M24 iron front sight base

[patriotM24]

I have a question about how to install the OK Weber front sight base for the globe sight on a M24 rifle.

After studying numerous pictures on the M24 front sight base, (most pictures don't have the globe front sight mounted), I've notice Remington mount the front sight base with the notch to the left, that means when the globe sight installed, the screw-on cap will be facing the front. I think typically, the front globe sight on target rifle, the globe sight screw-on cap should be facing the rear. Keep in mind that some globe sight will have a magnifier. So which way is the correct way to install the front sight base? The notch should be on the left, or right? The screw on cap facing the front or rear?

 

[Huskydriver]

Straight from the TM

 

[patriotM24]

View attachment 7424959

Straight from the TM

This picture shows the Redfield sight, the Redfield sight base has notches on both sides, the bigger notch on the left, and smaller notch on the right. OK Weber front sight base only has one notch, Remington put it on the left that put the screw-on cap in the front, which I am not sure if it's correct. (The Army never updated the manual).

 

[308pirate]

The threaded portion of the sight's body has to face the shooter only if you intend to screw a magnifier on. If you don't then it doesn't matter.

 

[patriotM24]

The threaded portion of the sight's body has to face the shooter only if you intend to screw a magnifier on. If you don't then it doesn't matter.

The screw-on cap is for tightening down the insert, so the general rule of thumb is it should face the shooter instead of the target, the magnifier should be facing the target (according to a gunsmith that make those sight). But the way Remington mount the OK Weber front sight base, they put the notch on the left of the barrel, that makes it when installing the globe, the screw-on cap will be facing the target not the shooter. I couldn't find any official picture to confirm the position of the globe front sight since most GI didn't use them. I only saw one picture that showed the globe screw-on cap facing away from the shooter, but he's not a soldier and his gun was a rebuild. I want to do it in the correct way. I hate to say it, but Remington might have done it wrong when they switched from Redfield to OK Weber.

 

[308pirate]

The screw-on cap is for tightening down the insert, so the general rule of thumb is it should face the shooter instead of the target, the magnifier should be facing the target (according to a gunsmith that make those sight). But the way Remington mount the OK Weber front sight base, they put the notch on the left of the barrel, that makes it when installing the globe, the screw-on cap will be facing the target not the shooter. I couldn't find any official picture to confirm the position of the globe front sight since most GI didn't use them. I only saw one picture that showed the globe facing away from the shooter, but he's not a soldier and his gun was a rebuild. I want to do it in the correct way. I hate to say it, but Remington might have done it wrong when they switched from Redfield to OK Weber.

My memory is fuzzy on the magnifiers, since I haven't shot across the course and long range with aperture sights in about a decade.

Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind that the backup sights on the M24 are just that, backups, and not intended for the user to be fucking around with different sights apertures. So which way the threaded bezel faces when the sight's on the rifle is very likely not important at all.

 

[sandwarrior]

I have a question about how to install the OK Weber front sight base for the globe sight on a M24 rifle.

After studying numerous pictures on the M24 front sight base, (most pictures don't have the globe front sight mounted), I've notice Remington mount the front sight base with the notch to the left, that means when the globe sight installed, the screw-on cap will be facing the front. I think typically, the front globe sight on target rifle, the globe sight screw-on cap should be facing the rear. Keep in mind that some globe sight will have a magnifier. So which way is the correct way to install the front sight base? The notch should be on the left, or right? The screw on cap facing the front or rear?

If it's an issue, just turn the base around. IIRC it just takes a small tipped slotted screwdriver. Match the base to the sight when you get them together and put both of the right way. The sight should have the screw-on portion that holds the different sight inserts to the rear of the sight assembly.

 

[patriotM24]

My memory is fuzzy on the magnifiers, since I haven't shot across the course and long range with aperture sights in about a decade.

Nevertheless, you have to keep in mind that the backup sights on the M24 are just that, backups, and not intended for the user to be fucking around with different sights apertures. So which way the threaded bezel faces when the sight's on the rifle is very likely not important at all.

I hear what you are saying, which way the threaded cap facing is not important. but I want to do it right as per mil-spec, if it's wrong then the mil-spec is wrong. However, if the screw-on cap is in the front, when you need to switch apertures, your hand will be directly in front of the muzzle and become a safety issue.

 

[308pirate]

I hear what you are saying, which way the threaded cap facing is not important. but I want to do it right as per mil-spec, if it's wrong then the mil-spec is wrong. However, if the screw-on cap is in the front, when you need to switch apertures, your hand will be directly in front of the muzzle and become a safety issue.

You heard what I said but I don't think you understood.

 

[smoothy8500]

The threaded bezel holding the aperture always goes towards the shooter. The diopter or "magnifier" as you call it, always screws in the front of the aperture (facing the target). There's no sense in the diopter "magnifying" the aperture, it's purpose is making the target slightly clearer. At least the TM shows the screw on the correct side, even if the drawing is a bit confusing.

 

[patriotM24]

The threaded bezel holding the aperture always goes towards the shooter. The diopter or "magnifier" as you call it, always screws in the front of the aperture (facing the target). There's no sense in the diopter "magnifying" the aperture, it's purpose is making the target slightly clearer. At least the TM shows the screw on the correct side, even if the drawing is a bit confusing.

That's why I said Remington installed the OK Weber front sight base wrong when they switched from the Redfield. Now I am not sure if I should build mine wrong like what they did to match the rest. The Redfield's threaded bezel did screw in from the front if the picture that I saw was correct, and the Redfield globe sight had no magnifier thread in the back. The soldiers never used the backup sight, so this never was noticed.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Get on with your nerdy self but as a guy that carried the M24 for a time I can tell you no one in my platoon gave a fuck about the iron sights. Each M24 had two optics, the PVS-10 and the M3A and the Barrett had the Mk4 4.5-14. If an optic went down, we had options.

If you're stressing about making this a perfect clone put it on the way it left Remington. If you're actually going to be using the irons, put it on the right way.

 

[smoothy8500]

Just curious why the Army spec'd those metallic sights on the M24. Did they plan on having the M24 serve as a trainer for their AMU Palma team? I can't imagine that they thought the Redfield or RPA micrometer sights would be sturdy enough for use as a back-up in the field.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

It was built by committee so someone was probably touched by the same good idea fairy that blessed us with a long action .308.

 

[patriotM24]

Get on with your nerdy self but as a guy that carried the M24 for a time I can tell you no one in my platoon gave a fuck about the iron sights. Each M24 had two optics, the PVS-10 and the M3A and the Barrett had the Mk4 4.5-14. If an optic went down, we had options.

If you're stressing about making this a perfect clone put it on the way it left Remington. If you're actually going to be using the irons, put it on the right way.

Nerdy self? No one gave a fuck? Then you'd better ask all the ones out there to give up their so "hard to find" M24 rear iron sights and send them my way. I'd take all of them. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do something right and works.

 

[patriotM24]

Just curious why the Army spec'd those metallic sights on the M24. Did they plan on having the M24 serve as a trainer for their AMU Palma team? I can't imagine that they thought the Redfield or RPA micrometer sights would be sturdy enough for use as a back-up in the field.

Having involved with the government for years, I can say that the government always wants redundancy even when 99.99% of the scenario tell them that it may not needed. There's always one of those freak situation that the iron sight may be needed.

 

[patriotM24]

Well, I'll put it in the wrong way like Remington did, so I can say that mine is put together just like the rest. It won't be a clone though, since all the parts are correct and original, and no fabrication involved.

 

[Random Guy]

So which way is the correct way to install the front sight base? The notch should be on the left, or right? The screw on cap facing the front or rear?

I never really thought about this. My M24R has the OK Weber sights. The front base has the indent on the left side (see attached). The globe sight screw-on cap would be facing outward (with the nut on the left side). The threaded part of the globe sight is facing the shooter, which per post #10 is the wrong orientation since any magnifiers are to be installed on the target side of the reticle...but of course the US Army didn't provide or issue any magnifiers, just the different reticles. In both manuals that I have, it shows the screw-in cap holding the reticle is screwed in from the target-side of the barrel, so I think it must have been a purposeful decision, even if its the opposite of what one sees on civilian target rifles. (M24s typically lived a very different lifestyle than a pampered target rifle...)

Well, did you call OK Weber? I guess they would probably be best on answering the question about which way their front sight base is supposed to be installed... Hopefully the wild fires out west haven't impacted that company.

On EDIT: Last two B&W pics are from Peter Senich's book, The One-Round War (1996). That M24 probably has the Redfield sight system, not OK Weber, IMO.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Nerdy self? No one gave a fuck? Then you'd better ask all the ones out there to give up their so "hard to find" M24 rear iron sights and send them my way. I'd take all of them. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do something right and works.

I have no problem with someone that does something right that works, however you seemed to be having a fair dinkum stress over which way the front sight base goes. I wanted to add some perspective to the situation by telling you that people who relied on the M24 to live didn't care which way the iron sight base went.

 

[patriotM24]

I never really thought about this. My M24R has the OK Weber sights. The front base has the indent on the left side (see attached). The globe sight screw-on cap would be facing outward (with the nut on the left side). The threaded part of the globe sight is facing the shooter, which per post #10 is the wrong orientation since any magnifiers are to be installed on the target side of the reticle...but of course the US Army didn't provide or issue any magnifiers, just the different reticles. In both manuals that I have, it shows the screw-in cap holding the reticle is screwed in from the target-side of the barrel, so I think it must have been a purposeful decision, even if its the opposite of what one sees on civilian target rifles. (M24s typically lived a very different lifestyle than a pampered target rifle...)

Well, did you call OK Weber? I guess they would probably be best on answering the question about which way their front sight base is supposed to be installed... Hopefully the wild fires out west haven't impacted that company.

The older Redfield globe, the screw in cap was screwed in from the target side, and no magnifier option for this globe, and the locking screw is on the right. Base had two notches, big notch on the left, and small notch on the right. That was the Redfield.

Then came the OK Weber, the base only had one notch. Remington put it on the left from all the pictures that I've seen. That put the screw in cap on the target side, and locking screw on the left, which is not quite right in according with the globe sight orientation of the target rifle.

I did call OK Weber, and the nice lady that I spoke with didn't remember, they only supplied the parts to Remington, how they put them on was their business. However, she said the screw in cap should be on the shooter's side. She referred me to a master gunsmith that supposed to make all these sights, and he said the globe screw in cap should be on the shooter side, locking screw on the right, magnifier on the target side, like what post #10 said. He didn't know why Remington did what they did.

It would be nice to have Remington or the U.S. Army to clarify this.

 

[patriotM24]

I have no problem with someone that does something right that works, however you seemed to be having a fair dinkum stress over which way the front sight base goes. I wanted to add some perspective to the situation by telling you that people who relied on the M24 to live didn't care which way the iron sight base went.

No problem , accuracy somehow is quite important to me when comes to building stuff, I guess it's from my line of work over the years (electronic related).

 

[RTH1800]

Cloning is a sickness.

 

[patriotM24]

I never really thought about this. My M24R has the OK Weber sights. The front base has the indent on the left side (see attached). The globe sight screw-on cap would be facing outward (with the nut on the left side). The threaded part of the globe sight is facing the shooter, which per post #10 is the wrong orientation since any magnifiers are to be installed on the target side of the reticle...but of course the US Army didn't provide or issue any magnifiers, just the different reticles. In both manuals that I have, it shows the screw-in cap holding the reticle is screwed in from the target-side of the barrel, so I think it must have been a purposeful decision, even if its the opposite of what one sees on civilian target rifles. (M24s typically lived a very different lifestyle than a pampered target rifle...)

Well, did you call OK Weber? I guess they would probably be best on answering the question about which way their front sight base is supposed to be installed... Hopefully the wild fires out west haven't impacted that company.

On EDIT: Last two B&W pics are from Peter Senich's book, The One-Round War (1996). That M24 probably has the Redfield sight system, not OK Weber, IMO.

Yes, although the picture is fuzzy, I can kind of see the locking screw (brighter spot) is on the right side, which makes it a Redfield. Thanks for the pics, I've never seen one with iron sight in use. Target sight is cool and popular in other parts of the world.

 

[...]

The screw-on cap is for tightening down the insert, so the general rule of thumb is it should face the shooter instead of the target, the magnifier should be facing the target (according to a gunsmith that make those sight). But the way Remington mount the OK Weber front sight base, they put the notch on the left of the barrel, that makes it when installing the globe, the screw-on cap will be facing the target not the shooter. I couldn't find any official picture to confirm the position of the globe front sight since most GI didn't use them. I only saw one picture that showed the globe screw-on cap facing away from the shooter, but he's not a soldier and his gun was a rebuild. I want to do it in the correct way. I hate to say it, but Remington might have done it wrong when they switched from Redfield to OK Weber.

ive been shooting NRA matches for over a decade......i have seen sights positioned both ways.....even among top level shooters.

honestly, it needs to hold a thin piece of metal, the direction it faces really doesnt make any difference.

 

[Random Guy]

It would be nice to have Remington or the U.S. Army to clarify this.

Okay, just reached out to a former 1st SFG sniper instructor who retired from the Army, and then ran Remington Defense (for Remington Arms Company/RAC) for a decade or so beginning in 2004. He is the authority on M24s, and here is what he said re the topic of this thread:

"...the original Redfield sights used a Palma rear sight and an International globe front sight. These sights were a requirement of the original M24 solicitation and subsequent contract. The requirement itself stemmed from 2 issues; first the snipers wanted some type of back up iron sight in case the optics went down or in case the shooting position was facing the sun which would result in optical reflection or in case the enemy had reflective location technology (the ability to scan an area and pin point reflective surfaces such as optics; we have it as do the Soviets/Russians).

People need to understand that there were 3 variations of the M24;

1. M24 with one piece optic base and Redfield iron sights
2. M24 with 2 piece optic bases and Redfield iron sights
3. M24 with 2 piece optic bases and RPA sights aka OK Weber sights (he imported them from the UK from RPA)

On versions 1 and 2 the front sight base was installed as specified by Redfield at the time, however on version 3 the US Army provided direction as to where/how the sights were to be mounted.

As noted by at least one guy on the forum, the big Army gave 2 craps about the iron sights at all as no one hardly ever used them. On the SF side, we used them in SOTIC only during the first week of training after which we went to optics and never looked back. In the early days, the AMU did use them but then found much better iron sights in Swensons, RPA and others.

So, in conclusion, while some may find that the front sight may be put on wrong for competition work, the Army did not care and subsequently RAC did not care. That said, there is some rumor that by having the front sight facing with the screw-in part facing the target, the sight radius is increased slightly (I have seen match shooters do exactly the same thing)."

...that's from the Source, and that's all I know.

 

[patriotM24]

Okay, just reached out to a former 1st SFG sniper instructor who retired from the Army, and then ran Remington Defense (for Remington Arms Company/RAC) for a decade or so beginning in 2004. He is the authority on M24s, and here is what he said re the topic of this thread:

"...the original Redfield sights used a Palma rear sight and an International globe front sight. These sights were a requirement of the original M24 solicitation and subsequent contract. The requirement itself stemmed from 2 issues; first the snipers wanted some type of back up iron sight in case the optics went down or in case the shooting position was facing the sun which would result in optical reflection or in case the enemy had reflective location technology (the ability to scan an area and pin point reflective surfaces such as optics; we have it as do the Soviets/Russians).

People need to understand that there were 3 variations of the M24;

1. M24 with one piece optic base and Redfield iron sights
2. M24 with 2 piece optic bases and Redfield iron sights
3. M24 with 2 piece optic bases and RPA sights aka OK Weber sights (he imported them from the UK from RPA)

On versions 1 and 2 the front sight base was installed as specified by Redfield at the time, however on version 3 the US Army provided direction as to where/how the sights were to be mounted.

As noted by at least one guy on the forum, the big Army gave 2 craps about the iron sights at all as no one hardly ever used them. On the SF side, we used them in SOTIC only during the first week of training after which we went to optics and never looked back. In the early days, the AMU did use them but then found much better iron sights in Swensons, RPA and others.

So, in conclusion, while some may find that the front sight may be put on wrong for competition work, the Army did not care and subsequently RAC did not care. That said, there is some rumor that by having the front sight facing with the screw-in part facing the target, the sight radius is increased slightly (I have seen match shooters do exactly the same thing)."

...that's from the Source, and that's all I know.

Hey Randem Guy, thanks so much for the effort to clarify this, that helps me out a lot. I guess I am picky about how parts are intended to be used, and be historically correct.

So the two piece optic bases will have to go with the OK Weber sight? The reason that I ask is because I have both, if that's the case, I would use the one piece optic base for my other Remington, and use the two piece base on the M24, I do not have the Redfield iron sight, but I like the one piece base better.

 

[Random Guy]

You're welcome. The 1-piece sight base is early, as are the Redfield sights. The two-piece bases are later M24s, as are the OK Weber sights. (I think the original Redfield went out of business in 1998, and after that the Army got the iron sights from OK Weber, who in turn imported them from the UK). I don't know what year Leupold switched from the 1-piece to the 2-piece scope mounts.

 

[roostercogburn98]

Threads to the back like everyone says.

 

[patriotM24]

Threads to the back like everyone says. View attachment 7425459

Is this a M24 sight? I've never seen one like that.

 

[Random Guy]

Is this a M24 sight? I've never seen one like that.

That tan sight is the old Redfield Olympic front globe sight. The Olympic is long and has a pronounced flange on the rear which limits what can be seen around the outside of the front sight. It was typically used on small bore (22LR) rifles, esp the old Winchester 52D and Remington 40X in 22LR back in the 1950s-60s.

The M24 front sight was the Redfield International, which is much shorter in length, but bigger in diameter and hence more open in comparison. Its considered a "big bore" front sight, and I think dates to the late 1970-1980s era.

 

[sandwarrior]

Nerdy self? No one gave a fuck? Then you'd better ask all the ones out there to give up their so "hard to find" M24 rear iron sights and send them my way. I'd take all of them. There's nothing wrong with wanting to do something right and works.

Wow?!?! You're talking to a guy whose been there and done that, then tell him he don't know??? He don't have to ask all the other clone/replica builders. He carried the original for a good amount of time. He just told you what the deal with the sight is. This is like some dumbass at Remington who put the base on backwards cuz he heard snipers don't care. Now you replica builders are stressing over how it goes on the rifle. Look at the damn thing, and if you want to be able to use the irons, then put it on the way they are usable. Watch, you take it to a match and somebody will tell you that you got it on wrong.

I just gotta love armchair historians who tell the guys who were there that they "just don't know how it really is".

 

[roostercogburn98]

Is this a M24 sight? I've never seen one like that.

More of an example just to see. Same concept just different style. @Random Guy is correct, it is a Redfield Olympic

 

[patriotM24]

Wow?!?! You're talking to a guy whose been there and done that, then tell him he don't know??? He don't have to ask all the other clone/replica builders. He carried the original for a good amount of time. He just told you what the deal with the sight is. This is like some dumbass at Remington who put the base on backwards cuz he heard snipers don't care. Now you replica builders are stressing over how it goes on the rifle. Look at the damn thing, and if you want to be able to use the irons, then put it on the way they are usable. Watch, you take it to a match and somebody will tell you that you got it on wrong.

I just gotta love armchair historians who tell the guys who were there that they "just don't know how it really is".

In the military and in the government, we have something called "standard", I want to put my M24 together per standard. I am not cloning, I am putting the issued part on a real M24. So please just sit down.

 

[RTH1800]

Real Army M24 shooters put their underwear on backwards as well. Gotta get this stuff right.

 

[Random Guy]

So which way is the correct way to install the front sight base? The notch should be on the left, or right? The screw on cap facing the front or rear?

This thread has gone slightly off the rails, but one other idea came to mind re why the Army may have wanted the OK Weber/RPA front sight block installed with the notch on the left side of the barrel. By mounting the front sight block that way (with the tightening screw on the left side of the globe), both the front and rear 'emergency' iron sights, as well as the daytime Leupold scope - could be installed and/or removed with the right side of the rifle leaning on the ground (or on a bench) - and thus all work re optics is done from just the left side of the rifle. This would preclude the need to physically maneuver /or flop the rifle over to access the right side of the barrel for the front sight install (or removal) process. (On right handed-actions, the scope ring bolt heads are typically accessed on the left side of the rifle, out of the way of the ejection port, and the rear iron sight on the M24 is obviously also accessed from the left side of the rifle.

Perhaps the Army also wanted the solider in the field (or armorer at a base) to be also be able to complete the installation (or removal) of the front sight from the left side of the rifle as well, hence the installation of the OK Weber front sight block with the notch on the left side of the barrel. That is just a pet theory on ergonomics that came to mind - with no evidence from my Source on all things M24, but I think their is some logic in that explanation as to why the front globe might have the tightening screw on the left side of the barrel, opposite of what one might otherwise expect.

(PS: I got out my caliper and took a measurement. The sight radius is ~ 0.4" to 0.5" longer with the front globe installed with the screw-in portion toward the target/front sight notch and globe tightening screw on the left side. So, the Source was indeed correct about that minor factoid..see white arrow for comparison of approximate reticle position. Okay, moving on to other topics...)

 

[patriotM24]

This thread has gone slightly off the rails, but one other idea came to mind re why the Army may have wanted the OK Weber/RPA front sight block installed with the notch on the left side of the barrel. By mounting the front sight block that way (with the tightening screw on the left side of the globe), both the front and rear 'emergency' iron sights, as well as the daytime Leupold scope - could be installed and/or removed with the right side of the rifle leaning on the ground (or on a bench) - and thus all work re optics is done from just the left side of the rifle. This would preclude the need to physically maneuver /or flop the rifle over to access the right side of the barrel for the front sight install (or removal) process. (On right handed-actions, the scope ring bolt heads are typically accessed on the left side of the rifle, out of the way of the ejection port, and the rear iron sight on the M24 is obviously also accessed from the left side of the rifle.

Perhaps the Army also wanted the solider in the field (or armorer at a base) to be also be able to complete the installation (or removal) of the front sight from the left side of the rifle as well, hence the installation of the OK Weber front sight block with the notch on the left side of the barrel. That is just a pet theory on ergonomics that came to mind - with no evidence from my Source on all things M24, but I think their is some logic in that explanation as to why the front globe might have the tightening screw on the left side of the barrel, opposite of what one might otherwise expect. Okay, moving onto other topics...

(PS: I got out my caliper and took a measurement. The sight radius is indeed ~ 0.55" longer with the front globe installed with the screw-in portion toward the target/front sight notch and globe tightening screw on the left side, so the Source was correct about that minor factoid..see white arrow for comparison.)

My guess is the Redfield international front sight aperture locking cap was designed to be screwed in from the front (target side), and had no magnifier capability. Then the OK Weber sight came along, and the Army wanted to keep everything the same. The OK Weber globe sight has thread on the other side for the magnifier, and the cylinder itself is off center from the mount. So mounting it with the aperture locking cap facing the front would look kind of weird, if a magnifier was added, it would magnify the target along with the aperture which is not the standard for competition shooting. But like some said, the Army didn't care. . Again, thanks for the sight radius info.

 

[sandwarrior]

In the military and in the government, we have something called "standard", I want to put my M24 together per standard. I am not cloning, I am putting the issued part on a real M24. So please just sit down.

I'm quite familiar with Standard. I was in the military. 1st Ranger BN in fact, where standards are quite the norm. And, it's a clone/replica even if you have all the correct parts cuz you ain't authorized to build one for the military. That's a standard in case you didn't know it.

 

[patriotM24]

I'm quite familiar with Standard. I was in the military. 1st Ranger BN in fact, where standards are quite the norm. And, it's a clone/replica even if you have all the correct parts cuz you ain't authorized to build one for the military. That's a standard in case you didn't know it.

My M24 is missing the front sight base, and I am putting it back on the correct way per it's standard, not cloning.

 

[patriotM24]

A trivia question, as you look at the windage carriage on the RPA rear sight, why there's a corner of the silver color top plate snipped off from the factory?

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Probably to provide clearance for the elevation knob if it has to travel over that far.

 

[patriotM24]

Probably to provide clearance for the elevation knob if it has to travel over that far.

You are correct, the manufacturer called it "circular relief area" to prevent it from hitting the elevation knob.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

The "Standard" for proper mounting of the M24 iron sights is...to leave them in the optic box.

Too be fair, from my personal experience I am the only person I know of who has taken the time to fuck with the irons on a M24 and that was out of pure boredom as a sniper instructor. Now with little doubt I am sure there are some other folks who have dinked around and I know that irons were actually part of the curriculum at one point in SOTIC (pre-2001) but literally I've never seen or conversed in the flesh with a fellow sniper who has actually used the irons for any practical reason. WHY? because they have no practical use, other than the fact that the front sight base could be used in conjunction with the flash hider but even use of the FH was rare. In fact a large majority of the M24s I've seen have actually had the sight bases removed.

If you want your M24 to be correct and to US Army standards follow the steps below:

1. Inventory your BII.
2. Note the deficiencies. Should you come across the front/rear sights and bases, marvel at the stupidity of the government that willing waste your tax money.
4. Return your BII to the appropriate boxes
5. Sign your hand receipt for the supply sergeant (make sure you get a copy)
6. Repeat quarterly and watch as your BII magically evaporates over the years.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

The "Standard" for proper mounting of the M24 iron sights is...to leave them in the optic box.

Too be fair, from my personal experience I am the only person I know of who has taken the time to fuck with the irons on a M24 and that was out of pure boredom as a sniper instructor. Now with little doubt I am sure there are some other folks who have dinked around and I know that irons were actually part of the curriculum at one point in SOTIC (pre-2001) but literally I've never seen or conversed in the flesh with a fellow sniper who has actually used the irons for any practical reason. WHY? because they have no practical use, other than the fact that the front sight base could be used in conjunction with the flash hider but even use of the FH was rare. In fact a large majority of the M24s I've seen have actually had the sight bases removed.

If you want your M24 to be correct and to US Army standards follow the steps below:

1. Inventory your BII.
2. Note the deficiencies. Should you come across the front/rear sights and bases, marvel at the stupidity of the government that willing waste your tax money.
4. Return your BII to the appropriate boxes
5. Sign your hand receipt for the supply sergeant (make sure you get a copy)
6. Repeat quarterly and watch as your BII magically evaporates over the years.

I like to see all the M24R layouts because they are damn near museum quality, we never had everything, I'd like to see someone set up an M24 kit like a real unit's M24's were.

Take all the parts out of the deployment box and empty out half the baggies. Now put the baggies back in the deployment box.
Drop in a random flip cap one size too small because it looked like the right size.
Take the cleaning rod sections, bend one, and toss the the t-handle end, because fuck the other guy.
Leave one sling swivel and a brand new sling in the wrapper dated from the 90's
Leave a 5/32" allen wrench and a random allen wrench not the size needed to slip the turrets and throw the other ones away.

Now proceed to steps 1-6 above.

 

[Rudy Gonsior]

Lol, that random allen wrench that's specifically "not the size needed to slip the turrets" hits close to home. Additionally I think if you own a M24R, you should be forced to let 3 to 4 random dudes spray paint your shit, with the cheapest "not quite AO correct" spray paints available and then drag it down a gravel road for a couple of miles.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

They call that authentic

 

[seanh]

View attachment 7430116

I like to see all the M24R layouts because they are damn near museum quality, we never had everything, I'd like to see someone set up an M24 kit like a real unit's M24's were.

Take all the parts out of the deployment box and empty out half the baggies. Now put the baggies back in the deployment box.
Drop in a random flip cap one size too small because it looked like the right size.
Take the cleaning rod sections, bend one, and toss the the t-handle end, because fuck the other guy.
Leave one sling swivel and a brand new sling in the wrapper dated from the 90's
Leave a 5/32" allen wrench and a random allen wrench not the size needed to slip the turrets and throw the other ones away.

Now proceed to steps 1-6 above.

I'm reminded of a commercial...
"We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two"

 

[patriotM24]

I'd like to see some pics of your personal M24s if you have one....

 

[Trigger Monkey]

who? mine?

 

[patriotM24]

sure, or Rudy's, what the hell...or seanh's

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Sure thing, this is mine circa 04-05

First range trip...

Another range trip...I was getting mortared with snowballs. I'm laying on an authentic Eagle Industries HSRC drag bag from the ASAK. The TRGT data book was from the accessory kit too but you can just see the cover.

Working

I didn't get a lot of pics of my M24 because I was usually busy but there you go. Was a good rifle, accurate, reliable, there wasn't a lot to complain about it with it.