View Full Version : Why are AR Sights so high?
.
Sorry if this has been discussed before but I have been trying to figure out why are the sights on an AR so high above the bore?
If it all goes back to the original M16, is it because of the handle? This same handle, that my son when in the Marine Corp, was told to "not get caught using"? This same handle that is very seldom found on a new AR?
Or is it some other reason?
Just wondering...
.
The 'handle' originally shrouded the charging handle, the reason the sights are so high is because in order to help control recoil while firing fullauto the stock needs to be inline w/ the bore
snakedoctor
11-13-10, 22:37
If you need shorter sights Troy Ind makes some. http://store.troyind.com/category_s/148.htm
The 'handle' originally shrouded the charging handle, the reason the sights are so high is because in order to help control recoil while firing fullauto the stock needs to be inline w/ the bore
==================================
I was thinking it could be the original design. I wouldn't change the stock/bore relationship but it just seems the sights could be "restandardized" to a lower common height.
.
Because it is an "in-line" design. Imagine it was like an old .22 with the sights not much higher above bore line than the thickness of the barrel, now try to bend your neck enough to get a good sight picture. Many, inculding myself, have gone to a higher "1/3" mount for our red dot sights as it offers a better "heads up" position. Play around with different height set ups, I think you understand it better.
While the part about the carry handle is partially correct the answer is actually a more ergonomic one.
The AR system is designed so that the recoil from firing a round is directed strait back. Take the bolt and buffer out and you can drop a dowel rod strait though into the back of the receiver extension. By doing this you take the already mild recoil from a 5.56 round and reduce it even more.
There is far less muzzle rise than you would see with a more traditional rifle like the AK47.
Now the problem in this design is that it puts traditional low sights out of position when shooting. To correct this you have to elevate the sights so that they are in line with the shooter when he shoulders the gun. This gives you a bit of a height over bore problem but it isn't something that can't be compensated for.
I would assume that they figured faster followup shots and easier control under full auto trumped the minor HoB issue with elevated sights.
variablebinary
11-14-10, 00:12
Many rifles have a stock that "steps down", therefore the sights can be low, and line up with the eye due the sloping comb of the stock
Examples:
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk88/mpikxfx/ak47.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Caroline-profile-p1000516.jpg/800px-Caroline-profile-p1000516.jpg
http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/fal.jpg
http://www.biggerhammer.net/m96/Recon_Carbine_2.jpg
http://www.classicarms.us/images/crletter-219.jpg
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1garand.jpg
http://www.webarms.com/gun%20suppliers/Springfield%20Armory/SA9102Large.gif
The AR15 doesn't use a "step down" comb on the stock. The stock is "inline" with the barrel, therefore the sights had to be raised to accommodate the inline design. The nature of the design dictates the sight height.
http://nwatactical.com/images/6921.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
11-14-10, 00:16
Because it is an "in-line" design.
This and the original charging handle.
Belmont31R
11-14-10, 02:47
http://www.kolararms.com/trapmaxta.html
Recoil impulse lower on the gun the better the recovery, recoil management, ect.
Stocks that slope down, and have a high bore recoil very badly. Also results in less consistent cheek weld.
RAM Engineer
11-14-10, 07:14
Look at similar designs with in-line stocks/buffers and their respective sight heights:
Johnson Machine Gun http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Machine_gun_M1941_Johnson_1.jpg
FG42
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/FG42.jpg
M60
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/M60iraq2003.jpg
.
I have shot poorly designed stocked deer rifles and do appreciate a nice stock. I shot a Husqy one time that hurt my face worse than my shoulder.
I read an AAR yesterday about a guy using a borrowed SCAR at a class. He was impressed with the gun overall but said the sloping stock by day's end after 1000+ rounds made "for a tender cheek".
My question may have been brought on by my "Neanderthal" face but it just seems that a lot of people complain about having to raise their cheek weld up to a chin weld to get sight alignment. Just thought that through the years, since the handle is no longer in the picture, some company would have tried a lower sight line?
It would be neat to have a tight cheek weld with fixed sights and then raise your head up about a 1/4” of an inch to get above the sights for a RDS. But, like I said, it’s probably just me…
.
The sights being 1.75 above the bore is a virtue. Sights closer to the bore would mean elevation adjustments required at shorter ranges.
I remember some retard on AR15.com wanted to figure out how to get an angled stock on the AR so he could have sights lower to the bore. Talk about COMPLETELY not getting it. :rolleyes:
militarymoron
11-14-10, 09:29
.
It would be neat to have a tight cheek weld with fixed sights and then raise your head up about a 1/4” of an inch to get above the sights for a RDS. But, like I said, it’s probably just me…
.
a 1/3 co-witness with a RDS and the current sight height of about 2.6" above the bore allows that already. any lower and i'd find it too low. even a standard EOTECH is a bit low for me and i use a larue riser.
you can't get a 'chin weld' through standard AR sights. the sights are about 2" above the stock. what's the distance from your eye to your cheek? about 2". you can't see through the sights if you stick your chin on the stock.
what you're probably reading from other people and 'chin weld' is in regards to certain optics, like a mini RDS mounted on top of an ACOG etc.
To prevent the vietcong and other asiatics with high cheekbones from using captured M16's against us Neanderthals. :p
Very cool thread! Thank you guys for the background information.
The design of the AR is such that the recoil is inline with the shooter's shoulder. Muzzle climb is reduced because the rifle recoils straight back into the shoulder and decreases shot to shot recovery time. The lower comb (what some are referring to as "step down") of other rifle raises the line of recoil which increases muzzle climb.
The geometry of the taller sights help with sight adjustment at longer ranges.
The advantage to the lower comb is that it allows the face to be place lower in relationship to the bore and allows the use of lower sights. When firing over the top of a barricade used for cover, the shooter presents a lower profile to incoming fire.
It's a compromise between better controllability or presenting a lower profile
Another example is the AA-12 auto shotgun, high sights, but combined w/ a in line design and a gas system is very manageable recoil wise
To prevent the vietcong and other asiatics with high cheekbones from using captured M16's against us Neanderthals. :p
----------------------------------------
:laugh:
That was pretty funny. Thanks!
a 1/3 co-witness with a RDS and the current sight height of about 2.6" above the bore allows that already. any lower and i'd find it too low. even a standard EOTECH is a bit low for me and i use a larue riser.
you can't get a 'chin weld' through standard AR sights. the sights are about 2" above the stock. what's the distance from your eye to your cheek? about 2". you can't see through the sights if you stick your chin on the stock.
what you're probably reading from other people and 'chin weld' is in regards to certain optics, like a mini RDS mounted on top of an ACOG etc.
=========================
The first time I mounted a scope on a Flat Top, I took the scope off a deer rifle and used some low rings I had. I basically had to put my temple flat ways on the stock to see through the scope. It was like years ago when I tried to shoot my son's Chipmunk .22 rifle, he could actually out shoot me with it.
The Charging Handle's rearward movement currently limits the height of the stock. I've never seen an original M-16, when the Charging Handle was under the carrying handle, did those early original stocks have a different rise or were they like the fixed stocks now?
.
RAM Engineer
11-14-10, 15:36
The Charging Handle's rearward movement currently limits the height of the stock. I've never seen an original M-16, when the Charging Handle was under the carrying handle, did those early original stocks have a different rise or were they like the fixed stocks now?
.
M16s have always had a rear mounted charging handle. The earliest AR-15s with the top mounted charging handle had the exact same stock and sight configuration as the rear-mount handles.
The stock was designed to accomodate the Inline recoil buffer concept. The sights were designed to accommodate the stock. The charging handle was designed to fit within the envelope dictated by the stock and sights.
I highly recommend the book "The Black Rifle" if you are interested in the history of the AR-15/M16 platform and .223/5.56 cartridge from Post-WWII to the XM4 carbine.
It's been hinted at, the higher sights above the bore allow a better battlesight zero as compared to sights lower to the bore.
With the higher sights, you can hold zero out to 300 yards. The bullet is still climbing at 100 yards just below point of aim, coming down at 200 yards, but an inch or two high and then 4 inches low at 300 yards.
LOL, I'm going by memory, just guessing, too lazy to google the chart but you get the idea.
The whole "straight stock = elevated sights" thing is an oft repeated internet myth!
The reason for the high sights is that the 5.56 caliber round is incapable of even seriously wounding a person beyond close to medium close range.
The elevated front sight was developed as a convenient range finder. If your enemy appeared larger than the entire front sight assembly it was OK to shoot them. If they appeared smaller then the range was to far and the round would probably only cause a flesh wound.
After extensive testing it was determined that if you had a high front sight you probably should have a high rear sight as well, hence the current design.
The 5.56 NATO round was derived from the civilian .223 Reimingtone' developed by the French immediately after WWII for the purpose of shooting the feral poodles that had multiplied out of control during the occupation years.
not sure if serious....:confused:
The whole "straight stock = elevated sights" thing is an oft repeated internet myth!
The reason for the high sights is that the 5.56 caliber round is incapable of even seriously wounding a person beyond close to medium close range.
The elevated front sight was developed as a convenient range finder. If your enemy appeared larger than the entire front sight assembly it was OK to shoot them. If they appeared smaller then the range was to far and the round would probably only cause a flesh wound.
After extensive testing it was determined that if you had a high front sight you probably should have a high rear sight as well, hence the current design.
The 5.56 NATO round was derived from the civilian .223 Reimingtone' developed by the French immediately after WWII for the purpose of shooting the feral poodles that had multiplied out of control during the occupation years.I'd heard something like that! Didn't Eugene Stoner design the original M16 on the back of a grocery list when he escaped to France from behind the iron Curtain using a powered battle armored suit suit he made from old Lavda hub caps using only a ball pein hammer and a piece of old Russian cheese after the communists forced him to design the direct impingement system used in the prototype SKS?
I heard those post war poodles were pretty tough to stop after getting high on french wine and cheese and working themselves up to a battle frenzy
jumbopanda
11-14-10, 19:03
The whole "straight stock = elevated sights" thing is an oft repeated internet myth!
The reason for the high sights is that the 5.56 caliber round is incapable of even seriously wounding a person beyond close to medium close range.
The elevated front sight was developed as a convenient range finder. If your enemy appeared larger than the entire front sight assembly it was OK to shoot them. If they appeared smaller then the range was to far and the round would probably only cause a flesh wound.
After extensive testing it was determined that if you had a high front sight you probably should have a high rear sight as well, hence the current design.
The 5.56 NATO round was derived from the civilian .223 Reimingtone' developed by the French immediately after WWII for the purpose of shooting the feral poodles that had multiplied out of control during the occupation years.
Bravo, you almost had me there. :laugh:
Suwannee Tim
11-14-10, 19:53
The whole "straight stock = elevated sights" thing is an oft repeated internet myth!
Another oft repeated internet myth is that Eugene Stoner designed the DI gas system for lower parts count and co-axial action. The real reason he incorporated it on the gun is because he is a pacifist and hated war. He figured US troops would be so busy cleaning their M16 rifles that they would not have time to fight.
Complication
11-14-10, 20:26
The whole "straight stock = elevated sights" thing is an oft repeated internet myth!
The reason for the high sights is that the 5.56 caliber round is incapable of even seriously wounding a person beyond close to medium close range.
The elevated front sight was developed as a convenient range finder. If your enemy appeared larger than the entire front sight assembly it was OK to shoot them. If they appeared smaller then the range was to far and the round would probably only cause a flesh wound.
After extensive testing it was determined that if you had a high front sight you probably should have a high rear sight as well, hence the current design.
The 5.56 NATO round was derived from the civilian .223 Reimingtone' developed by the French immediately after WWII for the purpose of shooting the feral poodles that had multiplied out of control during the occupation years.
What I love about M4C is that on many other sites, this would probably be a serious response. Instead, I learned something about the in-line stock AND had a good chuckle.
I heard Eugene Stoner originally called his new AR15 the "Liberator". It was designed to last long enough for a trooper to kill and enemy soldier from ambush to obtain a superior weapon
All right, you yahoos, reel it in...
;)
Ah, come on mod. Just add a tongue in cheek smilie to the original thread, or give us a redirect to General Discusssion.
Thanks,
hals1
...The stock was designed to accomodate the Inline recoil buffer concept. The sights were designed to accommodate the stock. The charging handle was designed to fit within the envelope dictated by the stock and sights...
And there you have the answer.
So is the slight downward slope of the SCAR going to affect the recoil management of that weapon? If compared side by side to an AK47 the uppermost portion of the rear of the stock is about the same offset in relation to the muzzle. I ask because there is a large uncontrolled poodle population in my area and they are refusing TSA body scans and enhanced pat-patdowns. :ph34r:
So is the slight downward slope of the SCAR going to affect the recoil management of that weapon? If compared side by side to an AK47 the uppermost portion of the rear of the stock is about the same offset in relation to the muzzle. I ask because there is a large uncontrolled poodle population in my area and they are refusing TSA body scans and enhanced pat-patdowns. :ph34r:
You realize, i hope that the SCAR is adequate only for teacups and miniatures.:sarcastic:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.