What do people have against A2 irons?

[TBAR_94]

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?

[556Cliff]

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.

[26 Inf]

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.

[Todd.K]

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.

[Andrewsky]

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.

[prepare]

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?

[gaijin]

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]

A2s are gtg. The haters are likely the same basement-dwelling, bottom-feeding "operators" who bash PSA.

[TMS951]

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

[Alpha-17]

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.