by Tom Gaylord, a.k.a. B.B. Pelletier
The See All Open Sight is revolutionary!
This is the first test of the See All Open Sight. I chose the Crosman M4 –177 as the first rifle to be tested because the See All comes only with a Weaver base, and the M4-177 has a Picatinny rail that will accommodate it. The choice was based solely on that and little else, except the M4 had been shown to be fairly accurate at 10 meters.
For the test, I decided to fire a 10-shot group using the factory sights, which are a peep in the rear and a post up front. Since the rifle was stored in the box without its sights, they had to be mounted and sighted-in. I started with Crosman Premier Super Match wadcutter pellets but switched to 7.9-grain Crosman Premier lites after seeing the size of the Super Match group.
I was shooting from a sandbag rest at 10 meters. Five pump strokes were used for every shot in this test. The group of 10 Premier lites measured 0.84 inches, so that’s what I’ll use to compare the results from the See All sight.
Ten Crosman Premiers went into 0.84 inches at 10 meters when the factory sights were used.
Mounting the See All Open Sight
The sight went on the flattop receiver easily enough, and the 2 screws that hold it in position work well. But after I mounted the sight, I discovered that it was impossible to get my head low enough on the stock to see the reticle. All I could see was the See All name that’s beneath the triangle. The sight needed to be adjusted up.
Sighting-in
I adjusted the sight up as far as it would go and got the reticle up to where I could just barely see it if I held my head artificially low on the stock. To sight the rifle on the target, I had to tilt my head far to the right to get my eye low enough to see the full reticle. I used a 6 o’clock hold on the bull for all my shooting with this sight, which is the only way to be precise with a sight that covers the bull.
With this sight picture, I missed the entire paper at 10 meters. So, I walked up to within 10 feet of the target and aimed again. This time the pellet struck the target backer board about 6 inches below the aim point. Something had to be done, and done quick!
I had positioned the See All sight as far forward on the receiver rail as space permitted, so now I moved it back as far as it would go, like the position of a peep sight. This made sighting easier, though I was still tilting my head way over to the right to see the reticle.
With the sight in this position, I put a Shoot-N-C bull at the top of a blank sheet of target paper and shot 4 shots at it from 10 meters. They landed about 7.5 inches low on the paper, as you can see in the photo.
Four Crosman Premiers went about 7.5 inches low at 10 meters. The aim point was the bottom of the bull at the top of the backer board.
This wasn’t working! And the reason it wasn’t is the straight line of the M4-style rifle. The flattop receiver doesn’t permit mounting the See All Open Sight high enough to be seen easily. It’s not the sight’s fault — it’s the rifle’s.
I was ready to call it a day when Edith suggested that I mount the sight to the Picatinny rail where the rifle’s front sight is supposed to go. It was simple enough to move the sight, so I tried it and found I could see the reticle much easier. A test shot showed that it was hitting the target way too low, however. Because the sight had been moved from the rear to the front, the adjustments had to be reversed to work.
Thanks to Edith, the See All Open Sight was mounted to the front sight base, and the reticle became easier to see.
You move a front sight in the opposite direction you want the strike of the round to go, so now I had to adjust the sight as low as it would go, to bring the point of impact up as high on the target as possible. The See All sight doesn’t have much adjustment up and down — only 45 minutes of angle. When it was down as far as it would go, the pellet was still hitting the target about 2 inches below the aim point, but that was a lot better than it had been before. So, kudos to Edith for this suggestion that kept the test running!
I shot 2 groups with the sight in this position. The first one isn’t very good, as I had half the aim point covered by the target paper, and the tip of the triangle was on the center of the bull rather than at 6 o’clock. But I still got a group that is good horizontally. It’s just spread out too much vertically.
This 10-shot group is tall, at 1.803 inches between centers, but not that wide. The aim point was an estimate of where the center of the top bull was located because the target paper covered half of it.
When I mounted the second target, I fixed the situation. The second group was shot with a 6 o’clock hold on the top bull. The aim point was much more precise in this case, and the group shows it. Although the overall group is the same 1.803 inches as the first group, 9 of the holes are in 1.125 inches. Like the first group, this one is also strung out vertically.
This 10-shot group is identical in size to the first one (1.803 inches), but 9 of the shots are grouped much better at 1.125 inches. Notice that 6 shots went into a single hole!
What’s wrong?
It seems that the See All sight isn’t made for a rifle with a straight stock line like the M4’s. The eye is too high relative to where the line of sight is. This can be seen when the factory sight is mounted next to the See All.
I mounted the factory peep sight and the See All Open Sight together on the flattop rail.
This photo shows how much higher the factory sight line is than the sight line of the See All sight.
Conclusions
The straight lines of the M4 rifle are all wrong for use with the See All Open sight. With a flattop receiver, it’s impossible to get the sight mounted high enough to see without holding your head at an odd angle. So, this test was inconclusive. All it proves is that the wrong rifle was used. However, this should serve as a warning to those who might think of using the sight on their other M4-type rifles. Unless you put a high adapter under the sight to raise it up, it won’t work.
The vertical adjustment range of the See All sight is not large enough for an air rifle whose barrel is slanted downward, as so many of them are. It’ll be necessary to mount the sight on some kind of compensating base for the next test. I’ve selected a TX200 Mark II as the next test rifle, and we’ve already done a test of this rifle with a red dot sight. I have a drooper base that Leapers made when we developed the UTG drooper bases for RWS Diana rifles, and this one has no recoil shock shoulder; so, it’ll go right on the TX200 without a problem.
I’m encouraged by how easy it was to acquire the sight picture once the See All was mounted in the right position. It was much faster than a peep sight picture; and even though the overall group made with the sight is larger than the group made with the peep sight, I see that many of the pellets went to the same place. That gives me confidence that the See All Open Sight will work well when mounted on the right rifle.
I also see a bright future for this sight on pistols. The farther away from the eye the sight is, the easier it is to see the reticle. Holding it an arm’s length from the eye is no problem. I’ve already confirmed that the Leapers base fits my Beeman P1, so a test of that pistol is in the works, as well.
As you stated above to use such a sight on a M4 style rifle would require a riser of some sort. In this case the UTG 3 slot .83 inch riser would likely be your best bet.
Bub
This blog entry highlights the reasons why a straight line design like the M4 is not a good idea for airguns. Modern assault rifles need the straight lines to reduce felt recoil, and allow well-aimed shots in a fast succession. A single-shot pellet rifle does not profit in any way from straight-line layouts.
The militarymen mount their sights high, either with large scope mounts or inside a carying handle. This is not a problem for the soldier, as his typical target is about torso-sized, and the distance between line of sight and barrel is still small enough to be neglected, even when the target is engaged at very short distances. We airgun shooters tend to shoot targets that are a good deal smaller, and profit a lot form sights that are close to the barrel. If you ever tried to hunt mice in a barn, you’ll quickly learn that iron sights work better than a large scope, simply because the sight is close to the barrel, and puts the gun’s Point of Impact very close to the Point of Aim at the low distances you’re going to encounter in the barn.
Mel
You made a good point about mice hunting. I can’t tell you how much fun me and the barn cats had when I was a kid. As fast as I could shoot one. One of the cats would jump out and get it and they would be gone. And I don’t think I knew what a scope was until I was in my teens.
But yes I agree that I always could find my target quicker open sight shooting verses scope shooting. I think open sight shooting benefits from being able to see the whole picture if you will in front of you and not just a round circle of area to look through. I think that’s how I evolved into shooting with both eye’s open.
Then later on I really wanted to open sight shoot as I got older but my eyes wouldn’t allow it. So I got into the dot sights. I could shoot in away then that represented open sights but it still wasn’t the same.
So if this sight works out the way I think it will I’m going to be a happy person again. All I can say is my dad and brother were always amazed at how I could open sight shoot when we did our little challenges when I was growing up. So maybe I will get a chance to surprise my brother again the next time we go shooting and I have my secret weapon See All sight mounted.
The Airforce airguns have a similar issue as the M4 with mounting optics. However many seem to like the guns and B.B. has called the Talon SS his go to gun.
The Airforce guns suffer from the same problems. However, they give you a very efficient straight-line valve in exchange. They are also freqently used at long distances, where high sights are no disadvantage at all. Still, I their high mounts ara a major disadvantage if you shoot at varying distances from 5 to 25 yards.
Do you really need the straight line for close-quarters battle type work? The AK does fine with its bend in the stock. So does the M1A. You can see any number of YouTube videos with people firing shots in quick succession with good control. I wonder if the straight line stock isn’t more significant for target shooting where the AR platform excels.
Matt61
The current generation of AK’s have a much straighter stock.
Mike
First off Edith thanks for finding this sight.
If I remember right you brought it to BB’s attention at the SHOT Show. And now you save the day so BB could continue to test. I would of never thought about mounting it at the muzzle end of the gun.
Then BB finds it will probably work out nice for pistol shooting after mounting it way out front.
My only question is does it seem like it will be faster/easier to find the target verses a dot sight?
Well not my only question. BB didn’t you say your buddy Otho was going to test one also. That will probably be the test that will interest me the most because of how you said his eye sight is. My eye sight definitely ain’t the same as it use to be. So I will be interested in what he has to say.
GF1,
See All has sent a second sight that I will give to Otho. We have already talked about him testing the sight as well.
I will confirm that this sight is faster to acquire than conventional open sights. Probably about on par with a dot sight.
B.B.
Ok thanks BB.
I had the same trouble when I mounted the See All on my M4 177, to my dismay. The sight works very well, however, on a P1 pistol, as you surmise, even though it is relatively high due to the need for a conversion riser to fit the gun’s dovetail. That’s the complete opposite of the problem with the M4. It helps that the See All is so lightweight.
I still can’t decide if it is better than a red dot, but I have proven to my satisfaction that I can shoot it as precisely. My groups are virtually identical.
You can buy a pretty good red dot, or even a decent low-power scope, for the cost of the See All, so this may not be as exciting as I first thought.
The company has a 30-day full refund policy, and I’m tempted to send it back, but I really want to try it out on a .22 target pistol first for conventional Bullseye competition. I’m confident that I can shoot the Slow Fire targets well with it, but how fast can I recover my sight picture for Timed and Rapid Fire? A reflex red dot is pretty fast.
I’m eager to see your results with a pistol, B.B.
Can I ask you what riser you used on the P1 ?
I guess BB is talking about that leaper :
/blog/2012/07/leapers-saves-the-day-utg-38-dovetail-to-weaver-adapter/
That wouldn’t rise the sight much.
I ought to wait for BB’s test on the P1, but I may order before that thanks to his first hints !
I prefer the less bulky and lighter profile of the seeall compared to a red dot, but you’re right the price point is a bit high.
usul,
You don’t need a riser with a handgun, because the sight line changes as you rock your hand back and forth. It’s only when the line is fixed by a shoulder that there is a problem.
Welcome to the blog.
B.B.
Thank you !
Actually I’m looking for a dovetail/weaver adaptator, which will work on the 13mmish P1 dovetail, more than a riser.
I will watch what you use with interest !
I fear that will be too flimsy :
/product/hawke-sport-optics-2-pc-adapter-3-8-to-weaver-rail?a=4162
so my guess is that would be better even it it rises the sight a bit :
/blog/2012/07/leapers-saves-the-day-utg-38-dovetail-to-weaver-adapter/
usul,
The riser I have is a prototype that Leapers never sold, and it does fit on a P1. I have mounted it.
The riser I’m using looks very similar to this one:
/product/utg-drooper-scope-rail-11mm-to-weaver-adapter-compensates-for-droop?a=4191#
Mine has 3 screws and may not be quite as long.
Once again, on a pistol you don’t need any riser because you can tilt you gun hand forward and back — thus altering the line of sight. But an adaptor is required, of course. I don’t know whether the other Leapers adaptors can be used or not.
B.B.
As I remember, those neat Leapers adapters won’t open wide enough for the P1’s dovetail. I installed a bkl 568mb picatinny adapter and use the Bushnell mini red dot sight. The extra mass of the bkl adapter helps reduce muzzle jump and the Bushnell has a very small, 3.5 moa dot. Most inexpensive red dot sights have a 5 moa size dot and are not as precise.
In order to get the bkl adapter to fit the P1’s extra wide dovetail, you must first put the clamp screws into the alternate holes to spread the dovetail opening on the bottom. This took some torque to open it far enough.
Leon,
I also shoot Bullseye and I went to a red dot as the range is dark in the evenings when we shoot and i was having trouble aligning the iron sights on my pistol. I’ll be very interested in your opinion of this See-All versus your red dot sight so please give us your findings after you try it out.
Fred DPRoNJ
Fred,
I plan to test the See All in low light, to see what happens. And I know that bullseye shooters mostly use dot sights these days, so I will test it that way for them.
Wow! This is augering to become a huge test!
B.B.
BB
You just said it. Another test that could be done with the See All sight. I think that’s why it will be one of my favorite sights when I get one. The sight is so universal.
But I’m still going to wait to order mine to see what Otho’s test will show. And what the sight will be like in low light conditions.
Leon,
Thanks for confirming this for me!
I will test the P1 as soon as I test the sight on a TX 200. So it will be a while, but I will get on it as soon as I can — all other things considered.
B.B.
+1 for Edith! I would never have thought of mounting it up on the front muzzle rail. 🙂 Disappointed it didn’t work on M4, but certainly understandable. Look forward to testing on other guns.
usul: I have my See All mounted on a dovetail-to-weaver riser that I’ve had a long time, and I no longer remember what brand it is for certain, but I’d guess it’s a UTG.
BB,
I am glad you are the one doing this report. Someone else might have faulted the sight and not spent the time, or been able to, figure out what was going on.
Your last paragraph about the pistol application is encouraging. If you end up putting this sight onto a Marauder pistol (P-Rod) I have a very nice adapter that a fellow makes that allows an AR style butt stock to be used, BUT it allows the stock very easily be adjusted up, down, right, left, and also for cant. You can truly adjust it, and lock it into place, so that when you get your check weld, the sight is exactly where you want it.
Sorry, but I was away from my computer yesterday ( I don’t have one of those super snazzy phones to do email with) and missed a few questions on Part 3 from folks. I did answer them this morning though.
Lloyd
Lloyd,
I have an RAI adaptor and Leapers has given me an M4 extendable stock, just to test the adaptor. I hadn’t thought of the4 See All sight, but why not?
B.B.
It looks like the magazine on your M4 .177 is backwards. Does it only go in that way?
Mike
Mike,
Good eye! It is in backwards. It does fit and lock both ways.
B.B.
I’d say use the lowest adapter you can, because the sight ends up very high above the bore otherwise and you have to crank the sight adjustment a long way. As B.B. noted, the height adjustment is limited.
B.B.
Sorry for a long absence. Business trips, lots of work, h… of a month, really.
I followed your recommendations and bought Bushnell Elite 6-24×40 sight. Quite a nightstick 🙂 However really bright one and very light. I’ll mount it tomorrow and zero perhaps this Saturday. Then I’ll be ready to perform a long-promised “PCP 2 magnifications” test. Inch + quarter inch targets will be used.
duskwight
duskwight,
Glad to have you back!
So, we get another test of the effects of magnification? This is turning out to be a nice big experiment.
B.B.
With AR guns as popular as they are, the See-All folks had better do some fast thinking to get their market share. I’m astounded that the See-All works as well as a front sight as it does as a back sight. In the front sight mode it would seem to be in the role of a (very) long-eye relief scope. But in that case, I don’t see why the adjustments have to change based on whether the sight is forward or back. That’s unless as a front sight, you are viewing it through some kind of peep sight which I don’t think is the case. In other words, I thought front sight adjustment was different only relative to a back sight. Otherwise, it should have the same adjustments. It’s just further forward. Coupled with my confusion about how the sight works that I mentioned last time, I must say that this device is puzzling. However, you can’t argue with the good reviews from people who use it.
/Dave, thanks for your info about the microwave with the voice of authority. I feel much better. The safeguards sound so secure that it makes me wonder about all those stories from earlier times that microwaves could cause cancer or cause you to start growing appendages. It’s like a joke comic strip contained in the old comic strip “Bloom County.” It was called “Atomic Mary” and was about a woman who had grown a small elephant’s trunk on her face as a result of radioactive exposure and walked around concealing her trunk in a sheaf of paper. Kind of ridiculous.
Matt61
Matt,
I thought about answering that obvious front versus back sight location a long time. Didn’t know who would ask it, but I knew it was coming.
Think of the rifle as a teeter-totter. When the sight is at the back end (the end closest to you) it moves the shot in the same direction it moves (up is up and so on). When it is at the other end, it moves the strike of the round the opposite way (up becomes down and so forth.)
Think about it and you will see what I mean. If it doesn’t become obvious, get a yardstick and put a post sight on both ends, then watch what moving the stick teeter-totter fashion, does to the relationship of the post and the target.
B.B.
About experiments and such….
I haven’t forgotten that I owe some info on both the BB hop-up and the LG55… The hop-up has failed miserably so far, but I’m not done testing it. Went from a 3-4″ group at 9 yds with Copperheads to barely being able to keep them on a sheet of letter size paper. I’m thinking a few more variations including possibly reversing the barrel might be worth looking into before I shelve that one.
I tried silicon brake grease on the LG55 when I rebuilt it, but that stuff is almost like tar. I only gained about 50 fps after the piston seal replacement and I can’t seem to thin it out by oiling it enough to gain anymore. All that is accomplishing is a wide extreme spread while I’m shooting it, so I’ll take it down again and clean everything and relube with moly next.
I must admit that archer-itis has overtaken me and taken up time with the research involved in chasing after elk these days. CDOW game management has gotten much better over the years at the expense of a total nightmare of laws, restrictions, this area not that area, etc…. I gave up archery elk and deer over 20 years ago, and coming back into it is confusing. I think my eyes are bleeding, I’ve read so much…
/Dave
/Dave
Thanks for the update on the steel bb hop up.
I started looking at some of the airsoft guns and it seems that the hop up is closer to the receiver end of the barrel even on my sniper airsoft rifle that I have. I thought it was farther up towards the muzzle end but its not after looking where the barrel starts in the gun. Only in that one spot pressure is applied directly to the top of the airsoft round ball. No kind of way does it apply pressure to the sides from what I can tell if I’m looking at it right.
Maybe you could do that to your barrel you have now and try it in the back directly in the center of the top of the barrel. I wouldn’t worry about the front of the barrel. Unless you drilled pretty big holes. Then you may have to cut some of the barrel off and re-crown it.
Or maybe you are seeing something I’m not seeing and got another Idea that will work?
BB,I was thinking that this sight could be good for the Benjamin 392/397 guns if used with the Air Venturi Intermount (PY-A-2015).This might raise it up so the sights already on the gun can stay on it too.I had trouble with those sights due to my poor eyesight.I find it hard to focus on 3 things at once and I’ve been hoping I was right in that the SEE ALL OPEN SIGHTS make the task easier.The rail of the mount could be cut shorter if needed to allow the gun to be pumped more easily.You mentioned back along that a cheek piece might be needed with these guns if a regular scope were mounted on them.You were right,at least I found I had to.This leads me to believe the height would pan out for this sight with these rifles.-Tin Can Man-
Tin Can Man,
This is a great idea! These rifles are favored by men in the age bracket where eyes are failing, so if this works, it could solve a lot of problems.
I will look into testing this for you.
B.B.
Not really liking this for the M1-177. But it might do well on a more traditional style gun like the Marauder. I won’t give up on this optic quite yet. I’m thinking a UTG Picitiny to dovetail adapter would make this happen. That would open this thing up for all kinds of guns like the condor, stick it on top of a tri-rail riser and it should work.
John,
I though those adaptors would work, too, but now I’m not so sure. The See All base doesn’t clamp in the conventional way, so there is nothing to squeeze in the UTG jaws.
B.B.
There’s always a way to make things work. This might do the trick and get this sight up just a little
bit…./product/airforce-11mm-to-weaver-adapter?a=3882
I’m pretty good at making things work in ways other than how they are designed to work. I might need to tinker with something for a while, but in the end I get it.
B.B.,
You could try removing the buttstock and test it like a pistol to get around the sight height problem. Kind of an upsized 1377.
Does the butt stock remove from the gun or is it molded in as a part of the gun? If it does remove good idea.
The entire M4-177 butt stock removes if this is what you are asking. There is a release button on the bottom of the butt stock. I don’t know why they did this gun like that but they did it.
John
Yep that’s what I was asking. Thanks.
It adds to the “cool” factor I think. I always thought the AR pistols with their long buffer tubes looked awkward anyway. It definitely makes it easier to pack up, and the gun is light enough to shoot as a pistol if you like. Especially so if you open it up and take out the two massive steel weights inside the pistol grip. I have really enjoyed my m4-177. I wish it was built on the 1077 platform as I feel that a semi-auto is much more fitting to this platform than a pump and would sell like crazy, but I must admit that the gun shoots true and is more fun to shoot than I expected. Groups are about 3/4″-1″ at 25 yards with cphp. My only knock against it is velocity. I am only seeing 470 fps with crosman premier hp (7.9) even after lubing the seals. My 1377 is slightly faster, and I believe they are both basically the same pump setup (as well as the 760). I really expected it to break 500 fps.
DMTT
I would think the gun should get a higher velocity than that. How does it feel when you pump it.
I got a 1322 one time and the fps was terrible. And it didn’t have that same feel as I was use to when I pumped it. I thought maybe it was because it was in .22 cal. is why it was going slow. I also had a a 1377 that was getting very good fps.
So one day I swapped the barrel and receiver and transfer port on each gun. Guess what. The 1322 was now out performing the 1377. So I would check and see if there is something wrong with the seal on the piston. The oil trick works some times. But not if the seal is worn, cut or cracked. Also if some kind of dirt particle got in there and scratched the tube before it broke down or made its way out. And if it scratched the hole length of the tube it may be bleeding air by. Maybe if your pumping lets say 8 pumps it may only be making 4 pumps worth of power if that makes sense. I’m curious what you find out.
Tin Can Man has the right idea. The See All sight requires you to focus on only one plane–that’s its great advantage. A red dot sight does the same, but the See All is much lighter and needs no batteries.
The company made a mistake, I think, in calling it an “Open Sight.” It’s not like open sights or even aperture iron sights.
It’s obviously stirs up interest, however, especially among us old guys.
I’d be very interested in a comparison between the See All and a ghost ring, on the same gun. My experience with dot sights and other reflex sights over the years is that, especially on a pistol, it’s easy to “loose” your sighting point off the edge of the screen, forcing you to you use something else on the gun as a reference to reacquire the reflex aim point. Also, the very short sight radius in all reflex sight makes sight alignment problems worse, off center placement of the aim point causes wide variations in point of impact.
Decades ago there was a match pistol made briefly, using a marked mirror on the front sight, reflecting the image of a sight notch on the front of the rear sight..effectively doubling the sight radius of the pistol, and cutting sight alignment error in half. As I recall the sight twas banned from competition shortly after being used in a match.
classicalgas,
Welcome to the blog.
I haven’t heard of the sight you mention. I would like to know more about it.
B.B.
I came across the reviews here and I have owned one of these sights for a couple of months, I think it is such a great sight. I had an issue with mine that Ron at the company helped me with. In the instructions it states not to unscrew the elevation screw too much. I lost track of my turns and heard it come out of the threads…. so if this happens it will not elevate enough to get on target (like in the review) the fix is to UNSCREW the rear elevation screw until the bottom threads are out of the sight block, then press the spring loaded rear of the sight block all the way down and re thread the elevation screw in to the block until it engages the threads UNDERNEATH the sight block in the base….. this helped me sight in, and the elevation ability is restored fully. I also used some Glow-On super phosphorescent tape on the inside of the frame next to the edge glow block to help the reticle show up better in low light, it works great.
I really hope this sight takes off in popularity, I think it is so simple and accurate that I will never go back to red dots, as you do not get a real quality sight for under twice the cost of this sight, with no advantages and a battery cost as well.
ReManG,
Thanks for your in-depth review of the sight and for those operating tips. I also had the screw pop put and discovered the same repair as you mention.
The phosphorescent tape idea is a great tip and I will give it a try!
Welcome to the blog,
B.B.
B.B.,
I think the sight is incredibly overlooked for many reasons (I am not affiliated with See All, just a customer).
The first thing I liked about it was the lack of a “picatinny clamp” system, the manufacturing of those is wrought with tolerances, with the SAOS (See All Open Sight) there are no variances when you mount it, except how the bottom part mates with your weaver or picatinny rail, so in theory it is more zero hold capable if you use the same torque on the screws. Also there are no parts or threads to strip like on the clamp style systems, should you strip the threads on the SAOS, you could tap them bigger to regain functionality of the sight, with the same mating surfaces allowing you repeatability for re-installation. If you want a clamp base, hit up UTG or others like TMS for minimal riser quick detach mounts and mount the SAOS to that instead.
The second thing that I feel is overlooked is the fact that the sight is zeroed to the arm it is on, not like peep sights that are zeroed to your cheek weld. The military calls finding your zero on a M16 platform the “battlesight zero” so in theory you can put the peep sight and front post on mechanical zero and adjust for your sight setting from there; i.e. 6 clicks down on the front sight 14 clicks right on the rear sight… due to tolerances this gets you close… Whereas the SAOS is sighted to point of aim for the arm it is on, if you get a chance B.B. you could test this with two M4-177’s for yourself. Take one and mount and zero the SAOS on it, then hand it to a friend and let them shoot a group with no adjustment to the sight. Try the same with the other M4-177 with peep sights, I can bet the SAOS group will be closer to point of aim than the peeps, the group size will depend on the shooter of course. I did this with a carbine at the range, after zeroing it, I let another shooter on another lane fire it after explaining how it works ( he had only been shooting a few months he stated), his group was to point of aim and about the same size as mine. It would not have been that way with peep sights as we all have different shaped heads and therefore cheek welds on the stock to place our eyes behind the peep.
I have found more accuracy with the SAOS by not trying to line up the triangle aim point with the top of the “lens” on the back, but keeping the reticle slightly lower with some green field above the tip of the triangle and superimposing that picture over the target. As with all optical devices there can be some distortion at the edge of the actual optic, so this technique avoids that and still allows quick sight pictures.
I think it is such a versatile sight and will be purchasing more in the future. I ordered the Strontium Aluminate based glow tape. The brand was from Glow-On, but any of these “super” phosphorescent tapes would work. Just cut them down to about the same size as the edge glow block is in height and length and use a couple of flat toothpicks to put them next to the block with the phosphorescent side facing the edge glow.
Good luck and looking forward to your pistol review with the SAOS!
ReManG,
I will be testing it for the lack of parallax you describe. I’m glad it has worked so well for you.
B.B.