Bushmaster M4gery A2 A3 info needed

[Randy63]

Hello all,
I've searched the forum and have read all the comments and opinions about the fixed carry handle vs. the flattop receiver. The consensus seems to be that it's better to have the flattop with the removable handle and not use it than it is to get the A2 because of the A3's versatility.

I'll be getting a new Bushmaster M4gery with the 16" barrel and birdcage flash suppressor. I highly doubt that I will ever mount any optics on the gun.

I'd like to hear some comments about the ARMS #40 flip up rear sight.
http://www.eaglefirearms.net/ARMSnumber40.htm

I plan on using my new Bushy for informal range plinking out to 125 yards and some hiking and possibly HD.

Here are my questions. Is the ARMS #40 a better iron sight than the rear sight integrated into the A2 carry handle? Is the Arms set up as sturdy as the sight in the removable A3 handle? Can it take some bumps without losing zero, now I'm not talking about dropping it but would it be OK sliding around in my trunk? Being that I'm 99% sure I'll never mount optics am I just better off getting the A2?

Thanks in advance for you opinions and comments.

Randy

 

[DaveH]

Since you feel you will never mount optics, I would suggest an A1 or A2 upper. I built a 16" lightweight and used an A1 upper for simplicity and durability.
The ARMS sight is basically a A1 sight, by the way. Elevation adjustments would still be made at the front sight.
If you want to add a "red dot" type optic, mounts are available to use with a carry handle. If you think you might want to use a scope, a flattop would be a better choice.
All of the above is my opinion, of course.
You could also buy a different upper in the future and change over depending on your needs.
Where are you located in NE PA?

Dave (also from NE PA)

 

[Redlg155]

You will drive yourself nuts trying to use an ARMS #40 for a primary rear sight. Just try one out and you'll see what I mean. They are just fine for a backup sight when your optics go down, but you don't want to use them all the time. Of course others may vary in opinion, but I find myself way more comfortable using using a A3 detatchable carry handle or A2 sight. One one of my ARs I have a detatchable carry handle cut so that only the rear sight base is left, leaving the forward section for mounting optics. I find that is a durable and reliable setup as well.

If given the choice, I'd go with the flatop and the detatchable carry handle. That way you always have the option of going to the standard flatop in case your mood changes. As for A1/A2 uppers, I've always found mounting a scope on a standard carry handle uncomfortable and a "gooseneck" or forward scout type mount limits you to electronic sights or long eye relief scopes.

 

[jobu07]

I dunno, I just seem to like the standard A2 profile on my AR's, both carbine and standard. If i wanted to put optics on it, i'd mount them on the carry handle or i'll just go get a bolt gun...

 

[Mulliga]

If you are sure you will never mount optics, go for the A1/A2 as others have said. Personally, I have a Bushmaster A2 - partly for practical reasons (at the ranges which I have faith in 5.56, the iron sights do fine), and partly because the carry handle looks cool to me.

 

[Randy63]

Thanks for the comments guys.

DaveH, I'm in Scranton, how 'bout you?

Randy

 

[DaveH]

Randy,
I'm near Dalton. Maybe we can plan a shooting session.

Dave

 

[c_yeager]

I highly recomend getting the flattop with the carry handle. THe site on the carry handle is really among the best sites you will find on a production rifle period. And you will always be able to mount optics later if you wish. But you lose absolutly no functionality by going the detachable carry handle route.

 

[Cato]

Get the flattop A3 and then add a LMT sight - much better quality than most cut carry handles. Several spec. ops teams believe in them. Once your eyes start to age, you can always go to with an Aimpoint or Eotech sight. That said, most people who take professional training are converted to the optic user side afterwards. Do consider it- especially if your carbine is for home defense too!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you will never mount optics to your gun, the A2 sights will work just fine and are superior to the ARMS #40 in my opinion (I have both).

On the other hand, optics are the future as sights go and even trained Marines using quality optics consistently do better than they do using irons in both speed and accuracy.

Add to that the fact that a flattop allows you a versatile range of iron sights to choose from (you can add M1A National Match sights to an AR15 now) with more being offered every day and I would say that even if you never do mount optics, there are still many advantages to the flattop.

Here are my questions. Is the ARMS #40 a better iron sight than the rear sight integrated into the A2 carry handle?

In my opinion, no. There is no elevation adjustment on the ARMS #40 and the A2 sight is more solid.

Is the Arms set up as sturdy as the sight in the removable A3 handle? Can it take some bumps without losing zero, now I'm not talking about dropping it but would it be OK sliding around in my trunk?

I like the carry handle better in terms of irons; but the carry handle doesn't fold for convenience and spring up quickly. The ARMS #40 can take some knocks without losing zero but loctite the locknut or you'll lose it and the sight will shift.

 

[NMshooter]

When I started shooting I had absolutely no use for optics of any sort. I did not want any flimsy stuff waiting to break on my rifles. The only AR type rifles I currently own are all flattops with optics. If you get the A1 or A2 upper and change your mind later you will probably end up replacing the entire upper. I would suggest the A3, to keep your options open.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Having used an ARMS #40 for the better part of my time in A-stan, I consider myself pretty qualified to discuss its pro's and con's. It is a pain to zero because the top of the small aperature is cut-off. Engaging targets at range was also a problem due to the aperature. The aperature changed on the ARMS #40A2 and I suspect this is no longer an issue. Additionally, the windage adjustment was on the left as opposed to the right which was a constant source of confusion when zeroing.

I liked the fact that it was spring-loaded, but I disliked the positioning of the lever as it was on the right side of the sight. It required me to reach in front of my face with my non-firing hand or to remove my firing hand from the pistol grip in order to bring the sight into play.

I used the sight as a back-up to my M-68. Currently, my M-68 rides on top of my carrying handle on a see-thru mount. I consider this to be a superior arrangement.

Is the ARMS #40 a better iron sight than the rear sight integrated into the A2 carry handle?

No. At best it is equal, but I would go with the carrying handle.

Is the Arms set up as sturdy as the sight in the removable A3 handle?

No.

Can it take some bumps without losing zero, now I'm not talking about dropping it but would it be OK sliding around in my trunk?

Yes.

Being that I'm 99% sure I'll never mount optics am I just better off getting the A2?

As there is really no difference in performance between an A2 and A3, I am not sure why you would want to deny yourself the option to add an optic at a later date.

Without knowledge as to your intended use it is difficult to make a recommendation. Based on the information provided, I believe I would go with the A3 and use the carrying handle.

 

[Randy63]

Thanks a lot for all of your input.

I've decided to go with the removable carry handle. All of my local dealers are getting the Bushmaster M4gerys. So far the've all had the fixed carry handle. I'm going to be patient and wait for the A3 option.

Even though I don't plan on adding optics, it's good to know that I'll have better options should I decide to down the road.

Randy