everything else. Problem solved.I was sort of angling my rifle today, imagining how that would work, and really hating the idea... But then it hit me: If I put my head further back, so my cheek drops below the level of the barrel (basically resting on the lower- back of the butt) I can see down the barrel, UNDER my scope, through the opening in the scope rings. So why not have iron sights, just really low, and with the rear sight mounted way at the back?This really could work, and it's not at all uncomfortable to hold a bullpup this way, since so much weight is at the rear. Heck, it even makes it easier to use the rear-located cocking bolt. On some guns, the magazing might be in the way, but on my Flashpup it would definitely be OK. (just.)But there is VERY little daylight there. So while it could work, it would be very tricky to get it just right and not interfere with the scope. What I'm thinking is some kind of custom scope mount, that would not use the Picatinny rail. - thus saving weight and opening up more sight-area for the iron sights. The rear mount could even have the rear iron sight mounted to it, though that might place it too far forward on the gun.Has this ever been done? Are any of you engineer-types (you guys with lathes, etc) interested in trying this idea?
Larger objectives and higher magnifications are also very beneficial for scope rangefinding when shooting field target which is why the field target "hunter class" limits the scope power to 16x (no restrictions on objective size however) whereas the "other classes" allow larger scopes...........My not-so-awesome field target hunter piston class rig.........
Quote from: nced on May 07, 2021, 09:21:38 AMLarger objectives and higher magnifications are also very beneficial for scope rangefinding when shooting field target which is why the field target "hunter class" limits the scope power to 16x (no restrictions on objective size however) whereas the "other classes" allow larger scopes...........My not-so-awesome field target hunter piston class rig.........Absolutely (thanks.) That's why I'm currently leaning towards the 50mm scope, and looking at options for adding iron sights, which would be used just for sub - 20 yard pesting.Of course, the larger objective would still require more fast parallax adjustments when hunting. I wish I could get a sense of how much difference there is in that regard, between a 30mm and a 50mm at equal magnification. I started a thread about that, but haven't gotten any meaningful responses. (It's in the "Hunting" gate, if you can add anything on this.) You'd think there's be all sorts of data about this online, but it doesn't seem to exist.- BTW: Wow, those are some expensive looking rigs in your photos !
Thanks, Ed. This is the kind of real-world empirical data that's so hard to find.- Of course, as you say, that's with a 30 yard zero. I'll only be able to do that if I add the offset iron sights, so I guess that's my plan.But also, what was your objective diameter? The scope I'm most likely getting now is a fixed (zero eye relief / wide FOV) 12x50.