G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Rear sights: A1 vs A2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    now in AL
    Posts
    362
    Feedback Score
    0
    I personally think that A1 with a2 small hole / large hole is better choice for combat rifles no knobs to fiddle with or up. Set it forget it... Works best for probably 99% of that Canada got it right.... IMHO. Now for the 1% on KD range or Camp Perry go for it. I couldn't count the times the a2 rear sight getting misused zeroing and failing to qualify. (NCO's directing troops wrong "many times" to adjust elevation knob ) I got in to many pissing matches over that. Then having this happen, sight getting moved after zeroing due to rubbing up against something or during cleaning... Most Units don't let troops"paint or mark on them" I don't ever remember taking time to dial in for elevation when I carried a a2 heck I never adjusted sights with M60 I'd adjust off impact of rounds. Range estimation was something I and many other practiced when I was A.D.
    Now as a civ different story. Practice trying to make small hole with bunch of bullets or KD range... Rock on.
    NRA Life Member.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sodom & Gomorrah on the Sound - Seattle, Wash., Left Coast Hell
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    Does the Canadian C7 use the standard A1 rear, or is it modified?
    I'll try to get a down-the-sights shot with my C8 tomorrow for ya.
    You really have to ask why Conservatives have guns? Because Liberals block freeways, burn cities, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, turn over cop cars, and think this behavior is Socially Acceptable.
    --unknown, memed by user "KeepnitReel" at Northwest Firearms

    NRA Life Member (installment plan)

    Sent from my arse using Crapatalk.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Asheville NC now.
    Posts
    158
    Feedback Score
    0
    I started on the m16a2 back in the mid 90s when I joined the Army. During that time and when we got the m4 before we got the m68 cco I never messed with the rear sight other than to ensure it was on 8/300. When we got the m68 we still qualified with buis as well as with the m68. I agree that for the most part the elevation dial is not really needed for your average joe.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,295
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I have guns with both A1 and A2 style sights. I will say that while there is less to go wrong with the A1 style, when I got a couple guns with fixed A2 carry handles, I started developing a liking for the convenient and finer windage adjustments of the A2 style and later put them on a couple of my other guns in the form of the LMT rear and detachable carry handle and a chopped carry handle. Although im probably not using the sights correctly as I basically put them on "6/3" or "8/3" and leave them, and then zero the irons at 50 or 100yds (depending on the gun).
    I do witness mark all my A2 style sights once they are zeroed though.
    Last edited by Circle_10; 07-20-19 at 06:06.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    South of Chicago
    Posts
    4,912
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    I like the A2 sight for target shooting, I can make fine adjustments for wind, light, etc. when shooting out beyond 300 meters. For most purposes, I prefer the A1 sight and have used it effectively to ring steel out to 400 meters. Using the short range aperture, engaging silhouettes from 3 meters to 300 meters was simple enough. I haven't been on active duty for decades, but back in the day keeping things simple was a plus for most of the rank and file.
    Train 2 Win

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sodom & Gomorrah on the Sound - Seattle, Wash., Left Coast Hell
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Sorry about the crappy pics, best I could do with my crappy tablet. Diemaco BUIS, mounted Canadian-style at the very front of the upper receiver with a .040" front sight post because I couldn't get a proper .050".

    Large aperture


    Small aperture


    Closest direct commercial counterpart is probably the Daniel Defense A1.5 that Larry Vickers chose for his own C8 build.
    Last edited by Diamondback; 07-20-19 at 19:31.
    You really have to ask why Conservatives have guns? Because Liberals block freeways, burn cities, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, turn over cop cars, and think this behavior is Socially Acceptable.
    --unknown, memed by user "KeepnitReel" at Northwest Firearms

    NRA Life Member (installment plan)

    Sent from my arse using Crapatalk.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mid-West, USA
    Posts
    1,599
    Feedback Score
    36 (100%)
    Yeah, but the adjustment on the DD 1.5 rear is pretty big.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Sodom & Gomorrah on the Sound - Seattle, Wash., Left Coast Hell
    Posts
    2,014
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Diemaco has the side wheel too... just from trying to set things up from those two photos, I'm not a fan but it's one of the defining pieces of a C7 or C8. This gun needs at least a Vortex Spitfire for combat use if not an Aimpoint PRO, I would NOT want to fight it with only these irons. That "BUIS in FRONT of optic" thing doesn't help either...

    But, the girlfriend wants to learn 'the old fashioned way,' so... we'll let her have a go at it, then I'll smack on my plinker Bushnell TRS25 for getting started.
    You really have to ask why Conservatives have guns? Because Liberals block freeways, burn cities, throw Molotov cocktails, loot, turn over cop cars, and think this behavior is Socially Acceptable.
    --unknown, memed by user "KeepnitReel" at Northwest Firearms

    NRA Life Member (installment plan)

    Sent from my arse using Crapatalk.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    65
    Feedback Score
    0
    Having a peep sight that far forward defeats the very purpose of a peep sight. A peep sight should be close to the eye. All you have to worry about is the front sight and target. Proper sight alignment is virtually automatic. Compare the sights on the M1903 and the M1 rifles. With the M1903 you have to align the rear and front sights and then aim at the target, on the M1 the sight alignment is virtually automatic. All you have to do is set the front sight on the target and fire.

    After WWII the Army did a comprehensive analysis of battlefield casualties. The data showed that most small arms casualties occurred at something less than 300-450 yards/meters. In part this was simply because the terrain and ground obstacles/cover limited the range at which a target could be seen and engaged. Why have a rifle like the M1093 and M1 that were designed to engage targets at 1000+ yards when most targets were 300 yards/meters or less? All of this went in the the specifications for the M16 series for a lightweight rifle for combat within the infantryman's half kilometer.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,346
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think these are the same as the Canadian issued.

    https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F202280420514

    The aperture in your pics looks a lot like an XS/Ashley same plane.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •