Blasphemous thought: The AK has better sights than the AR

[eodinert]

Unfortunately, AK sights are attached to AKs.

If the discussion is 'Aperture vs. Notched', then the rifle rifle it's attached to (and the adjustment system that comes with it) are not part of the discussion. If the discussion is 'AK sights vs. AR sights', AR sights are so much better at more things it still isn't really a contest.

[T2C]

For me it depends on application and preference. I do a considerable amount of target shooting with iron sight rifles. My vision, both daytime and low light, is diminishing and it requires more time to acquire a good sight picture with the peeps. The notch sights are not as precise, but I manage to shoot better 100 yard offhand scores with a notch 1903A1 sight than with a peep 1903A3 sight.

The comment about limitations of a notch sight on a pistol may apply to a large number of people, but not all. On occasion I shoot with a few local guys and it would not be unusual for us to shoot at USPSA or B-27 targets at 100 yards with our Glocks and 1911s. I've done some shooting with a peep or ghost ring sight on a handgun, but for me it is slower and I revert back to a notch rear sight.

The comment in Post # 5 about looking over the rear sight and using the front sight at close distance is spot on. When shooting a short course, 35 yards and closer, with an AR or M1A, that is the technique I use.

Optics is another story. My Aimpoint ML2 has been in service since 1998 and it works well enough. I shoot much faster with irons inside of 35 yards.

Perspective may be generational and what you cut your teeth on when you started shooting and what you used for the first 20 to 30 years of your shooting career.

[EBAM1A]

I may be biased because my go to gun is a Krebs 103k but the older my eyes get the more I prefer the sights on a AK. The aperture sights on my Scar 17, m1a, FAL, AR, and the drum on my Ptr 91 look fuzzy when I am using them, making it difficult to aim. With the notch sight on the Ak in the scout position I can get a clear sight picture. I have tried a aperture on a AK but didn't like it.

[RetroRevolver77]

I'm an AK guy primarily and I prefer the AR sights myself for target shooting. I can hit an eight inch steel gong with my 74's using iron sights at 250 yards but that's about it. Seen videos of guys running their AK's at 400 and 500 meters with irons but that's really pushing it.

[KalashniKEV]

Aperture sights do have an advantage when it comes to precision. This is true for skilled marksmen as well as the average shooter in a large organization.

Open sights do have an advantage for speed- although the workarounds for aperture equipped guns are simple and very effective. Also, the 0-2 aperture addresses CQB, limited vis, and promask fire. It's semi-viable to use just use the front sight post too.

No new designs are fielded with open sights, and older designs have been updated or retrofitted to accommodate this.

[T2C]

I may be biased because my go to gun is a Krebs 103k but the older my eyes get the more I prefer the sights on a AK. The aperture sights on my Scar 17, m1a, FAL, AR, and the drum on my Ptr 91 look fuzzy when I am using them, making it difficult to aim. With the notch sight on the Ak in the scout position I can get a clear sight picture. I have tried a aperture on a AK but didn't like it.

The aperture sight seems to draw more light to the eye. The downside, for me anyway, is that the front sight looks like it is bent to the left and it is a bit fuzzy. Open sights with a thick front sight are much easier to focus on and pick up quickly.

[Cagemonkey]

Totally disagree. Aperture sights are more in line with the eyes natural tendency to center an object within a circle. If you need speed or are using in low light conditions, use a larger aperture hole. Also the aperture sight allows your eye to focus on one point. The front sight post. Aperture sights usually also have a longer sight radius.

[Kain]

Okay Greg, sorry for not quoting you, but I don't want to try to do as nice fo a break down as you did, just want to hit some high points thoughts.

As far as speed, I think it goes down to some degree on training and your personal eye's preference. While SGT York was brought up using notch and blade, i want to say from memory his reason wasn't for any tactical reason, it was due to it was what he was familiar with. No less of a valid reason, but doesn't break down that it is better, just common sense of grabbing what you are familiar with.

Doing some presentations with an AK and AR with irons side by side, with the aperture set to the large one(Further discussing that below), I don't find much difference in perceived speed, and find myself searching for the AK's iron's more often(Also tried it with a Mauser and did find that to be actually slightly quicker to target than the AK oddly enough. Here I think with quick to shoulder snap shots we actually are seeing fewer issues with sights and more with ergonomics actually, something to possibly think about). Now, I don't have a shot timer to put myself on, so that could be a fun experiment to run, from low ready to on target at various distance, time how long it takes to put a round on target. Even if the AR is slower, if you are making hits while the AK is missing there are data points to be considered. I'd like to try that from ranges as close as say 3 or 7 meters out to say, 50, or even 100. Use paper up close, go to steel at the distance maybe. Could be an interesting set of data there to be looked at. Run an AR with an RDS as your control. Would be even better if you could get an AR with a long rail and a set of fixed DD irons set at a standard M4's sight radius and a set of fixed notch and blade irons set at the standard AKM's radius and run that test to eliminate all possible variables with the RDS as a control. Then run the rifles out to 200 or 300 or even further. See which come out on top when variables or eliminated as much as possible. Would be an interesting set of data, or even study. Anyone wanting to fund that one?

Now, as far as BUIS falling off, I've honestly seen more optics mounts go tits up than BUIS in my experience. Some loctite, torque, and witness marks have always served me well, have not personally had one come loose and even there, if one is inclined you could just this side of permafix it to the rail should one decide to be married to that sight. Obvious others may differ. But at that point, I'd still say it not an issue with the type of irons as much as mounting system, you can bitch about the irons falling off, I'll bitch about the front sights on an AK walking left right and up and down, or being able to be adjusted inadvertently under hard use because of their design, we end up with a zero sum and have to buy more beer. So i am going to argue that that point is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion as far as the type of sights effectiveness goes.

As far as irons vanishing from rifles, we are really already seeing it. I don't care for it because I seen irons for the most part as cheap insurance and they make me feel all nice and fuzzy. Plus, for some shots I prefer my irons over an RDS. Maybe it mental, maybe it just insuring everything is lined up when I break the shot, but it is there.

Now, as far as low light shooting with an aperture, specifically the large one, I've spent time out behind mine at the range playing with it, figuring it out, and seeing how it affects my shooting and groups. With a 50 yard zero with my old beat to hell Bushy, which is my irons only rifle, I could plant 1 ten shot group with IMI M193 in about an inch, POA=POI with the standard aperture. Going to the large aperture I found my groups to shift down about an inch, and open up slightly, say 1.5 inches. For 100 yards it for practical combat shooting purposes was a none issue in my opinions other than groups opening up a bit for me from about 2 inches to about 3 inches or a little more, still more than adequate for combat shooting. inside 50 yards I would see no reason for the large aperture not to be viable and there is a second reason I'd take an AR with irons with that large aperture for me, over the AK, and I'll admit that this has to do with familiarity to a degree, but the AR to me indexes in the shoulder to engage better than an AK. An AR I can get it to my shoulder, eyes closed, and even if the LOP is off, as long as the LOP isn't insanely long, I can get my head indexed NTCH and my eye lined up with the sights with less issues than that of an AK where the sights are further away from my eyes. I guess I just feel more confident in taking a shot and making hits with the AR here, but again, familiarity, so keep that in mind. Now, does this mean the AK can't be used low light? No. And once you bring a white light into the mix I call it moot since you should then have enough illumination to see them, and at that point we are back to the issue up top as far as which is actually faster.

On the subject of rifles with apertures having a longer sight radius. I think this will depend on the rifle, If looking at your standard combloc AK verse the standard AR15 carbine/M4. The AK is believe actually has a slightly, longer sight radius. At least with my irons only Bushmaster and my personal AK the Ak's sight radius does edge out the AR just. Go to a middy and yes the AR wins, obviously a M16A2 would win as well. But then an RPK might beat them both, don't have one to compare. However, all things being fair, and I think in the spirit of the OP I think a standard M4 sight radius and standard AK sight radius are what he had in mind, at which point the AK does have a slightly longer radius.

[RetroRevolver77]

You can point shoot with AK sights really fast inside of close ranges. You just focus on the front sight tower keeping it centered between the two humps on the rear sight block floating it about an inch and quarter above that rear sight block- so nothing is obstructing your view.

[Kyohte]

You can point shoot with AK sights really fast inside of close ranges. You just focus on the front sight tower keeping it centered between the two humps on the rear sight block floating it about an inch and quarter above that rear sight block- so nothing is obstructing your view.

Not really point shooting, but yes. This was described to me as the poor man's Eotech. It works just about as well with an AR15.

Also, my experience is that AK sights are awful in fading light, especially with the standard width notch. A wider notch helps with this, but I think there is no significant difference between a wide notch and a large (0-2) aperture. The best rifles of WWII had aperture sights (Garand and Enfield No4). I think the Enfield Singer (not the Mk1* ladder) sight design is one of the best iron sights ever built, and was the best until the M16A2 sights. Infact, if I had to pick any sights as a primary sighting system on a rifle, it would be the Enfield Singer sight. FAL sights were a huge step backwards for Western Europe, and comparing a FAL to an AK, I would agree that the AK is faster. The G3 diopter set-up is neat, but I have almost no experience using one, so I cannot comment on it.

Can you be accurate with notch sights? Sure, but compared to A2 sights they are inferior. Of course optics make this a less relevant discussion today than it would have been 20 years ago.