<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>It actually looks like it has a touch of “rise” as opposed to “drop”<p><hr></blockquote><p>I believe that is an optical illusion. Lay a straight edge on a good picture - I believe it is a straight-line stock. In any event, the center-line of the iron sights is fairly close to the same as the centerline of the 'scope, which would have to be the case in order for both to be efficient with the same stock. Anyone who has used a conventionally mounted scope-sighted rifle with both factory iron sights and 'scope can readily appreciate that one or the other (scope or iron sights) takes a different head position and one of the two is awkward -either the scope is too high or the iron sights are too low.<br><br>Two other items of note about the low-mounted scope - just something to consider: <br><br>The lower the sights are, the less the influence of cant. If a high-mounted sight (the M16 comes to mind) is canted, the point of impact is markedly off, so keeping the rifle in exactly the same position (assumed to be level) becomes much more critical than with a low-mounted scope. That might be significant in situations under duress. <br><br>On the other hand, a high mounted scope gives the EFFECT (on practical targets, not paper) of a flatter trajectory. That translates to an effective "point blank range" that is farther out. The geometry is self-evident if you carefully sketch it out on paper - too tedious to explain here in words. If the target is very tiny - say, a prairie dog's head peeping over the mound at 250 yards, that is a drawback if it's not very near the actual zero range. If the target is a larger - say the vital areas of a deer or larger animal - the higher mounted sights can help compensate for range estimation errors within the effective range of the rifle system.<br><br>Neither way is "better" - there are just different factors and effects to consider. YMMV, but that's the way I see it. Personally, I try to keep sights as low as possible for a number of reasons - stock design is usually part of the limiting factors.<br><br>BTW, I'm not knocking the M16A2 and its varients. They are very good for the use they are meant for. I have, however, concluded that there are better calibers than 5.56mm for those uses... an efficient 6.5 or 7mm would be dandy, but an efficient 6mm would be OK... gee, I think they concluded that in the 30s after doing all sorts of testing... go figure... my personal experiences afield sport and otherwise have borne that out. (OK - I prefer 30 calibers, but they're not gonna come back to general military use for a number of reasons, most practical and some political).<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Scouter Tom