Jump to content

Question for Carriercomp


i_wish
 Share

Recommended Posts

Would it be possible to create a shim that would raise the hieght of the Benelli M4 rear GRS to it's rail height? Could it match the countour of the receiver and original demensions of the current LPA sight? I would like to get "some" type of co-witness on my red dot sights. I have replaced the original rail with one of yours and I love it. I guess that an "extended" type rail that would screw into the existing GRS holes and then using a LPA picatinny rear sight would work but I would like to retain the existing GRS on the shotgun. What are your thoughts? What is the m4 community thoughts? I'll be the guinea pig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cleefurd

Is there an "average" dot height to align with? Sandwiching a shim with longer screws into the sight base would work, but a consensus would be in order along with accepting that what co-witnesses on a trial gun, may not on another due to variables with choke, ammo, hold, Dot-maker revisions etc.

 

At least the irons would be in the field of view though... providing the front were raised similarly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kip,

What about making a rail that made use of the five mounting holes on the rear sight as well as the 5 holes in the top of the receiver?

The rear sight sits on a portion of the receiver that is significantly thicker than the portion that the rail assembly is attached to. It also benefits due to the fact that two of the screws are threaded into the rear sight housing rather than just into the aluminum receiver.

 

Profile the rail in the rear to accept the factory rear sight. Supply new screws that are slightly longer to make up the difference in the rail portion.

 

Supply a replacement front sight and front sight hood that make up the difference for the raised height of the rear sight. Generally, this would only be raised approximately .2" or so.

 

The factory front sight doesn't have enough thread on it to adapt to a .2" rise. You had mentioned in another post that you were thinking about making a replacement set of combat sights anyway.

 

Tritium is nice, but the Meprolight offering is lacking during daylight hours due to the lack of a white ring around the lamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an "average" dot height to align with? Sandwiching a shim with longer screws into the sight base would work, but a consensus would be in order along with accepting that what co-witnesses on a trial gun, may not on another due to variables with choke, ammo, hold, Dot-maker revisions etc.

 

At least the irons would be in the field of view though... providing the front were raised similarly.

 

You are correct. What works with one trial gun might not work with what everybody else has. I guess absolute co-witness is ideal but I would settle with a lower 1/3 or upper 1/3 if I had to or heck just being able to see the sights through the glass if the red dot failed. I'd be using an aimpoint comp m2 but hope to use it with my other red dots. Just being able to see the BUIS through the optic would be a plus. IDK more people will hopfully weigh in. Stranger Danger also has a good suggestion.

Edited by i_wish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all a bit over my head but I do prefer co-witnessing. So...tagged!

 

ETA: Until something better comes along, I simply have my Aimpoint Micro on a LaRue mount which, though it doesn't allow co-witnessing, can be yanked off and out of the way very quickly should the optic go **** up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone (with experience) please explain to me why an optic / irons co-witness on a tactical shotgun is even remotely important or desirable? I'm truly at a loss to understand.

 

Comments that if it makes sense for carbines it must therefore make sense for a tactical shotgun have yet to convince me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone (with experience) please explain to me why an optic / irons co-witness on a tactical shotgun is even remotely important or desirable? I'm truly at a loss to understand.

 

Comments that if it makes sense for carbines it must therefore make sense for a tactical shotgun have yet to convince me.

 

Sorry, but logic has no place in this discussion. You'll have to leave. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...