>> I believe that is an optical illusion.<<<br><br>Could well be- the unusual shape makes it difficult to tell. It does look like it would be hard to get the head low enough for the sights, but then again, it’s really not possible to judge things like that just from a picture.<br><br>>>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>I agree, unfortunately. I’m one of those retrogrouches (I love that word, from the bicycle world) who insist on having iron sights. I like scopes, I just don’t trust them much- too fragile, too much stuff going on there for me to want to wager even dinner on it, if I haven’t eaten in awhile, much less higher stakes. Still, my experiences with “see through” scope mounts have pretty well convinced me that they’re a poor compromise for the reasons you state. The Steyr Scout idea of pop-up “metal” sights is an interesting approach that might help the alignment problem, even if it is not as fast as a backup.<br><br>This sort of thing came up again just recently when I started to check out air rifles. The current trend appears to be to eliminate iron sights and incorporate very tall Monte Carlo cheekpieces that would just about prohibit their use anyway. My general impression is that this, combined with ever-increasing reliance on “support” technologies (PCP, bulk C02, compressors, SCUBA tanks, electronic sights and scopes, and even electric triggers) is steadily reducing the number of air rifles that might be useful in a survival situation. Regrettable.<br><br>I agree with your positions with respect to 5.56/.223- I own them, for obvious reasons, but it wouldn’t be my first choice- despite the weight/load difference, which is much more a apparent when going over a mountain than some might suppose from an armchair. I’m less diplomatic than you about the M16A2. Despite the fact that it is much improved over it’s predecessors, I cannot get past the number of good lives that were spent to prevent a bureaucracy from having to admit a mistake, and I still feel that having combustion gasses act directly on a bolt with seven locking lugs is just never going to be sufficiently reliable for combat- the seven lugs alone is dubious. I think the fact that we’ve now compounded the mistake by forcing our young men in arms to use a sidearm round that has proven inadequate for almost a century is a disgrace.<br><br>Outside of the military and police, of course, anyone pays their money and makes their own choices, and they’re free to stake their lives on any hardware they like.<br>