View Full Version : What do people have against A2 irons?
Reading online, which I know has its pitfalls, it seems like a lot of people don't like the A2 iron sights. I personally think they are the best iron sighting system for the AR rifle out there--either the carry handle or the fixed LMT "chopped carry handle" A2 rear. Obviously carry handle and fixed rear sight guns are a niche in the AR world, but I see a lot of people that seem to prefer an A1 style, like the Daniel Defense sights, or the Scalarworks sights. Arguments I've read against the A2 generally fall in the realm of "too complicated" or "target sights, not combat sights." Neither of those really make sense to me--with the ghost ring it's a very fast back up sight, and the two plane set up gives the shooter a lot of capability with regards to setting a functional battle zero. I recognize most people will never dial elevation on a rear sight, but it's a capability you have if you need it, or just want to get fancy and the range.
I am not exceptionally hard on my guns, but I don't baby them, and I'm not aware of any military stories of breaking A2 drums. The "chopped carry handle" style LMT makes does take up a little more space than some other fixed rear sights, but if you're running a fixed rear you're already accepting you won't be running a magnifier so it's not like there's a practical downside.
Obviously I get running A1 on a retro build, and that a folder backup rear is more practical for most applications. Is there some hidden downside to the A2 set up I'm missing?
The A2 sights are really great and there are no durability issues with them that I'm aware of. The only downside to them is that they are easily adjustable, with the windage knob being the main gripe.
I'm not sure how it could be bumped out of zero by accident, but I've never played with a well used set of A2 sights. I could see the A2 windage knob being somewhat of a fidget spinner for bored soldiers.
I do like A1 rear sights because once they are set they can't be adjusted without something to depress the detent and they are perfectly fine for the distance I'd likely be willing to shoot iron sights, which is inside of 200 yards for the most part.
The A2 sights are really great and there are no durability issues with them that I'm aware of. The only downside to them is that they are easily adjustable, with the windage knob being the main gripe.
I'm not sure how it could be bumped out of zero by accident, but I've never played with a well used set of A2 sights. I could see the A2 windage knob being somewhat of a fidget spinner for bored soldiers.
I do like A1 rear sights because once they are set they can't be adjusted without something to depress the detent and they are perfectly fine for the distance I'd likely be willing to shoot iron sights, which is inside of 200 yards for the most part.
Get your zero on a no wind day and simply mark it with a paint pencil. That way you can make windage changes and come back to zero.
You may some day goof off on the square range and use some adjustment.
That doesn’t prove that goofy target sights are of any use on a combat rifle.
They're good sights. Just make sure you paint them. And watch out for cheaply-made detachable carry handles that have such poor machining that the windage changes signficantly between elevation settings.
They're good sights. Just make sure you paint them. And watch out for cheaply-made detachable carry handles that have such poor machining that the windage changes signficantly between elevation settings.
Detachable carry handles range from the $30 price range to $200 plus. The only one I've got is a BCM but I have know idea who really makes them?
Get your zero on a no wind day and simply mark it with a paint pencil. That way you can make windage changes and come back to zero.
This works.
bamashooter
04-18-22, 07:41
A2s are gtg. The haters are likely the same basement-dwelling, bottom-feeding "operators" who bash PSA.
I like the A1 for its simplicity, lightness and sleek look.
For me the A2 does more than I want. With more parts than I want. I really don’t plan on shooting irons past 300 yards. Realistically not more than 100-200. So I can get that all in one zero, knowing my holds.
When I think carry handle gun, I think KISS. Which the A2 is not.
The A2 is a fine for site for its use. I’m just not trying to shoot 500-600 meters with my carry handle AR. More like 50-100
A2 sights are fine, if largely not necessary. That's not a problem, because unless there are serious downsides, it is always better to have more capabilities than you need.
I've noticed it is incredibly popular these days to bash on the A2 in general. These complaints run from objectively bad things, such as the burst mechanism, to debatable changes, such as the heavy barrel and A2 buttstock, and finally to things that are 100% an improvement, such as the barrel twist change.
Most rifle and carbine owners will never remotely shoot to the weapon's capability, so a few features are extra / extraneous.
If the monkey doesn't use, or doesn't understand the capabilities of the weapon off-the-rack, that feature is useless and excess.
Get your zero on a no wind day and simply mark it with a paint pencil. That way you can make windage changes and come back to zero.
This is it. Had an instructor advise this, and I've done it ever since.
Most rifle and carbine owners will never remotely shoot to the weapon's capability, so a few features are extra / extraneous.
If the monkey doesn't use, or doesn't understand the capabilities of the weapon off-the-rack, that feature is useless and excess.
I'm spoiled because the bulk of my shooting is between 150 - 500 yards, and I don't do a ton of rifle shooting up close. That's probably the perfect envelope for the transition from the 0-200 aperture and the 300m aperture, and without being able to dial the rear sight hitting at 500 is just luck. If I only shot CQB or on a 100 yard range, I probably wouldn't appreciate the A2 system.
The A2 sights are really great and there are no durability issues with them that I'm aware of. The only downside to them is that they are easily adjustable, with the windage knob being the main gripe.
I do like A1 rear sights because once they are set they can't be adjusted without something to depress the detent and they are perfectly fine for the distance I'd likely be willing to shoot iron sights, which is inside of 200 yards for the most part.
I can remember an overzealous turret gunner standing on mine and "helping" the sights out by more than a little. Ahhhh memories.....
I can remember an overzealous turret gunner standing on mine and "helping" the sights out by more than a little. Ahhhh memories.....
Now that will do it. It's not something I imagined might happen, but that just proves that my imagination isn't that great. ;)
A lot of people are afraid to touch the A2 sights after the weapon is zeroed. They need to get over that and learn to understand and use the sights to their full advantage. Log your data and sight changes each and every time you go to the range. You can put a piece of tape with your base zero somewhere on your weapon or someplace on your gear for reference.
If you are making entries and banging your equipment against brick corners, door jambs, cabinets, using your weapon as a club, etc., you can break things. That may be where people are drawing information used to form their opinions.
I don’t care why unidentified strangers don’t like A2 sights. I do, and that’s all the matters.
A lot of people are afraid to touch the A2 sights after the weapon is zeroed.
Not me. I dial it up! My problem is I forget to dial back down.
If you are making entries and banging your equipment against brick corners, door jambs, cabinets, using your weapon as a club, etc., you can break things. That may be where people are drawing information used to form their opinions.
I don't see how anyone can break A2 sights... And I break a lot of stuff. The windage knob is (or should be) hard to turn, and the shape is clearly of the design to avoid unwanted turning/movement.
I dislike A2 sights on my carbine. Not because I use my carbine as a club but because I use it as a carbine. I don’t use my carbine as a target rifle either.
That’s not to say there is something wrong with target rifles, or A2 sights are too fragile. They are just not worth anything once you leave the square range. They add nothing useful to a fighting carbine.
What do A1 sights do that A2 sights dont?
What do A1 sights do that A2 sights dont?
Nothing. A2s are WAY better.
What do A1 sights do that A2 sights dont?
Stay put once zeroed and less weight.
A2s are WAY better.
I don't actually disagree with that even though I tend to prefer A1 sights.
Five_Point_Five_Six
04-18-22, 15:24
I think the dislike comes from the fact it's 2022 and 99% of shooters are using an optic of some kind and irons are used in a backup role in the rare event the optic goes down. Dialing elevation on irons is just not something most people are interested in outside of shooting irons for fun, if you're into that kind of thing.
A2 sights are fine. I do think they are a symptom of a flawed philosophy during the upgrade from A1 to A2. I have a preference toward A1 type sights, because they cannot be accidentally adjusted, but I also don’t think it really matters. For target shooting past 200 or 300 yards, the A2 is superior. Like others said, mark them. Its fine. Don’t let your turret gunner foot**** your gun if it can be avoided.
Edit: also, I recently found that a click on the elevation drum was unable to fix my front sight zero being “in between” clicks. But it was still OK.
Why do some refer to A2 sights as only being good for the square range and lacking for use in combat? Is that just due to the windage knob vs the drum or is there some other factor that makes A2 sights lacking for drawing a bead on the living.
Why do some refer to A2 sights as only being good for the square range and lacking for use in combat? Is that just due to the windage knob vs the drum or is there some other factor that makes A2 sights lacking for drawing a bead on the living.
No, its fine. Just mark it after you zero. No-one has ever died specifically over A1 vs A2 sights. Like I said, I’d prefer A1 on a combat rifle, but its NBD. Put an Aimpoint or ACOG or something like that on a combat gun and don’t think about it too hard if you want an advantage over whichever peep sight is thought to be inferior.
Why do some refer to A2 sights as only being good for the square range and lacking for use in combat? Is that just due to the windage knob vs the drum or is there some other factor that makes A2 sights lacking for drawing a bead on the living.
Realistically, the elevation capabilities of the A2 system aren't much use for most civilian rifle shooters. A lot of guys don't have a range beyond 200-300 yards. For me, dialing up starts after 300 yards... before that I can favor a bit.
Like Five_Point_Five_Six wrote. It's more marksmanship enjoyment than anything else. Until Putin's boys land on our soil, shooting people beyond 300 yards isn't realistic.
What do A1 sights do that A2 sights dont?
They're pretty much impossible to change dope on unintentionally.
I think A2's are fine for a 20" target rifle. Beyond that I just don't see where they're the best option available. Do they work? Absolutely. Are they the best option? Only in limited uses. I really don't care for detachable carry handles, (A1 or A2) with their big, dumb thumb screws. There are more low profile yet robust options out there (DD A 1.5 for fixed, KAC for folding) that allow for simultaneous same plane optics. If it's a truly integrated carry handle, the A1 is lower profile and more robust on a combat/duty arm. Unless you're going somewhere that actual engagements are beyond 300M, the A1 will do just fine. JMO, YMMV
A2 sight adjustments are only USEFUL on the square range.
The are a small liability for defensive or combat use, because they can be accidentally adjusted or adjusted and then forgotten.
And just to be precise, I have the same problem with the A1 peep. Same plane peep in an A1 housing is what an iron sighted carbine should be.
I just don't see how an A2 windage knob can be accidentally moved. It's relative difficult to adjust it when you want to. I mean... they give/gave these things to Marines for Pete's sake. The paint pen solves the return to zero issue.
Todd.K referenced the one thing I don't like about the A2 sight. That's the large app not being on the same plane. The large app turns me into a horrible shooter.
I never switched apps on either the A1 or A2 so that part is a wash for me.
Five_Point_Five_Six
04-18-22, 17:55
I just don't see how an A2 windage knob can be accidentally moved. It's relative difficult to adjust it when you want to. I mean... they give/gave these things to Marines for Pete's sake. The paint pen solves the return to zero issue.
Todd.K referenced the one thing I don't like about the A2 sight. That's the large app not being on the same plane. The large app turns me into a horrible shooter.
I never switched apps on either the A1 or A2 so that part is a wash for me.
I'm sitting here playing with a salty A2 rear sight I cut down from an old honest-to-goodness Colt carry handle probably 10 years ago. It's been used and abused on my MK18 mod 0-ish upper. If anything, the knob is harder to turn now with all the gunk and dirt that it's accumulated over the years. I can't speak for all of them but this one ain't moving unless you want it to.
If you're going to iron, A1 rear with same-plane A2 apertures is a great setup.
I have nothing against the A2 setup.
I find it easy to understand and accurate. Accidentally hitting windage seems unlikely at best.
For target shooting past 200 or 300 yards, the A2 is superior. Like others said, mark them. Its fine. Don’t let your turret gunner foot**** your gun if it can be avoided.
Edit: also, I recently found that a click on the elevation drum was unable to fix my front sight zero being “in between” clicks. But it was still OK.
Because you have a 'regular' A2 rear sight base. Those coarse ass threads on that elevation post give you a click value of about 1 1/2 MOA.
That stuff can be swapped out and get you down to 1/2 or 1/4 MOA per click adjustments.
Your front sight post threads into the sight base at 1.2 MOA per stop if you were wondering.
Your standard A2 windage screw is a 32-pitch screw with ten holes on the inside flat area of your windage knob for the spring-and-ball detent. About 1/2 MOA per click.
You can swap that screw (and aperture) out and get down to 1/4 MOA per click if you wanted to.
RRA, CLE, WOA, Fulton Armory, are good places to be looking for those sort of parts.
Hope this helps you some brother. :)
I'm sitting here playing with a salty A2 rear sight I cut down from an old honest-to-goodness Colt carry handle probably 10 years ago. It's been used and abused on my MK18 mod 0-ish upper. If anything, the knob is harder to turn now with all the gunk and dirt that it's accumulated over the years. I can't speak for all of them but this one ain't moving unless you want it to.
Exactly. Not impossible to occur. But so unlikely, it borders on absurd.
Hammer_Man
04-18-22, 20:31
I’ve never had an issue with A2 sights, they’re practically bomb proof. Plus mounting an optic to the top of the carry handle puts the optic at that 2” range that’s all the rage these days.
67839
I’ve only got one carry handle on a rifle.
The other one is part of my telescoping front sight alignment gauge.
This thread has inspired me to remove the DD fixed rear and old Aimpoint ML3 from my CCU and replace it with a Colt carry handle, paired with a DD fixed front. The sight radius is 1" shorter than a rifle, so shooting at distance is hardly compromised compared to a full length rifle.
Anything I drag the upper against is going to impact the shell deflector, charging handle, and forward assist before the windage knob is touched. It takes way more effort to turn the Colt knob than has any reasonable chance of occurring by accident. This exposed knob, which is difficult to turn is bad, but exposed turrets on optics which are much more easily turned are good?
Nope, not buying the Bullshit. A2s work damn well.....just like the adjustables on the M14 and M1 that came before them.
Because you have a 'regular' A2 rear sight base. Those coarse ass threads on that elevation post give you a click value of about 1 1/2 MOA.
That stuff can be swapped out and get you down to 1/2 or 1/4 MOA per click adjustments.
Your front sight post threads into the sight base at 1.2 MOA per stop if you were wondering.
Your standard A2 windage screw is a 32-pitch screw with ten holes on the inside flat area of your windage knob for the spring-and-ball detent. About 1/2 MOA per click.
You can swap that screw (and aperture) out and get down to 1/4 MOA per click if you wanted to.
RRA, CLE, WOA, Fulton Armory, are good places to be looking for those sort of parts.
Hope this helps you some brother. :)
Thanks. I’m told “National Match” stuff exists, which I intend to get for a personal gun. But the discovery above was on an Army gun that insisted on being difficult and requiring a slight hold at 300.
This thread has inspired me to remove the DD fixed rear and old Aimpoint ML3 from my CCU and replace it with a Colt carry handle, paired with a DD fixed front. The sight radius is 1" shorter than a rifle, so shooting at distance is hardly compromised compared to a full length rifle.
Anything I drag the upper against is going to impact the shell deflector, charging handle, and forward assist before the windage knob is touched. It takes way more effort to turn the Colt knob than has any reasonable chance of occurring by accident. This exposed knob, which is difficult to turn is bad, but exposed turrets on optics which are much more easily turned are good?
Nope, not buying the Bullshit. A2s work damn well.....just like the adjustables on the M14 and M1 that came before them.
That's actually a really bad idea. You lose the red dot and introduce a ton of variation from the handguard flex. Probably heavier too.
I've got enough primary, LW primary, backup to the primary, backup to the LW primary, backups to the backups etc, all with quality RDSs and LPVOs that I don't expect this Colt to ever be called into serious action.
I don't ever recall a Centurion handguard being called flexible.
I’m definitely guilty of being the weirdo that shoots irons because I find it fun. Outside of that, the niche of the fixed iron sight is for a RDS only gun you want to don’t need a magnifier on. One potential niche that I saw on a 9Hole video is using the A2 drum to shoot with at long range beyond your zero for the RDS. Practically, it takes good environmentals to see a target at 300+. If you have no plans to shoot that far then it’s a moot point. I personally don’t mind a lower 1/3 mount and fixed sights, but I get that many prefer a fold down sight.
I guess nobody has ever seen the knobs on an old Aimpoint get turned either?:blink:
Five_Point_Five_Six
04-19-22, 09:41
I guess nobody has ever seen the knobs on an old Aimpoint get turned either?:blink:
I have. The brightness dial on my old Comp M2 got real loose towards the end of it's life on my rifle. I witness marked the dial on the setting where I kept it with glow in the dark paint from my daughters art stuff. It was white in the day time so it was easy to verify if it got turned one way or the other. I've kept that practice up with my PROs even though I haven't had one of those move on me yet.
I sold that crusty old Comp M2 to a cloner with a WTB ad on Tacswap for more than I paid for it all those years ago.
This thread has inspired me to remove the DD fixed rear...
You guys really need to really get rid of those old junky, useless DD rear sights! (A1.5s)
And being the nice guy that I am I'll be happy to take them off your hands in the equipment exchange.
BrigandTwoFour
04-19-22, 10:48
IMO there's nothing wrong with them, it just comes down to how you want to use them.
In an era where practically everyone thinkgs the "minimum" is a set-and-forget red dot sight with solid battlesight zero, what's wrong with doing the exact same thing with an A1-style rear sight? Nothing. It's lightweight, dead simple, and works.
If you're the kind of person who likes to know you can dial your primary optic's elevation (a la an LPVO with exposed turrets), then the A2 makes sense. Whether or not you're ever actually going to do it is a different question all together.
I guess nobody has ever seen the knobs on an old Aimpoint get turned either?:blink:
Now THAT is annoying. I have a Ranger Band on my Aimpoint C3 because the brightness knob turns way too easliy.
If you're the kind of person who likes to know you can dial your primary optic's elevation (a la an LPVO with exposed turrets), then the A2 makes sense. Whether or not you're ever actually going to do it is a different question all together.
For me, if I can't dial up (or dial up enough for the distance), I have to hope the wind is blowing enough that I can hold the front sight post off and see the target. The one time where wind is actually helpful. Otherwise your post covers the target and you're guessing.
For me, if I can't dial up (or dial up enough for the distance), I have to hope the wind is blowing enough that I can hold the front sight post off and see the target. The one time where wind is actually helpful. Otherwise your post covers the target and you're guessing.
Not if you raise the front sight inside the aperture
Not if you raise the front sight inside the aperture
I'd need to lower the post in the app to effectively raise the shot.
A2's are my favorite. They are a lot easier to zero in the field, which is why I suspect some don't like them.
With A1s it's "set em and forget them" and your kids can't accidentally dial up the wrong zero. I also like the much wider second aperture of A2 sights. I can use A1s if I have to, I can even set them if you give me three hours and 100 rounds of ammo, but I prefer A2s.
titsonritz
04-19-22, 15:33
On guns with irons as the primary sights I go with A2 carry handle or LMT L8A, on guns with RDS or LPVO I prefer the lower profile of A1 style or 'esque such as Scalarworks PEAK or Magpul Pro sights. Different tools for different jobs.
on guns with RDS or LPVO I prefer the lower profile of A1 style or 'esque such as Scalarworks PEAK or
I'd love to try those Scalarworks sights. I don't have much faith in non-Steel sight because I've broken them before. But Scalarworks builds some nice stuff.
When the Canadians adopted their C7, they preferred the A1 sights over the A2. Supposedly they felt that the A1 style made for better combat sights.
When the Canadians adopted their C7, they preferred the A1 sights over the A2. Supposedly they felt that the A1 style made for better combat sights.
To quote the great Jeff Spicoli.... "Ha! Those guys are fags!"
I shot with A2 sights out to 300 yards the past two days. I have to wear magnifiers to see the front sight and A2 sights can still get the job done at 300 yards. Dialing in dope to compensate for different kinds of ammunition is fast and easily done.
Optics are fine, but I prefer iron sights.
I shot with A2 sights out to 300 yards the past two days. I have to wear magnifiers to see the front sight and A2 sights can still get the job done at 300 yards. Dialing in dope to compensate for different kinds of ammunition is fast and easily done.
Optics are fine, but I prefer iron sights.
What kind of magnifiers do you wear that allow you to see the front sight and the target?
I apologize for not having a source, but many of the Korean vets who were surveyed upon return felt the M1 sights were too easily moved from zero (i.e. Joes were knobdicking). Those reports, along with the concept of volume of fire replacing marksmanship, may have influenced the design of the M16 sights.
In reality, did we need the ability to change windage or elevation after zero with the Army limiting qualification to 300 yards?
I was issued both A1s and A2s and I did/do prefer the A2 big/small apertures over the A1 normal/long range apertures.
Andy
What kind of magnifiers do you wear that allow you to see the front sight and the target?
https://www.safetyglassesusa.com/elvex-rx-500c-safety-glasses-with-black-frame-and-clear-full-lens-magnifier/
I wear the 0.5 power glasses for shooting rifles with iron sights.
https://www.safetyglassesusa.com/elvex-rx-500c-safety-glasses-with-black-frame-and-clear-full-lens-magnifier/
I wear the 0.5 power glasses for shooting rifles with iron sights.
I might try a set of those some time. I'll still sling 5-10 rounds at the 500 yard target if we have an A2 sighted rifle, but It gets more difficult to see it good with each passing year.
I guess I'd have to say that my biggest complaint against the A2 rear sight is the large 0-200 ghost ring aperture. My groups just go to sh!t whenever I've used it, but luckily the fix is simple... Just don't use it. Also the fact that it is not on the same plane as the small aperture is annoying when you sight in everything using the 50 yard zero and not the zero that the sights were originally designed around.
I did buy a couple of the XS same plane sights years ago with the intention of replacing the A2s, but the small hole in the XS sights is way too large for my liking so I never bothered to replace them.
Edit: I also never flip the aperture on my preferred A1 sights, I just keep it on the "L" marked aperture and have it zeroed at 50/200.
I guess I'd have to say that my biggest complaint against the A2 rear sight is the large 0-200 ghost ring aperture. My groups just go to sh!t whenever I've used it, but luckily the fix is simple... Just don't use it. Also the fact that it is not on the same plane as the small aperture is annoying when you sight in everything using the 50 yard zero and not the zero that the sights were originally designed around.
100% Agree.
100% Agree.
It's surprising to me that so many seem to love the large A2 ghost ring. I've seen a lot of guys on the forums say they use it exclusively over the small app. :blink:
I always think to myself that they must exclusively be shooting at barn doors too... I could see snap shooting with it within 25 feet (okay fine), but you ain't hitting shit at 200 meters with it. Hard enough using the large app at just 50 yards.
I don't have confidence with the large app outside of maybe 5 yards or so. It bothers me just looking through that gaping hole.
I don't have confidence with the large app outside of maybe 5 yards or so. It bothers me just looking through that gaping hole.
I feel the same way. It's almost like having no rear sight at all, pointing your front sight at something and hopping for the best.
I might try a set of those some time. I'll still sling 5-10 rounds at the 500 yard target if we have an A2 sighted rifle, but It gets more difficult to see it good with each passing year.
The closer I get to 70 years of age, the worse it gets. The 0.5 magnifiers don't make the front sight sharp and clear, they make it look less like a softball size piece of lint. The 0.75 power magnifiers make the front sight sharp and clear, but make the target too fuzzy to index the front sight in the proper position. The result is more vertical stringing than I would like to see.
With a known carbine and ammunition combination that should group 1-1/2 MOA at 300 yards, I am shooting 2-1/2 MOA groups with 0.5 power glasses. Groups are the same using a 4 X scope, because the thickness of the crosshairs covers 3" at 300 yards. Without magnification, I would not bother shooting farther than 100 yards.
I do not use the big aperture for close range work. I filed a square notch on the top of the small peep sight and use it like an open sight on a handgun. You would have to adjust the width of the notch to suite your needs; I settled on 0.080". It works well for engaging targets inside 25 yards. It works really well in low light conditions using a weapon mounted light.
Do you all prefer the small peep at night?
I don't have confidence with the large app outside of maybe 5 yards or so. It bothers me just looking through that gaping hole.
Maybe because I came over from MP5s but I can use that large aperture out to 75-100, but beyond 100 I definitely need that peep sight.
Does anyone really like that Matech rear sight?
Do you all prefer the small peep at night?
Have to. Prior to switching to RDS, the small app and a weapon mounted light worked acceptably for indoor/home defense.
Shooting outside at night on the other hand was awful anywhere beyond 50 yards which is about the range of my weapon lights ability to illuminate enough to get a sight picture.
Do you all prefer the small peep at night?
I do. The large aperture is just as useless in low light as it is on a bright sunny day.
Does anyone really like that Matech rear sight?
I actually really do like the MaTech rear sight if it's not worn out. The fact that it does away with the large aperture of the A2 rear sight and uses the small aperture alone is bonus points.
Though I standardized on the Magpul MBUS Pro (non elevation adjustable version) for rear BUIS. I never use the large aperture on those either.
OutofBatt3ry
04-24-22, 18:58
I'd say it's pretty irrefutable that RDSs are superior to irons...
but I've never met anyone that didn't like Irons.
Sure, automatic transmissions are "better..wait, easier" than a manual, but manuals work just fine with a competent user.
One of my favorite AR's is a bone stock Bushy with a carry handle and FSB(The standard configuration a little more than a decade ago)
I'd say it's pretty irrefutable that RDSs are superior to irons...
but I've never met anyone that didn't like Irons.
Sure, automatic transmissions are "better..wait, easier" than a manual, but manuals work just fine with a competent user.
One of my favorite AR's is a bone stock Bushy with a carry handle and FSB(The standard configuration a little more than a decade ago)
Use what you feel suits you best. I have 2 carbines equipped with RDS, but I prefer iron sights and a good weapon mounted light.
I actually really do like the MaTech rear sight if it's not worn out. The fact that it does away with the large aperture of the A2 rear sight and uses the small aperture alone is bonus points.
Though I standardized on the Magpul MBUS Pro (non elevation adjustable version) for rear BUIS. I never use the large aperture on those either.
I drilled the too-small aperture on the MaTech sight I'm using on my "sorta M4". It is still much smaller than the A2 ghost ring, of course.
I prefer the ghost ring on the A2 to the A1 setup, just wish they were same plane.
Andy
I drilled the too-small aperture on the MaTech sight I'm using on my "sorta M4". It is still much smaller than the A2 ghost ring, of course.
I prefer the ghost ring on the A2 to the A1 setup, just wish they were same plane.
Andy
You'd probably like the XS same plane sights then. The small aperture on those was too big for my liking.
I like the large aperture. When I was younger, I could see through even the smallest aperture. Now that I'm older, I find larger apertures easier to see through. I find large apertures are faster on target and easier to track moving targets. I think that's why I like red dots. To me, they're like having aperture sights with a glowing red do instead of a post. In fact, I wish I could get an RDS with a red post instead of a dot.
Probably nothing except not following the KISS doctrine. Simplicity is the key as they always say.
Five_Point_Five_Six
04-26-22, 14:49
Probably nothing except not following the KISS doctrine. Simplicity is the key as they always say.
KISS is a principle, not doctrine since there is no real concrete definition of simple in terms of firearms. For me, a red dot, BUIS, sling, high lumen/high candela white light, and a suppressor are well within what I consider simple, while at the same time being above and beyond what I would consider the bare minimum. Bare minimum to me is irons, white light, and a sling, but I have no interest in the bare minimum when it comes to potential life saving equipment.
I inherited a pre-ban Colt Sporter Match HBAR a few days ago and have taken it to the range every day since it became my rifle.
The front sight post is not perfectly plumb and the rear sight elevation adjustment has 1 MOA increments. I would prefer 1/2 MOA elevation increments, but the rear sight passed a box test twice at 300 yards proving the knobs are repeatable.
That's cool. What ammo does it like?
The front sight post is not perfectly plumb
I'd think fixing that would be important. Have you tried to address it?
That's cool. What ammo does it like?
I haven't fired any match ammunition. The best groups so far were shot with Federal M193 55g FMJ. M193 will consistently shoot 7" groups at 300 yards. Given the size of the groups, I had to use the back side of two silhouette targets posted side by side to check tracking (box test) of the elevation and windage knobs. I will have to reload some 68g-75 loads to check the accuracy potential of the barrel.
The trigger pull weight is 7 pounds 2.8 ounces. That's easy enough to remedy.
The front sight base is plumb, but the sight post is not. I'll have to break out the box of front sights and see if I can find one that is well centered.
That's cool. What ammo does it like?
It was a perfect day to go the range. It was 50 degrees with light rain/drizzle and very little wind. I took some of my 80g match reloads to the range to see if the Colt HBAR would group any better. It's the same recipe that would consistently shoot sub MOA at 300 yards and often 1/2 MOA out of my RRA match rifle.
The Colt HBAR shot two 6-1/2" groups, 10 shots each, at 300 yards. That is what I experienced with the two Colt HBAR's I owned in the early 1990's, so I wasn't surprised.
To make sure my eyesight was not causing the Colt HBAR to shoot such large groups, I fired two groups, 10 shots each, at 300 yards with a Rack Grade M1 Garand and HXP 78 delinked MG ammunition. The Garand shot two 7-1/2" groups. That is typical accuracy for a M1 Garand without glass bedding or a trigger job.
To round out the morning, I shot my M1 Carbine at 300 yards using PPU 110g FMJ ammunition. It's a 5 MOA carbine, with a Type 1 rear sight and Type 1 Barrel Band. It's a challenge to shoot it well. 30 rounds went into a 15" Wide x 17" High group at 300 yards, which is realistic accuracy with a Rack Grade M1 Carbine.
I love a challenge and enjoy shooting with iron sights. I think a person who takes the time to learn their iron sights and gets in a little practice once in a while can hold their own. I believe the A2 rear sight found on the AR-15 is superior to other iron sights found on issued U.S. Military rifles.
We're starting to work up a load for 85 gr Match Burners tomorrow. Some A2 Irons would be fun to shoot if this bullet pans out.
If our spot was less windy, we'd run paper targets beyond 100 yards... especially for bigger calibers.
I took some of my 80g match reloads to the range to see if the Colt HBAR would group any better. It's the same recipe that would consistently shoot sub MOA at 300 yards and often 1/2 MOA out of my RRA match rifle.
The Colt HBAR shot two 6-1/2" groups, 10 shots each, at 300 yards. That is what I experienced with the two Colt HBAR's I owned in the early 1990's, so I wasn't surprised.
No doubt you know this already but...
Just because a particular load shoots very good in one particular rifle - You can't just assume it will shoot that well in another (or every) rifle.
Tune a load for your Colt and see what she will do...
No doubt you know this already but...
Just because a particular load shoots very good in one particular rifle - You can't just assume it will shoot that well in another (or every) rifle.
Tune a load for your Colt and see what she will do...
I have hundreds of pages of reload data that I have accumulated over the past 40 years. I still have reload data from both HBAR's I owned in the early 1990's and the load I used was the most accurate load for the old HBAR's. The HBAR I am trying to get to group well was built in 1993 per Colt. When I was competing on a serious level, 30 years ago, I sold the old Colt HBAR's and bought the same rifle the U.S. Navy Shooting Team was using.
I am covering the same ground as before and I doubt this HBAR will shoot any better.
texagonian
05-08-22, 10:34
A2s are gtg. The haters are likely the same basement-dwelling, bottom-feeding "operators" who bash PSA.
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I do not use the big aperture for close range work. I filed a square notch on the top of the small peep sight and use it like an open sight on a handgun. You would have to adjust the width of the notch to suite your needs; I settled on 0.080". It works well for engaging targets inside 25 yards. It works really well in low light conditions using a weapon mounted light.
In case there are some of us who aren't in the 'if the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy' camp, XS sights sells a ready made rear sight blade with a .095 notch:
https://www.adorama.com/images/Large/xsar20049.jpg
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/sights/rear-sights/ar-15-csat-combat-rear-sight-prod26948.aspx
In case there are some of us who aren't in the 'if the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy' camp, XS sights sells a ready made rear sight blade with a .095 notch:
https://www.adorama.com/images/Large/xsar20049.jpg
https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/sights/rear-sights/ar-15-csat-combat-rear-sight-prod26948.aspx
That would be a faster, and better, way to install a notch sight than the way I did it. With a good WML, the notch works great for close up shots in low light.
And I am in the Red Green camp.
davidjinks
05-09-22, 11:06
Reading online, which I know has its pitfalls, it seems like a lot of people don't like the A2 iron sights. I personally think they are the best iron sighting system for the AR rifle out there--either the carry handle or the fixed LMT "chopped carry handle" A2 rear. Obviously carry handle and fixed rear sight guns are a niche in the AR world, but I see a lot of people that seem to prefer an A1 style, like the Daniel Defense sights, or the Scalarworks sights. Arguments I've read against the A2 generally fall in the realm of "too complicated" or "target sights, not combat sights." Neither of those really make sense to me--with the ghost ring it's a very fast back up sight, and the two plane set up gives the shooter a lot of capability with regards to setting a functional battle zero. I recognize most people will never dial elevation on a rear sight, but it's a capability you have if you need it, or just want to get fancy and the range.
I am not exceptionally hard on my guns, but I don't baby them, and I'm not aware of any military stories of breaking A2 drums. The "chopped carry handle" style LMT makes does take up a little more space than some other fixed rear sights, but if you're running a fixed rear you're already accepting you won't be running a magnifier so it's not like there's a practical downside.
Obviously I get running A1 on a retro build, and that a folder backup rear is more practical for most applications. Is there some hidden downside to the A2 set up I'm missing?
The thing is…..the internet said so!
There’s nothing wrong with A2 sights. A whole lot of troops deployed with them and made very good use of them. Do optics give an edge? Sure. Are A2 sights worthless? No.
Rock what you want. I like irons as much as I like optics. I use them all.
That would be a faster, and better, way to install a notch sight than the way I did it. With a good WML, the notch works great for close up shots in low light.
And I am in the Red Green camp.
I knew that. Some of us wouldn't know how to file a straight notch - I'm in that camp.
Troy used to sell a fixed battlesight with that blade on it, couldn't find it but I was looking for a Vickers CQB sight, not a CSAT.
The wife and I were out for dinner last night, when I ran into two old school High Power competitors. Both of them were shooting High Power when most transitioned from the M-14 to the AR-15 for competition and saw the development of match modifications and ammunition development.
One of them is 75 years of age and a huge fan of Colt firearms. I told him I recently came into a 1993 vintage Colt Sporter Match HBAR and his eyes lit up. I asked him what accuracy he saw with match loads fired out of his older HBAR's and he said "it will hold the 10 Ring." When I asked him the size of the groups he measured on paper when he developed his go to 600 yard match load, he said "it will hold the 10 Ring." That's all I could get out of him.
I asked both shooters what they thought of the development of using optics in the High Power game and they both approved. Their opinion of the A2 sight was that it was a very good sight system, superior to the sights on the M1 Garand and M-14. The consensus was that if your eyesight was good enough, the A2 sight would get the job done at 600 yards.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.