Rear sights: A1 vs A2

[Slater]

I was watching a recent "Forgotten Weapons" video with Larry Vickers as a guest. He indicated that, in his opinion, the standard A2 rear sight was unnecessarily complicated for a combat sight, and that the A1 style was better in that regard. Fair assessment?

[markm]

For whom? The soldier? If we're talking the average ARFcom member, then a drinking straw is too complicated.

To me, The A1 is only ok for a few hundred yards. I actually use the elevation fairly often for 500+/- yard shooting.

[scottryan]

Fair assessment?

Yes

The average solider is not sophisticated enough to use the battle range wheel on an A2 sight.

[BrigandTwoFour]

You have to put it in context and intended use.

The whole M16 project starting in the early 1950's was designed for 0-300 yards. That outer range expanded to 500 yards later on, but the sighting system didn't change with it. The A1 sights were purposely built for a single battlesight zero. It's dead simple, yes, but you give up precision. In an infantry rifle that's going to work "good enough."

In the 80's, the USMC was in charge of the A2 program. They have a long history with marksmanship training and high-power style shooting. The adjustable rear sight supported their goals to that end: more precise iron sights througout the effective range of the M16. Of note, they also wanted to switch from the lightweight A1 barrel to a heavy barrel throughout and go to a semi-auto only trigger. The program manager, Lt. Col Dave Lutz, held them off on that front- though he couldn't stop the government profile barrel from getting implemented. That's another story, though.

At the end of the day, it comes down to what you want the rifle to do. If you're going to use the iron sights like a red dot, with a single set-and-forget point blank zero, then the A1 style sights are tough to beat. If you want to dial dope and ring steel, the A2 sights work well. A lot of people get hung up on the A2 sights getting bumped off of their settings too easily, but if you're using proper index marks that shouldn't be an issue.

[1168]

I consider myself an above average Soldier. I also believe we can all conclude that Larry is an above average Soldier, and in this case, I agree with him. I have never, not once, clicked out DOPE on my issued weapon, because I am not a sniper. Then again, in live engagements, I have never been limited to irons. And most engagements have been less than 100m. So, ???. But I prefer A1 rears on my iron sight guns.

I have seen Soldiers on plain flat ranges with incorrect settings on their rear sights, so I’m in the camp of not liking the tool free adjustability. Not all Soldiers are equal in rifle skills, but I have concluded DOPE clicking irons are unnecessary, even among great Soldiers. Besides, is anyone clicking out M68’s? So why do irons need that cape?

[markm]

I consider myself an above average Soldier. I also believe we can all conclude that Larry is an above average Soldier, and in this case, I agree with him. I have never, not once, clicked out DOPE on my issued weapon, because I am not a sniper. Then again, in live engagements, I have never been limited to irons. And most engagements have been less than 100m. So, ???. But I prefer A1 rears on my iron sight guns.

I have seen Soldiers on plain flat ranges with incorrect settings on their rear sights, so I’m in the camp of not liking the tool free adjustability. Not all Soldiers are equal in rifle skills, but I have concluded DOPE clicking irons are unnecessary, even among great Soldiers. Besides, is anyone clicking out M68’s? So why do irons need that cape?

That makes sense. For my use, it's target application on static targets. If I really had to take a crack at a live target at distance on the fly, I'd hold over.

[tehpwnag3]

A2 for "Across the Course". However, I would think simpler is better for the average soldier, much like today's BUIS (elevation front, windage rear).

[1168]

That makes sense. For my use, it's target application on static targets. If I really had to take a crack at a live target at distance on the fly, I'd hold over.

Yessir. Kentucky windage FTW. Something I failed to point out in my last post is range estimation. Is that dude 600, or 500 meters out? Who knows? Does the difference matter with typical training levels and time to engage? The average Infantryman does not get adequate training in this and does not have the equipment to make up for that. Use your other assets. Fires, 240, whatever. Past 500, the M4 is the wrong tool. Some might argue 300.

Combat and KD are completely dissimilar.

Edit: ASSuming we are talking about a front sight post that is not a fixed FSB on a M4 14.5” or a M16 20”, with appropriate ammo, the ranges on the wheel are unlikely to be correct. For example, the popular 12-13” handguards with a rail mounted front sight.

[Firefly]

For a target rifle A2 is awesome and based

For people who just wanna shoot somebody and want less talk, more rock.....bery much A1

[Renegade04]

For me, I was first taught using iron sights (notch ear and blade front). In 1978, I had my first experience with the M16A1. In boot camp, we had to qualify out to 500M. This was easily done by setting battle zero at 100M and using a proper sight picture for each given range (200M, 300M, and 500M). I first used the M16A2 in 1995 when I had to qualify in the Air Force Reserve. Not hard when we were only shooting from a very short distance on a target with multiple-sized targets on it. Never had to adjust for battle zero. I watched the video that was referenced. Personally, I agree with Larry. A1 sights are simple and you do not have to worry about bumping them and changing anything. Although I have some ARs with A2 sights, some with optics and BUISs, I still enjoy the simplicity of the ARs I have with A1 sights.