I've been thinking about getting a carry handle that attaches

>>33326293
It's a rear sight. It's got an AESTHETIC, but actually looking downrange, it's like looking through any other peep sight.

>It seems like the dials on them might have a tendency to be moved accidentally?

If it is an actual milspec and not a cheapo Chinese knockoff, the dials are pretty solid and have a crisp click. If you do manage to knock them out of order, just reset the dial to your zero'd position.

>>33326293
DD A1.5

>>33326307
Thanks

>>33326293
You can find a used colt one for like $40-50. They work well. Make sure you figure out whether your FSB is milspec or commercial, though.

>>33326358
Tbh, I am not super sure what that means. FSB is to do with the front sight?

>>33326293
That would be pretty difficult considering your ar probably doesn't have picatinny rails.

>>33326520
Front sight block

There's a difference between commercial and actual mil spec that will throw accuracy all over if you don't take them into consideration

Carry handles also have variables for commercial, whatever standard chink shit is, and milspec
http://ar15barrels.com/tech/front-sight-bases.jpg

>>33326636
So do you expect it would be safe to assume that a colt carry handle would work on a colt rifle?

>>33326592
What?

>>33326789
Its never safe to assume anything.


Colt invented the commercial and milspec split....

>>33326789
yes youll be fine.

File: Retro1.jpg (62KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1024x768px

>>33326293
Here ya go. you know what to do.

File: 1469376656712.png (15KB, 278x510px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 278x510px

>>33327157

>>33326806
I thought the commercial spec tubes were the fault of other manufacturers (Oly, Shrubmaster, DPMS) trying to do things cheaper.

>>33327309
No, Colt invented them as part of the Clinton AWB bullshit in order to be able to continue selling their rifles with little or no functional change.

File: F marked FSB.jpg (153KB, 700x539px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 700x539px

>>33326789
Ok, duder, so what these folks are talking about is the front sight BASE (FSB) height. It's not a milspec/commercial split. There are two milspec FSB heights, you got your A2 height and your flattop (M16A4, M4, etc) height.

The flattop FSB is slight taller (0.04 inches) than the A2 FSB. Reason is that detachable carry handles sit slightly higher than integrated receiver carry handles.

You want an "F" marked front sight base for using with pretty much any flat top detachable rear sight.

>>33326358
>>33326520
>>33326789
FSBs are not "milspec or commercial." They come in A2 and F variants, and for .625 and .750 barrel diameters (A1 and A2/M4 specs). The F-marked front sight is necessary for a carbine-length gas system (been around since the CAR-15), and is also used with flattop uppers. Unless you got some ancient crappy/off-brand gun it probably has an F-marked FSB.

File: coltmt.jpg (42KB, 1200x550px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1200x550px

>>33327321
orly? Seems to me like they just started doing shit like this. I see no reason why commercial spec would be more acceptable in an AWB, since you'd have to pin it anyway.

>>33327406
Ok. Would it be marked? I mean it's a new production colt, so I feel pretty safe just buying a random carry handle.

>>33327465
see >>33327321

>>33326293
I'd do it. I don't know how much different the A1 style is from the A2 but here is my sight picture for reference.

I've never really grown accustomed to glass optics though, so I can't say if its an improvement or not.

>>33327157
Hey whats that scope called? I'm considering getting one for my rifle.

File: IMG_5332.jpg (685KB, 2016x1512px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 2016x1512px

>>33329206
Thought I'd resize my image.

>>33329230
Is that an A1 or A2? Does it have 2 apertures or just that one?

>>33329264
Its an A1. 2 apertures.

Its on an XM177 clone so the sight radius will likely be different in your case.

>>33329219
Barska 4x20
green berets used them in Korea because they have to go from long range to sort range on a moment notice

also if your a true merican you cant even fit your knuckles in it so its worthless as a carry handle

>>33326333
this works fine, no elevation adjustment but what ever.

The standard carry handle with A2 style sights is pretty good. The elevation knob on the rear sight theoretically allows you to adjust your zero from 300 to 600 yards. Of course most people rarely have access to more than 100. Go to arfcom and read up about "improved battlesight zero" if you enjoy messing with these things.

The A1 rear sight is arguably more robust. Fewer parts to break, and requires a bullet tip or other pointy tool to change the setting.

>>33329264

All carry handle sights have 2 apertures. The difference between them is not the same on A1 and A2 though.

>>33329316

I have one of those for my sp1 but I found the mount it came with comes loose pretty easy. Any tips on keeping it on there good ?

>>33329344
You don't have to slip your hand past the second set of knuckles to carry them.

>>33329349
I figured it solved all of the stated problems without some weird clamp on "carry" handle.

For OP, the DD A1.5 is an A1 type sight without the carry handle nonsense. Just adjust the front sight post for elevation. Watch out for counterfeits.

>>33329687

But op wanted the carry handle to eat up all that empty rail on top of his upper since for some reason he never plans to put an optic on there.

>>33326293
I have one on my 16" DTI AR and its breddy gud

I like it better than the flip up sight that came with it.

>>33331399
Do you happen to have the make of the handle?

>>33329366
RIBZ is awesome. Can confirm that it works at stated distances.