Barn Owl Lover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2021
- Posts
- 527
With what we've seen over the past year or so (longer, actually) with HK "modernizing" their rifles (introducing MLok and also offering QD sling attachment options), I do wonder what a couple of preferences are among the members here.
First, the older sling mounts vs QD (or Flush Cup as HK calls it). I see the appeal of both, and maybe having both options, especially if you have a legacy sling set. I know that on the 416/417 pattern rifles all you need to do to go back or forth is swapping out a few parts, but on like the 433 or 437, I do wonder about the rear receiver sling mount, whether or not it's integral or not. If it's replaceable, great, if not, you're probably going to have to pick on type and stick with it.
And now rear sights. I like the low profile of the standard rear sight and that it's quick removable. However, the 416F rear sight does have twin apertures and a clearly defined elevation adjustment (normal rear sight is elevation adjustable, but the sight's not marked).
So I'm wondering what the forum's preference is on those two items.
First, the older sling mounts vs QD (or Flush Cup as HK calls it). I see the appeal of both, and maybe having both options, especially if you have a legacy sling set. I know that on the 416/417 pattern rifles all you need to do to go back or forth is swapping out a few parts, but on like the 433 or 437, I do wonder about the rear receiver sling mount, whether or not it's integral or not. If it's replaceable, great, if not, you're probably going to have to pick on type and stick with it.
And now rear sights. I like the low profile of the standard rear sight and that it's quick removable. However, the 416F rear sight does have twin apertures and a clearly defined elevation adjustment (normal rear sight is elevation adjustable, but the sight's not marked).
So I'm wondering what the forum's preference is on those two items.
