so you'd have to cant your gun to the left to use them? why aren't they on the right side so you can keep the gun level kinda like a bren(?)
T. ARnoob looking at iron sights
>>30584610
Take your rifle, I'm assuming you're right handed, and tilt It to the left and then to the right and pretend you're aiming down some sights. Tilting to the left is much more stable than to the right since it throws the weight closer the center of your body. And a stable shooting position is a good shooting position.
The opposite is true for lefties
>>30584610
angled BUIS are a meme
They mount on the right side. You would also have improper alignment of the gun to the target if they stuck out to the right and yes you have to cant the gun to the left to use them which in my opinion is better than having BUIS that you would only use if your optic failed rather than having the ability to use either optic or iron sights.
>>30584666
no sorry should have specified i don't have an AR yet but I'm building one, flat top low profile block. but i meant if the sights were canted to the left 45 and your scope failed or whatever couldn't you look through them without tilting the gun?
>>30584685
I was pretty much planning on magpul flips but saw these a few times and started wondering
>>30584610
they're really for 3-gun competitors. having glass on your top rail and canted irons allows you to engage targets 200-50m then use the irons below 50m
>>30584666
>>30584698
>>30584745
ok, i was about to say it makes sense for the sights to be directly on top of the rifle for adjusting your aim/windage etc but now that i think of it i really don't see why you cant have sights at the 9 o'clock position of your barrel for emergency back ups, but if they're for a different application that makes sense
>>30584727
No you'd have to tilt the gun to use the irons, it's OK once you get your hands on your complete AR this will become pretty obvious
Sights would dig into your body when you have it slung if they canted to the left.
>>30584789
Pretend theres offset sights then look at the hand positions.
>>30585036
yes i also thought this after thinking some more
>>30585020
>>30585091
no I understand but I'm saying imagine the sights were built at 45 angle but the aparutes themselves were level, since your HEAD is already to the left of the gun you should't have to move it. I had assumed top loading guns were like this, ex: bren, wwII japanese lmgs, austen, stoner 63 in top feed, but those all appear to have "normal" sights, probably for ergonomic reasons, simplisity of adjusting etc.
>>30585172
Your right eye is going to be aligned over the bore of your rifle. You know, so you can see down your primary sights and all. To use sights offset to the left without rotating your rifle you'd have to move your head left and lose your cheekweld.
Why would you assume that you know better than the competitors that use them?
>>30585299
yeah i guess i didn't consider the ARs straight stock would allow that better
>>30587496
and I didn't, I just thought they were another way to do back up irons, didn't know they were more for competition. Also just because someone uses/invented something doesn't mean that's the optimum configuration (whats with the rear charging handle?? w/e still building one). But in this case I figured there was A reason, I just didn't know what, hence why I asked instead of running dick in hand to the patent office.
>>30585172
>since your HEAD is already to the left of the gun you should't have to move it.
one issue is that the sights will have to be zeroed at a 45 degree angle since the gun isn't being rotated. PITA
>>30587496
why would you assume that he assumed that? He's asking a question. Responding like that is just dickish and doesn't help anybody
>>30585172
>no I understand but I'm saying imagine the sights were built at 45 angle but the aparutes themselves were level, since your HEAD is already to the left of the gun you should't have to move it. I had assumed top loading guns were like this, ex: bren, wwII japanese lmgs, austen, stoner 63 in top feed, but those all appear to have "normal" sights, probably for ergonomic reasons, simplisity of adjusting etc.
No if you look at your sights from a different angle then you sighted them you will be lining it up differently and shifting the point of impact.
If you ever played the syndicate reboot video game there is a rifle that has a magnified scope on top and offset red dot or iron sights to the side that you can 'cant' the rifle to the left and aim from the side mounted offset 45degree sights, shit was cash
>>30584727
Yes, absolutely.
If you have a reddot or unmagnified optic, your sights can co-witness right through it. Usually with a flip up rear sight or both flip ups.
This isn't really practical with a scope or magnified optic.
Does anyone have that image I've the wheel sight all around the gun from a year or two ago.
