Blasphemous thought: The AK has better sights than the AR

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

I know people tend to poo-poo the AK sights, but I think the sights are one of the areas where the AK is actually better than the AR, especially the way we use rifles today. The real purpose of the irons is to be a last-ditch "holy crap my red dot or scope is down!!" set of sights. Useable in an emergency, and not for 800m olympic target shooting....


1. They are simple and very similar to pistol sights. This means you don't have to learn yet another type of sights. Since most people use their irons as back-ups, it is better that they be more like familiar pistol sights.

2. They are better in low-light. The Germans actually tested this with the STG-44 and discovered the aperture sights went dark earlier than regular rifle sights.

3. Most people aren't using anything other than a battle zero. Few are using their irons further than 300 yards out.

4. My favorite thing, they aren't held on by levers or glued in screws. I know people are toying with no sights at all, but I think that's just stupid. I would rather have welded on pip sights than no sights, or elaborate target sights held on by screws.

[T2C]

I have to agree. The notch sights on Mausers, AK-47s and SKS rifles are faster on target than peep sights for me. I have better luck with them in low light.

I think a peep sight is good for shooting slow or timed fire at distances of 500 yards or greater. At 400 yards or closer I prefer a notch rear sight.

If a notch sight was not a good choice, why do some companies manufacture a notch rear sight for the AR-15?

[Kain]

I disagree, at least to a degree.

The whole, they like pistol sights.... meh, most people I know have a hard time hitting with pistol sights at any appreciable range. Granted, an Ak sight picture is more effective beyond the 10 yards that most run their handguns out to, I don't have issue making hits at 50 or 100 or beyond with my one AK, but my hits are more precise with an AR with irons. Now part of that is the AR with irons I am more familiar with, and I also feel that the aperture can help improve hits with it with shooters who may have less than idea eye sight. As far as a precision shot goes I've always found an aperture style sight to be more precise, and I'm not talking compared to the AK I'm talking compared to the style of sights on an AK a la Mauser, and the like. As far as low light. Maybe the AK has an edge here, if running solely irons, if no illumination devices are used, a la white lights. But, then how far out are you going to be able to see with miniumal light away without trying to illuminate the target? At which point my personal experience has never shown my AR irons to be hard to acquire in that regard. Even in night time shooting, if I can see enough to shoot I can get behind my irons.

Let's take a moment for me to digress here. My father once told me about a story his uncle told him. His uncle had served in WWII as a firearms instructor since he was too old to serve in the front line. Now, i also think he was in WWI as well, but I am not sure. Anyway, his uncle was a shooter, and quite good. And used to talk about how he felt the aperture sight was far superior to the standard blade and notch, describing his ability to make hits with a rifle like the M1 with an aperture compared to something like a Mauser to almost being like having a sniper rifle because it was so much more precise. Thought that was interesting.

Anyway, With an aperture I can shoot circles around something with a blade and notch sight. Now, where it may have an advantage is in fast close range shooting, but that can be debated as well to some degree, and once you start slapping on RDSs it becomes moot. The advantage there really comes down to having a less cluttered sight picture at that point, but again optics.

The battle zero argument I don't see having much weight or the detachable sight argument as far as the AK's sights are zeroed and forget it if that is what you are pointing out. And here is why. If you set up an AR with the sights it was designed for, M16A1, the rear drum is not going to be easily jacked with. At which point is then becomes then easier for someone to zero and AK and then have the rear jacked with, moved to longer zero, and cause issues with then making hits at range since the rear is then no longer at the zero the user expects. Simple fix, but still there. Also, the AR irons on an A2 or the like are too easily adjusted, ect. Well, I've never seen how they would be adjusted under use without the operator being involved. I just don't beyond an impact that jars it loose, at which point I'd say an AK would have greater concern with this with the front sight than the AR would in my opinion. The argument that the sights can be fiddles with is a personal discipline issue, not a gun issue, sorry.

Now, I'll take a step further here and really piss in the cherrios of the AKs for the end of days die hards and do that the difficulty in zeroing an Ak, more in that it is less precise(Impact on target is 1 inch left of point of aim, make two clicks, bullseye with an AR opposed to an AK, impact 1 inch right, erg, how much do I move the sight now?") Now I know a lot are going to go, well I zero once and never have to worry again, which is kind of silly, but what if you end up with ammo shooting way the hell different from your original zero? I've got ammo that shoots on the magnitude of 4-6 inches different left and up in one rifle's case(No, if you are going that the AK is best for end of days or zombies, or pink pillow puff aliens, you have to accept that you may just unload or urn out of ammo and have to use stuff you rifle doesn't like because ammo is in short supply. How you going to effective if you don't know where the ****er is hitting?). How much more ammo am I going to burn trying to zero an AK, if you even can since I've seen guys weld the ****ing front sight drum so stop it from wandering, than the guy with an AR and ability to easily and quickly even, adjust them with a bullet.

As far as the detachable argument, if you're throwing on an optic, it going to be detachable on either of them, and if the mount is good and the optic solid I don't see much issue this day an age. A detachable rear sight has never caused me issue, zero it, witness mark the screw or bolt holding it, throw some blue locktite on it to make sure prior to bolting it on, and I don't worry. I could even go so far as to stack the damn screw if I really wanted to get paranoid. Non issue in my mind.

All that said, both are still viable, I just don't see the AK being markedly better to persuade me to go to it, even less when optics are involved. I would also argue that if it really was the shit that you would see the deign for irons more often than you do on newer rifles. Perhaps they have more merit on close in weapons, a la an SMG, which some argue the AK is really more of an overgrown SMG than an assault rifle and that then doctrine becomes accuracy by volume, but we are the USSR, and we don't train for human waves, the mindset here is going to be more hit what you aim at and make your shots count.

Excuse me while I go pull on some nomex.

[Kain]

If a notch sight was not a good choice, why do some companies manufacture a notch rear sight for the AR-15?

Just because companies make an item does not mean that the item has great value. I mean, they make a pistol bayonet for christ sake. I also know of no instructors who claim them to be an upgrade.

That said, for snap sight pictures for close in shots, it still notable that many if not most dangerous game rifles had/have them. Though again optics are kind of taking that over, and a notch and blade would make more sense as back ups or close in sights on that rifle than an aperture, since the optic is likely to sit where the aperture would be.

Also, some discussion on aperture verse blade and notch at around the 7 minute mark, also been a discussion in other videos on this channel. Was ironically watching this just before seeing Greg's post.

[MegademiC]

You do know the ar has the same type up sight for up close and dirty work, right? Look over the aperture and thought the ears, it compensates somewhat for offset up close as well.

At 50yds and beyond, I'll take the ghost ring. I need to do a side by side, but my ak is in pieces. Now you got me wondering if my feelings are backed up by results or not...

[Arik]

Now, I'll take a step further here and really piss in the cherrios of the AKs for the end of days die hards and do that the difficulty in zeroing an Ak, more in that it is less precise(Impact on target is 1 inch left of point of aim, make two clicks, bullseye with an AR opposed to an AK, impact 1 inch right, erg, how much do I move the sight now?") Now I know a lot are going to go, well I zero once and never have to worry again, which is kind of silly, but what if you end up with ammo shooting way the hell different from your original zero? I've got ammo that shoots on the magnitude of 4-6 inches different left and up in one rifle's case(No, if you are going that the AK is best for end of days or zombies, or pink pillow puff aliens, you have to accept that you may just unload or urn out of ammo and have to use stuff you rifle doesn't like because ammo is in short supply. How you going to effective if you don't know where the ****er is hitting?). How much more ammo am I going to burn trying to zero an AK, if you even can since I've seen guys weld the ****ing front sight drum so stop it from wandering, than the guy with an AR and ability to easily and quickly even, adjust them with a bullet.

.

I don't know about all the aftermarket sight pushers for the AK but the real military ones are actually designed to know how much to turn to get you 1 inch right/left. I forget what it's is but something like half a turn for X amount.

If I run into ammo that shoots 4-6 inches off I just don't buy it anymore but that goes for any rifle. I hate re sighting with a passion

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Kain]

I don't know about all the aftermarket sight pushers for the AK but the real military ones are actually designed to know how much to turn to get you 1 inch right/left. I forget what it's is but something like half a turn for X amount.

If I run into ammo that shoots 4-6 inches off I just don't buy it anymore but that goes for any rifle. I hate re sighting with a passion

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Not any aftermarket one I've seen. And not seen an honest to god mil one yet, otherwise I'd have grabbed it for that reason. But, to argue that even, most of the AK guys I run into and I ask them how they adjust sights, "How you adjust your irons?" "Hammer and punch!" Which is better than the ones who go, "What sights?" Which is about the time I notice the slide fire stocks and I start getting a hankering for my plate carrier.

That said, since I was more referring to AKs for the end of the world crowd, the point there was that you don't have a choice, you either shoot the stuff that is throwing your groups wide and high, or wide and low, or not at all. And honestly, if you spent enough time shooting the same ammo, I've seen some shift even there depending on the lot. Granted, more of a precision rifle thing. But, if you want to make sure it is spot on..... I check my zero every chance I get.

[MountainRaven]

Sgt. Alvin York preferred the post & notch sights on the M1903 to the peep sights on the M1917.

So, yes, there's definitely something to the thought that post & notch sights are superior for combat, especially at close range and moving targets, to peep sights.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

The whole, they like pistol sights.... meh, most people I know have a hard time hitting with pistol sights at any appreciable range. Granted, an Ak sight picture is more effective beyond the 10 yards that most run their handguns out to, I don't have issue making hits at 50 or 100 or beyond with my one AK, but my hits are more precise with an AR with irons. Now part of that is the AR with irons I am more familiar with, and I also feel that the aperture can help improve hits with it with shooters who may have less than idea eye sight. As far as a precision shot goes I've always found an aperture style sight to be more precise, and I'm not talking compared to the AK I'm talking compared to the style of sights on an AK a la Mauser, and the like.

I don't disagree that aperture sights are better for precision shooting. I do find they tend to be slower at close range, but faster at long range. That being said, groups are easier with aperture sights.

As far as low light. Maybe the AK has an edge here, if running solely irons, if no illumination devices are used, a la white lights. But, then how far out are you going to be able to see with miniumal light away without trying to illuminate the target? At which point my personal experience has never shown my AR irons to be hard to acquire in that regard. Even in night time shooting, if I can see enough to shoot I can get behind my irons.

I have noticed that aperture sights become much, much harder to use as the sun goes down (relative to standard rifle sights). Again, it was actually the Germans, and presumably the Russians that discovered this. My suspicion also was that given these were 4-5 moa weapons with 400 yard effective ranges they probably thought the extra low-light capability outweighed the extra accuracy at range.

Let's take a moment for me to digress here. My father once told me about a story his uncle told him. His uncle had served in WWII as a firearms instructor since he was too old to serve in the front line. Now, i also think he was in WWI as well, but I am not sure. Anyway, his uncle was a shooter, and quite good. And used to talk about how he felt the aperture sight was far superior to the standard blade and notch, describing his ability to make hits with a rifle like the M1 with an aperture compared to something like a Mauser to almost being like having a sniper rifle because it was so much more precise. Thought that was interesting.

No doubt.

Anyway, With an aperture I can shoot circles around something with a blade and notch sight. Now, where it may have an advantage is in fast close range shooting, but that can be debated as well to some degree, and once you start slapping on RDSs it becomes moot. The advantage there really comes down to having a less cluttered sight picture at that point, but again optics

.

Right, and I think the fact that we have such reliable optics makes it even more useful to keep the sights useful, simple, rugged and absolutely there when you need them. These factors outweigh (IMHO) somewhat better groups at 3-400 yards.

The battle zero argument I don't see having much weight or the detachable sight argument as far as the AK's sights are zeroed and forget it if that is what you are pointing out. And here is why. If you set up an AR with the sights it was designed for, M16A1, the rear drum is not going to be easily jacked with. At which point is then becomes then easier for someone to zero and AK and then have the rear jacked with, moved to longer zero, and cause issues with then making hits at range since the rear is then no longer at the zero the user expects. Simple fix, but still there. Also, the AR irons on an A2 or the like are too easily adjusted, ect. Well, I've never seen how they would be adjusted under use without the operator being involved. I just don't beyond an impact that jars it loose, at which point I'd say an AK would have greater concern with this with the front sight than the AR would in my opinion. The argument that the sights can be fiddles with is a personal discipline issue, not a gun issue, sorry.

I think you make a fair point that the AK sight can be adjusted too easily and might very well be off.

As far as the durability/reliability of the sights. If we are talking about an A1 sight I totally agree with you. A good A1 Ar with carry handle will take more dropping, slamming, sticks, etc than the AK. Great design. Of course, those aren't what I am talking about here. I am talking about the average sight today which is usually either a normal set of fixed sights of either a1 or a2 style held on by screws and locktite (or better a lever) which will NEVER hold up like an AK or A1 AR. I have had too many sights shake loose, seen too many shake loose to accept that they will hold over time. Hell, that's what all the goofy paint pen marks are for. Also, this is presuming we aren't talking about flip-up/down sights which just add another layer of complexity.

Now, I'll take a step further here and really piss in the cherrios of the AKs for the end of days die hards and do that the difficulty in zeroing an Ak, more in that it is less precise(Impact on target is 1 inch left of point of aim, make two clicks, bullseye with an AR opposed to an AK, impact 1 inch right, erg, how much do I move the sight now?") Now I know a lot are going to go, well I zero once and never have to worry again, which is kind of silly, but what if you end up with ammo shooting way the hell different from your original zero? I've got ammo that shoots on the magnitude of 4-6 inches different left and up in one rifle's case(No, if you are going that the AK is best for end of days or zombies, or pink pillow puff aliens, you have to accept that you may just unload or urn out of ammo and have to use stuff you rifle doesn't like because ammo is in short supply. How you going to effective if you don't know where the ****er is hitting?). How much more ammo am I going to burn trying to zero an AK, if you even can since I've seen guys weld the ****ing front sight drum so stop it from wandering, than the guy with an AR and ability to easily and quickly even, adjust them with a bullet.

You are totally right if somebody has a wonky front sight (of course, that would be true of a junk AR sight as well).

As far as the detachable argument, if you're throwing on an optic, it going to be detachable on either of them, and if the mount is good and the optic solid I don't see much issue this day an age. A detachable rear sight has never caused me issue, zero it, witness mark the screw or bolt holding it, throw some blue locktite on it to make sure prior to bolting it on, and I don't worry. I could even go so far as to stack the damn screw if I really wanted to get paranoid. Non issue in my mind.

Totally an issue. I carefully loctite my sights and use the correct torque every time. But I still paint pen them, because I have had them come loose. I have seen them fly off people's guns in classes. Hell I have seen magpul sights just fall slap apart (pin walk).

All that said, both are still viable, I just don't see the AK being markedly better to persuade me to go to it, even less when optics are involved. I would also argue that if it really was the shit that you would see the deign for irons more often than you do on newer rifles.

I agree, they are not as popular. Hell, soon there won't be iron sights on rifles at all (and I think that is dumb too).

[SteyrAUG]

If we were talking SP1s, I might agree. But I find A2 sights to be superior to AKM sights and I don't use RDS as my primary optic. I grew up with irons and see anything with a battery as a potential liability, so I use RDS on some of my rifles with co witnessed flip sights.

I'm especially partial to diopter sights such as those found on SIGs and HKs and generally don't run a red dot on any of those.

My problem with the AK sight is the rear sight being in the scout position which is unusual to me and I need to kind of get used to it every time I'm shooting AKs.