The Bullpup, she is finished, finally. I think. Almost

Andrew and Wakal, that's right, homeboy hold, and I actually started off by asking Kurt to put the rail on the RIGHT side, but he put it on the left instead, to keep brass from hitting me in the face when the rifle is turned - more important with the bullpup config. (read my post above in detail on this). So I deferred to Kurt on that, but no, I am right-handed, not left. I actually thought it would be unweildy for me, a right-hander, to turn the rifle 180 to the right (with the left rail), but it's actually quite easy to do WITH the front pistol grip (and rear pistol grip) as a good, quick torqueing device, and as noted, brass goes down, not up.

Look at this doohickey at Brownell's - if I turn it 180 degrees from it's anticipated mounting, such that the red dot is in the 10:30 to 11:00 o'clock position, it will probably work nicely, and frees up the left for the flashlight, so I can put my grip further forward, and still keeps the brass outta ma face. Actually, if I get this one, then I can try it both ways (red dot at 11:00 and 1:00), and see if I get hit with brass at 1:00, and change it to 11:00 if I do:

http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/st...-15/M-16+DUAL-RAIL+ADAPTER+BASE&s=42066#42066

Onslaught, that may in fact be my rifle, but Kurt emailed me today saying that he didn't charge me for the front sight, and therefore didn't send it - but he may have had it on mine for that pic - I dunno - so yes, I'm going to order the fold-down front from Bushmaster today! Coolness - hope it's the right height for use with that Ashley Outdoors peep - I think it should work given the adjustment ability of the A2 style screw-in post.

No, I didn't notice any weight reduction from the lightening slots, because obviously the overall weight is much heavier, given the 4 new rails on it, one of which is very long. It's a little heavier than ideal, true - I *may* at some point take the left P rail off as unnecessary. I don't think I'd shorten the barrel or you lose the main advantage of the bullpup - a long barrel, giving you high velocities in a still fairly short overall length - doesn't make sense to me to shorten the barrel any, algthough Kurt will certainly do that. His prices are good (though it DOES add up), and he does a good job, but expect a wait - he took a long time getting it done - I guess he's swamped down there - both literally and figuratively.

Actually, the scope HAS TO go on top, not off to the side, or your long-range ballistics get SNAFU'ed. I like the idea of a little red dot at 11:00 - I'll post some updates after I re-configure - doh - no rest for the wicked, I tells ya.

PS. Onslaught, you said:

"Personally, I'd raise the scope and leave the rear ghost ring mounted all the time... In fact, if you attached that scope, rings and all, to either an ARMS #5 or the Rock River Arms (improved) equivalent, you could probably use the peep sight UNDER the scope, and do away with that ATN sight for close work... "

You may be onto something there, and I had thought about that, but dismissed it, with the idea that I want that scope as low as possible. But, there are several "pros" to doing that....First, it elimates the weight, reliance on batteries, and necessity of turning the rifle to shoot. Second, if the scope is for longer work only, then there's not necessarily a NEED to get the scope as low as possible. I may do this IF the front sight can be adjusted to line up where I need it for close work. This appeals to me, particulary to eliminate reliance on batteries.

"WHICH, by the way, considering the Trij. sight uses the Bindon Aiming Concept, you really have no need for the ATN sight, even as it is now. Your scope does both."

Well, hmmm, not exactly, I don't think. First off, I'm not sure of the EXACT definition of what does or does not constitue a "BAC" reticle. This one on the Accupoint is illuminted, yes, but it's a very precise point/triangle on the non-illuminated post. So it is (a) not the quickest acquisition because it's not very large - certainly not like the donuts on some ACOG - I think some ACOGs have donuts or large triangles, don't they, or am I thinking of the Trijicon reflex? - and (b) the Accupoint still has the "problem" of shooting a fair amount low at fairly close ranges, which will be exacerbated by a ARMS or other see-through mount. Thats FINE, as long as I have a quick and dirty yet still dead-on sight, and a red dot is great for that. Irons can be good too. I'll have to just order the irons, practice with them, see where they're hitting, with adjustment, and how quick they are. If they're very quick, then I'll probably just go with the ARMS mount and forget about the red dot. If they're not so quick, I'll 11:00 oclock mount that red dot, keep the scope low, and have the flip up/stoway irons for backup only (for when scope and red dot both go TU).

Onslaught, you are right - Kurt told me today that the Bushy fold-down front sight will work perfectly with the Ashley Outdoors rear - and he tested it to be sure even. So I ordered one - I'll keep yas posted. I'm pumped.

The triangle point on the Accupoint is quite small; smaller than it appears in that picture. But if BAC means you can keep both eyes open and just see the reticle imposed on the target, then the accupoint does that - particularly at 1.25-2x. But the POA and POI is gonna be a tad off at very short ranges, regardless of the reticle size, of course, with any zero, but particularly with a relative long zero such as 200 - but this zero makes sense for this scope given it's precise small tip, you see.

Update

Onslaught - Boba Fett - lol - yep this is some stone-cold bad@zz tactical shiz that would make even Boba proud to shoot.

Okay, here is Mary Ann after some additions/changes since prior pics:

-Out with the Weaver rings, in with Leupold high see-throughs. I really hadn't planned on using see throughs, in order to get the lowest mount possible, but after tinkering with it (it was indeed TOO low), by the time I got the scope as high as I liked, there was room to use a see-through so why not?
-Bushmaster fold-down front sight.
-Sling
-Out with red dot; flashlight moved to left side
-B-square bipod, "Roto-tilt" model, on Bushmaster's weaver bipod adapter (swivel stud)
-Cheapie "flip-off" rubber scope covers (they stay on the scope tube).

Onslaught, as far as the PBR thing goes - here's my theory on that... Yes, you're correct that in theory, a 5"-target-based PBR is fine, and that's what you'd get with this setup at all ranges to about 225 with a 200 zero (because of the -2.5" at very short ranges, even though you'd only be 1.5" low at 225 or so, not -2.5 there). BUT, that assumes a perfect hold, which is not likely standing, under pressure, on the run, etc. So, to allow for such sighting/holding errors, I run with a THREE inch-based PBR, which gives me about a 5" target coverage in practice, taking into account errors in holding. For example, if your target is 5", and you're 2.5" with a perfect hold, then the slightest error in hold results in a miss. Since 5" is in fact a good practical range, I tighten up the ballistics numbers to a 3" based PBR to cover such errors. A 60/62 gr .223 bullet with a muzzle vel or 3,000 fps, with a 189 yard zero, is only -1.5" out to 217 yards. But -2.5 at 5 yards. Hence the idea of using a red dot for say, 5 to 30 yards, and still use "dead-on, no-think" sighting. Now, however, having said all of that, I've decided to forget about it, and just simply train to hold a tad high at short ranges (not too hard), and rely exclusively on my primary sighting system - the Trijicon scope (with irons as emergency only). Especially since with all the other junk on it, it's already the heaviest "light rifle" I've ever felt.

And...

Last one.

Dunno because I don't have an accurate scale. But my 20+ year old bathroom scale of questionable accuracy seems to indicate about 11.5 - 12.0 pounds, with everything except mag/ammo. What's a good but inexpensive accurate scale to measure gun weights anyhow?