sights

>>31062792
mbus pro

What are you going for? Dedicated irons? BUIS?

Don't support Troy.

>>31062814
plsno

>>31062825
troy makes good products dont let political bullshit change your mind

>>31062822
Well I might be getting an optic in the future so probably buis. Are there any advantages to dedicated irons?
>>31062825
Why? What do I get then?

>>31062827
you asked for best, told best.

File: 1466499891371.jpg (102KB, 1024x741px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x741px

>>31062792
>What are the best ar15 iron sights?

KAC or Magpul MBUS Enhanced. What's good about KAC is the front sight post is rougly 30% thinner than regular front sight posts. The MBUS Enhanced has an option for thinner or standard front post sight widths.
>>31062825
This. If you absolutely must get them, buy them second hand. Like buying a used videogame, the makers don't get any money from you.

>>31062792
Why are sights so fucking expensive?

I have a pair of mbus that I got as a gift. But shit, I don't understand why they're more than $20 for a little piece of polymer.

>>31062870
I heard the sight picture isn't so good on the mbus
Maybe the pro is better, I don't know anything about them. What do you like about them?

>>31062850
Dedicated irons are inherently more accurate because they are meant to stay in one set place. If you're getting an optic, I'd go BUIS. I like Troy and Midwest Industries, but MBUS is ok. Sight picture is lacking, but they're ok for the money.

>>31062989
what about optics?

>>31063054
Don't listen to that retard.

>>31063098
Since you know what you're talking about obviously why don't you suggest a good optic for me to look into

>>31062792
Troy sights are fucking garbage since they switch from standard picatinny mount to the NATO mounting clamp.

Stick with KAC or magpul. LMT have one based off the KAC too.

>>31063135
Depends on your applications.

>>31062792
KAC micro flip ups.
MBUS if you are poor. The FAB Defense ones are pretty nice too if you don't mind a front sight that looks like the Batmobile.

>>31063054
I like aimpoint for red dots. If I'm using magnification, I prefer Nikon or Leupold. For competition sights, Vortex has proven to be some of the best.

>>31063098
Ooh, name calling. Why retard? Can't come up with anything better than that? C'mon, man. Rub those two brain cells together and try to make a coherent argument.

>>31063230
>>31063307
Why do these all look like shit
Bat mobile lel
I'm retarded, can you explain to me why the NATO clamp is bad?

File: LMT Rear Sight L8A-2.jpg (32KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x350px

>>31062792
The LMT Mk.18 BUIS is my all time favorite fixed BUIS.
It's just an A4 carry handle scaled down to just the rear sight.
Very functional, very solid, very aesthetic imo.

For folding sights I've used Troy, MBUS, KAC, and Wilson Combat.
I'd go with the KAC, either micro or regular, but I'd also take a hard look at the BOBRO BUIS too right now...

>>31062885
>>31063230
>>31063307

I would go with MBUS PRO because KAC doesn't have a CQB peep hole only the long range one. MBUS has both.

>>31063443
That's a good point. I like the larger aperture for shooting with both eyes open.

>>31063437

I like LMT but it's a bit bulky. DD fixed is a great smaller footprint alternative.

>>31063468

Mbus pro LR for rear sight if you want adjustable range. I would also put the thinner front post on front sight. But who uses BUIS anyway? SOCOM operators ditch them or only run like a front sight.

>>31063503
>DD fixed is a great smaller footprint alternative.
I have both and I still would go for the LMT. The Wind/Elev adjustment on a rear is nice and desu the DD aluminum doesn't feel particularly durable.

But yes, it is smaller.