Interesting Concept Offset BUIS from Strike Industries

I, for one, am a huge fan of offset sights for rifles with magnified optics. For SPR type platforms where the minimum magnification on optcs can be 9x or larger, the offset sights are a great option for close-in work when needed. Competition shooters have likewise embraced them, especially in action shooting sports where the option to use irons for near targets and not having to take the time to change magnification for longer shorts results in saved precious seconds.

Taking the concept to the next step is Strike Industries. Shown as a “sneak peak” over at Soldier Systems, Strike Industries has previewed what looks to be multi-position offset iron sights. The most interesting photo is the version showing it co-witnessed with a standard red-dot sight. This type of arrangement would be nice for when the zero magnification red-dot malfunctions or drains its battery and the shooter does not want to or can’t cant the weapon.


However, I also see a few drawbacks of the design as shown. Back-up iron sights rely on the mechanical repeatability of their deployment mechanisms to retain zero. Since any dirt or other issue can cause the sights to not quite fully deploy, they are typically never used for short-range work.

For reference, .001″ deployment error results in 1″ at 27 yards or nearly 4″ at 100 yards.

The Strike Industries design, in this light, could have this issue, magnified, as the deployment is not just a rotation vertically, but adds a rotation axially. Assuming the design is using detents, its ability to deploy with even MOA accuracy is likely small. Further, if the height over bore changes through the various axial positions, shooting at distance can be difficult.

But, for those looking for a true-back-up with flexibility, its going to be an interesting product.

All photos are credit Soldier Systems. Click here to be taken to the original article. 

Nathan S

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


  • thedonn007

    I had no idea that 0.001″ would make that much of a difference. For point of reference that is about a 1/4 the thickness of a sheet of printer paper.

    • Chris Lubowski

      Actually, Bobb’s math is much closer to the mark. Good luck even measuring 0.001″ of movement in a sight.

      • Doug King

        Dang, you busted my bubble on my precision!

      • AlDeLarge

        Bobb’s math is spot on, but a 24″ sight radius is not.

  • Doug King

    Glad that this type of error has been quantified in real terms. Been trying to explain it for years yet had no data to fully explain it. Thank you, Nathan S.

  • Bub

    Nathan have you ever used the Big Dot offset sights?

  • PeterK


    “Since any dirt or other issue can cause the sights to not quite fully deploy, they are typically never used for short-range work.”

    I am thinking you mean long-range. 🙂

    • Martin Grønsdal

      for other than

  • Sunshine_Shooter

    Folding backup sights: so they move out of your way when you don’t need them.
    Offset sights: offset so that you can use your backups w/o removing the optic
    Folding offset sights: Like offset, but snag-free

    Combining all 3 sounds like they got a lot of requests from people who don’t know what it is they are asking for. Rather than keep telling people they are idiots, Strike decided to profit off of it. Dumb concept, but a fool’s money spends just as good.

  • Bobb

    Your math is way off. With a 24″ sight radius it takes .027″ to adjust for 4″ at 100 yards.

    • AlDeLarge

      24″ seemed a bit long, so I looked them up. An M16 sight radius is 19.75″ and an M4 is 15″. This works out to a 1:182 ratio for rifle length gas tubes and 1:240 for carbine length tubes at 100 yards. This all assumes the rear sight is all the way back and the front is over the gas block, of course.

  • SGT Fish

    your windage adjustments are gonna be way off too. and since they are angled, so will your elevation

    • mbrd

      you mean when rotated into the cowitness position, right? otherwise they would be employed with the rifle canted, and theoretically they would be directly over the barrel (and still at an appropriate sight radius and height… eh, good luck).

  • Blake

    Come on, I love this blog but some of the writing recently has gotten so sloppy and poorly researched. You can see just from the two pictures that 1) no, these sights don’t “add in axial rotation”, that’s all there is. There’s no vertical rotation. 2) Why in the world would you “assume they’re using detents” when you can see very clearly in the first picture that’s exactly what they’re using. Come on.

    • 360_AD

      Because they like Strike (have said so in the past) and whatever Strike dreams up, they get a pass and a free plug.

      • Blake

        That’s apples to oranges man, I wasn’t asking why they post every Strike product that comes out. Point 1 was saying they make the site sound more complicated and less accurate than it really is, and point 2 was just saying they didn’t even bother looking at the first picture. I have a serious hardon for Strike as well, but that doesn’t mean crappy “articles” should be spat out without even a second thought.

        • Ranger Rick

          Blake, why the problem with Strike? I was just wondering.

          • Blake

            What in the world are you talking about? I’ll just quote my comment that you replied to: “I have a serious hardon for Strike as well…”

            I love Strike.

          • Ranger Rick

            Thanks for the clarification, looks like good stuff there.

          • AlDeLarge

            “I have a serious hardon for [whatever]” is a confusing phrase. I’ve heard it most in context of hating something/someone and wanting to screw them over. I’ve heard it less often, not rarely but significantly less, the way you meant it.

          • Blake

            …you’re saying you’ve heard people say “I have a hardon/boner/erection for X” and they were trying to say they hated X? You hang out with some illiterate people.

          • AlDeLarge

            Look it up on Urban Dictionary. It only lists one definition. I quoted it, but it’s “waiting to be approved.”

          • Blake

            I don’t really need to look up hardon, it’s very clear what it means.

          • AlDeLarge

            It means you want to screw someone.

            have a hard-on for someone
            verb phrase

            To have antipathy for; hate : He knows I’m a federal cop, so he’s got to figure I got a hard on for Panthers/ couple heavy-duty Cubans worked for the CIA when the CIA had a hard-on for Castro (1970s+)

          • AlDeLarge

            have a hard-on for someone
            tv. to wish to do someone physical damage; to seek revenge on someone. (The aggressor and victim are usually males. Usually objectionable.) The punk thinks he has a hard-on for Mr. Gutman.

          • AlDeLarge

            Need more, or is it starting to sink in?

    • mbrd

      regardless of what you want to call it, the sights rotate on two planes: the initial deployment in the 45º offset position (what nathan was referring to as “rotation vertically”), and the subsequent rotation about the axis of the bore (hence the phrase “rotation axially”) to cowitness.

      it also looks like the phrase “assuming the design is using detents” was originally meant to cover the breadth of backup irons across the industry, not just the strike product. it looks like the final proofread either failed to catch this editing mistake, or maybe there was no final proofread. as you said, “sloppy”…

      but then jarheads are historically easy targets for the grammar nazi crowd… ;P

  • Cymond

    I’ve always hoped they would release something like these prototypes, but it seems they’ve bulked them up and added adjustability, enough to negate the original concept.

  • Hoplopfheil

    Strike Industries makes a great damn charging handle, and an aright LPK.

    The rest of their products seem insane.

    • Their dust covers snap on in about 2 seconds, and there’s no itty-bitty c-clip to pop off and disappear.

      • Hoplopfheil

        I think I’d still rather have no dust cover.

  • Core

    the only way these irons will work properly is if the operator rotates the barrel so that the irons are at 360/0 degrees. Without a digital advanced ballistic algorithm, there is no way you can have a elevation and windage off zero and 90 degrees. You could integrate a 45 degree offset in the adjustments but between physics and the cartridges ballistics, it would be very suspect. But I like the concept of offset irons that have been traditionally used, it prevents having to rip off your inoperable optic at the last second.

    • AlDeLarge

      As long as sights end up at exactly the same distance and offset from the barrel, it would work. I don’t see that happening with these, but sights that actually rotated around the bore axis would work.

      • mbrd

        screw it, i’m sticking with my deuck defense offsets.

  • mbrd

    i was going to throw in my two cents here, but your twelve cents seems to have gotten the point across. funny that blake accused you of hanging out “with some illiterate people”, which coincidentally demonstrates his ignorance of the distinction between “illiteracy” and “lack of comprehension”.

    to be fair, for years i thought “dearth” meant “tremendous amount of” or “present in great excess”; on the other hand, as soon as someone told me to look it up, i did, and without arguing about it.

    • AlDeLarge

      If there’s any question, I look it up. I’m either going to learn something or show someone they’re wrong. Either way, I’m happy.