Kinetic Research Group

TangoDown – Light Portal Front Sight

The new Light Portal Front Sight (FFA-02) from TangoDown is pretty awesome. It’s a combination weapon light mount and front sight; all in one compact package. The FFA-02 was developed to give shooters the ability to place a weapon light on the 12:00 rail without obstructing the front sight.  I’ve done this in the past using a SureFire X300 on a rifle which incorporates an FSP, but I haven’t tried it with an XC-1, yet.  Now, I’ll have to give it a shot.

This weapon light mount accommodates the SureFire XC-1 Pistol Light, creating a lightweight option if you’re looking to reduce the weight on your carbine. Maintaining a hand forward shooting position makes activating the XC-1 weapon light easy and quick. For use with low-profile gas block barrels only. Does not work with standard barrel-mounted M16/M4 fixed front sights.

Additional Info:
-Limited Availability
-Type III hard coat matte black anodized finish
-Adjustable front sight post
-Quick installation on any MIL-STD 1913 rail
-OA Height: 2″ Width: 2″ Weight: 1.5 oz
-Made in USA
-MSRP: $95.00


tangodown.com/shop/tangodowntm-light-portal-front-sight-ffa-02

Tags:

22 Responses to “TangoDown – Light Portal Front Sight”

  1. I’m sure Pat is bitching from heaven about the output on the XC-1 not being viable for a long gun.

  2. PB says:

    Cool, but aside from the fact that the XC1 is only marginally effective as a pistol light, the controls aren’t as user-friendly upside down like they are on the X300.

  3. aneffinfister says:

    If you like the concept but not the light, check out the ROSCH Works SLM1 — front sight/light mount that you can use to mount a Surefire Fury.

  4. BillC says:

    Great idea, wrong light.

  5. Joe says:

    To echo everyone…really?

    Not the right idea here

  6. NGP says:

    I sure hope they follow up with a x300 version. Like everyone has said great idea wrong light!!

  7. PNWTO says:

    I’ll disagree and say the XC1 has enough balls for the average homeowner in a (sub)urban area but most should look and the 300 series, and other purpose-built lights, first.

    The controls in the XC1 are awkward for this, too. But, it got built, which means demand, so I’ll go back to being a simpleton.

  8. Darkhorse says:

    Some people can’t see the forest thru the trees. I see a solution that makes the rail a WHOLE LOT less “accessorized” and sleek and less likely to hang up on obstacles. Is it the ideal light? I have no idea but really depends on how it’s to be used and in what conditions it will be utilized.

    My guess is that this is protected by patent or patent pending which would allow for later use with other “SSD reader approved” lights.

    I don’t work for SureFire or Tango Down in any capacity but this has more potential (in my mind) than pretty much 99% of the other gun crap I see here on this website.

  9. Nic McKinley | FFA Inventor says:

    Thanks for posting this Solider Systems!

    I am the inventor of the FFA, both versions, so I can speak to many of the comments made above. The FFA was originally built for the X300, but then Surefire stopped making the X300, so Tango Down stopped making the FFA for that light. I ran the original prototypes of the FFA on my 416 in both IRQ, AFG, and Lybia, and I always found that the X300 put out plenty of light for my purposes. The original FFA was also run by many members of my team and they had no problems with it either (though some ran it with the Inforce WML instead of the X300) and no one ever had issues with there not being enough lumens.

    The FFA was a solution to a problem we originally experienced doing operations in IRQ. We had very short rifles with lots of stuff to mount. Our positions in combat rarely mimicked those we encountered on the range behind our compound, and getting white light on target was sometimes an issue when using cover, so it made sense to have our lights in line with our sights os we could light anything our sights could see. We also tried to keep things off the sides of our rifles because we were often taking them out of bags, vehicles, etc. Streamlining our weapon was the goal, and it worked well, for our team. Most of us were from the old school, and we liked having a front-sight post always available. If that is not something you need, then the FFA is also probably not something you need.

    My 416 had a back-up rear sight > aim point T1 > ATPIL > X300 > FFA, in that order. That package worked well for me.

    So why not make it for the X300 ultra, et al? We would love to, but the bezel is too big. The math just doesn’t work.

    I no longer carry a gun in anger and now have only my home and those around me to defend. The XC1 is perfect for this purpose. It is also perfect for the no-profile operations of certain SMU’s overseas, and many of them are using it in the field right now. In some circumstances, too many lumens are a bad thing. Only you can decide what is right for you and your mission. I will not engage in the ‘lumens’ argument as there are a plethora of missions requiring different solutions.

    The FFA/XC1 package is not, nor is it intended to be, a solution for every mission, so let’s not try to make it one. If I were a dedicated assaulter, I would probably make a different choice, but I no longer get paid to do that work. Now I am just a civilian homeowner who needs a good, reliable light that works on everything I own (I’m a Glock guy), and that gives me the ability to have a fixed front-sight post always present, and that allows me to activate my weapon light without making much of a shift in my firing grip (I’m a forward grip guy), so the set-up works well for me. It may or may not be what you need.

  10. Jason says:

    They HAD one of these before for an X300. Why’d they discontinue it?

  11. PJ says:

    I just pulled my XC1 off the pistol I’ve had it on and mounted it 12 o’clock on an AR and the controls really aren’t that bad. Works fine with a conventional or C-clamp grip. It surprised me and I agree that for light its suboptimal for rifle use, but it works fine if for some reason you have a spare XC1 laying around and just need to light up a room.

    As an aside I disagree with the post above that since it’s being made there must be demand. All a product being made means is that the seller THINKS there’s at least potential demand.

    • 18Derp says:

      “since it’s being made there must be demand”

      Oh… that’s nice. You may be new to the gun industry.

      • PJ says:

        “I disagree with the post above that since it’s being made there must be demand.”

        Reading comprehension is hard.

  12. MidGasFan says:

    I dig it! Loved the X300 version, too. For an SBR, or something that’s used primarily indoors, I think this would be a fantastic option. The argument that more lumens is better has validity but remember not-so-long-ago we were all putting 6P and G2 handheld lights on our rifles and that did the job.

    I find that in some instances, 600 lumens is way, way too much. Touching on what Darkhorse said above, this is a low profile and light solution for those who need it. Just because you don’t see a use for it doesn’t mean it’s not a valid idea.

  13. DAN III says:

    The XC1 does what it was intended to do. 200 lumens is more than ample for a pistol light. One commenter here PB calls the XC1 only “marginally effective”, but doesn’t explain how he derives that conclusion. I would venture to guess ol’ PB doesn’t own nor ever used an XC1. Correct PB ?

    Dollars to donuts, many of those bemoaning the lack of lumens with the XC1 worship at the alter of the no-magnification red dot. Whining a wpn light does not have enough magnification but embracing a wpn sight with no magnification. What a contradiction.

    If one is embracing a higher lumen weapon light emitting more than 200 lumens, great. But, for bad breath distances that one would engage in a home defence scenario the Light Portal Front Sight is “pretty awesome”.

    What TangoDown has done is introduce another equipment option for the shooting consumer. If one doesn’t have a use for the new piece of gear so be it. But, why denigrate a new idea and option based on one’s biased and unsubstantiated opinion ?

    Opinions. They’re like assholes. Everyone’s got one.

  14. Lone Element says:

    I may as well throw my 2 cents in since this is my area of expertise. Im not sure who came up with 200 Lumens being the golden standard but its not. I want enough lumens to sun burn someones face with my weapon light. The common misconception out there unfortunately is that your light is simply to see and PID the threat. The XC-1 is a good light but not a great light on a pistol and a horrible choice on a carbine. The reflector design creates a flood output on the light cone. Without a reflector that gives the light cone some focus creating a “hot spot” you are losing your ability to have adverse effects on the threat.

    • bloke_from_ohio says:

      Adverse effects on the target? Isn’t that what the bullets are for?

      • Lone Element says:

        LOL… yes bullets are great for that but you also want to be able to blind them and disorient them as well.

  15. English kanigit says:

    I’m sure there’s a few folks with Steiner CQBLs that are happy right now.