AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/9/2003 7:27:34 PM EDT
|
I've read that the Colt M4 front sight is taller? than the standard A2/USGI front sight assembly. Is this correct and what about the detachable handles? Are they all the same, spec-wise? Or are there Colt handles and other-than-colt detacable handles. Should'nt there be a "Mil-Spec" detachable handle? Hag |
|
I've read on here that the front sight base on the M4 is a smidge taller than on anything else (M16s included). I assume that Colt's detachable handles are also a smidge taller than A2 sights to match. As far as I know everyone else uses the same front sight base as the M16A2 on all barrels, and carry handles that are the same height as an A2 receiver. So as long as all of your parts are Colt, or all are anything but Colt, you should be OK. Some BUISs like the ARMS#40 are made to match the M4 front sights. Some people have problems with them on non-Colt barrels, other have no problems at all. |
|
From what I have read, colt uses the taller front sight on any rifle that has a flattop receiver. The front site forging is the same on all brands of rifles (for the most part), colt just doesn't mill down the metal between the ears of the sight as far on M4 sight. As a result the front sight post sits higher and the ears are shorter. When it comes to flattop recievers, I believe all the manufacturers are the same, so this would indicate that the carry handles are different. The reason colt did this, as far as I can understand, was that when the flattop reciever was being developed, they found it desirable to have a carry handle that was a bit taller (maybe so people with thin fingers could still use the carry handle feature). The reason bushmaster decided to keep the original front sight was to make it easier on the manufacturing side of things. It's a shame its come to this, since most accesories are made to be compliant with mil-spec (i.e. colt) yet the rest of the manufacturers do something different due to cost considerations. It's the same with collapsible buttstocks. Destroys the whole idea of capitalism and having a broad range of choices. Damn patent and copyright laws. |
|
If you look in TM9-1005-319-23&P back in the exploded parts diagrams in Appendix C you'll notice the M16A2 and M4 rear sights and rear sight bases have different part numbers -- 'cuz they're different parts [;)]. The rear sight on the Colt's M4 detachable handle has a thinner base (meaning the bottom of the part that goes up and down) than that of the M16. Signifiantly thinner if you look at the two types together. Unless you use this rear sight you have to compensate with a taller front sight to get the strike of the bullet down. There's no cross check for front sight bases 'cuz these are part of the barrel, not a separate part. They're significantly lower, not taller, than M16A2 height; because they're lower the rear sight has to be lower. The moveable post is the same part number. -- Chuck |
|
Chuck, thanks for your reply. I did check the TM, you are correct in the rear base is different M16 vs M4, however the actual sight (aperture) is the same p/n. I've know that the removable handle upper has had a different rear base 'cause the threaded stud is shorter(300/600)on the removable vs standard(M16 300/800). There's a clearance issue there also with the stud lenght. So, this brings me to the next Q: Is the Colt removable handle rear-sight-base different from, say, a Bushmaster (or FN) removable handle rear-sight-base? |
|
Here's what I'm wondering. Do we have:(?) Rear Sight Bases: M16 - All the same. M4 (Colt only) Shorter stud, w/thinner base. M4 (All others) Shorter stud, w/ ? base. Speculation only, but WES does bring up a very good point. How many different types of detachable handle rear-site-bases will we be dealing with? Hag |
AR Sponsor