Why are Russians so terrible at setting up a proper sight radius?

>wanting the sights on the dust cover

Enjoy your wandering zero.

It doesn't really make a big difference, you fucking autist.

Because it doesn't matter.

The average soldier isn't going to be hitting shit at 500m with iron sights in combat anyways.

File: IMG_0001-5.jpg (152KB, 1022x521px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1022x521px

>>32153040
Why did the Americans copy it then?
>Checkmate burgerboos

>>32153046
Finns and Israelis seemed able to do it somehow.

>>32153114

Italians still make Colt Navy reproductions, doesn't mean they still hold up.

>>32153040
Maybe because it's what they wanted to keep? Notch sights are intrinsically more accurate at long range. Theyre not as fast as peeps but they're not that much slower.

File: ak-18.jpg (166KB, 402x372px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 402x372px

>>32153046
>>32153046
It's attached to the buffer, not the dust cover, so it is solid.

Anyway, I actually like the AK's sight setup. since it's so far forward it lines up easy and fast. So what it's a bit less precise when it will hit silhouettes to 400 yards with little trouble.

>>32153040
Nobody is going to be sniping without sights.

Dust cover is not fixed and it will make your zeroing fail

bottle neck is barrel length anyways

unlike a bolt action, the ak has 30 round capacity semi or auto.

>>32153040
The irons on an AK are about the same as on an carbine length AR (like an M4). Any longer and it takes too long to acquire a sign pictures with the type of sights that the AK has.

>>32153142

Nobody's comparing the 1917 Enfield to AK's.

It's just that the US and britain adopted rear-mounted sights during WWI and it took Russia another 100 years.

>>32153153

If they're so great then why's Russia suddenly backpedalling and giving all the newer AK's modern rear-sights?

>>32153160
>nobody is comparing x to y
>It's just that y had rear mounted sights while x "took... another 100 years"

>>32153160
It's literally not even a problem. It' fast to line up. Super good sight radius isn't really needed when your requirements are hitting a 20moa box at 300-400 meters.

>>32153164
First off, they're not "great", it's just a design compromise, just like everything else in a piece of machinery. Also they constantly are experimenting with shit. The current series of rifles look like they're going to a combination FSB/Gas block which moves the front sight back a bit so moving the rear sight back makes sense.

>>32153167

Comparing Russia and other countries, yeah. Not just the 1917 and the Ak107. Your point is?

>>32153142
Did you mean open sights?
Simo Hayha used open sights and attributed part of his success to the lower profile he presented because of it.
If you meant no sights at all...mm mm yeah you're quite correct.

File: 1480419222802.jpg (21KB, 200x229px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x229px

>>32153040
>Why are Russians so terrible at setting up a proper sight radius?

Fun fact. The ak's sight radius is about the same as a standard m4.

You would know this if you weren't such a faggot ass noguns

>>32153040
>Most world powers entered WW2 with sights mounted as far back as possible

um no this is very wrong friendo

It's just a different system.
Minidisc vs cdr
7.62 vs 5.56
Clinton vs Trump
No one really knows for sure why one got chosen over the other....just life innit.

File: 1349493271715.png (19KB, 118x123px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 118x123px

>>32153215
>AK-74: 943 mm (37.1 in)

>M4: 33 in (840 mm) (stock extended)
> 29.75 in (756 mm) (stock retracted)

>>32153211
meant to say optics

File: 1463969158628.jpg (776KB, 3500x2333px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 3500x2333px

>>32153040
>Most world powers entered WW2 with sights mounted as far back as possible


This is untrue. It was primarily just USA, Britain's no4mk1, and France's Mas36.

>>32153115
Yeah, because the Finns made an extremely high quality AK that could handle it and the Jews just copied it.

>>32153239
>sight radius changes when you extend or retract the stock
all my wut

File: Sight Radius.jpg (457KB, 2953x1091px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 2953x1091px

>>32153296

>2016
>Not mounting sights on your stock

shiggy

The M1 Garande's 30'06 round goes at nearly twice the speed as a 7.62 despite the bullet being the same effective caliber and weights.

Try getting the barrel and sight aligned within a few ten-thousandths of an inch so you are not more than a few MOA off at a thousand yards. If you're churning out thousands of these puppies, dies wear down, people make mistakes, companies ship product anyway, so you're sights won't be zero'd perfect.

It's best to expect to adjust things, so put the sights on the rear so you have the maximum distance between front and rear sights thus forcing the soldier to adjust them to achieve maximum accuracy. Not going to say this thinking is perfect in a world of perfect manufacturing.

The AK47; bullet drops faster and goes slower, so you don't need the range. However, what you do need to do is alleviate tunnel vision. Putting the sight forward means you can see to the sides better, and that's probably better when you're trying to get people to put fire on whatever is moving at close range.

>>32153368
>so you don't need the range
ARs hardly need the range either. Combat occuring at battle distances is not effective with assault rifles. Marksmen, machineguns, crew-served weapons, direct-, and indirect fire support exist for a reason.

>>32153211
Simo Hayha was a propaganda, next you'll tell me about all Zaytsev's open sight kills.

>>32153215
yeah but one of them is a carbine

>>32153160
theres a difference between peeps and notch sights. peep has to be close to the eye and notch is at arms length.

File: Kersantti_Viljam_Pylkäs.jpg (11KB, 238x351px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 238x351px

>>32153385
Not as much as you'd think. There were a lot of Russians flooding into Finland and a lot of shit-tier tactics used by them.
Pic related killed 83 Soviets with a Suomi KP during one charge. Using 17 mags, 680 rounds and burning out the barrel on his gun.
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viljam_Pylk%C3%A4s

File: confusedpepe.jpg (101KB, 1024x904px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x904px

>>32153296
this lmao, sight radius isn't the fucking distance your eye is from the front sight >>32153239 you fucking idiot, it's the distance between the rear and front sight

>>32153486
God you're retarded. He's saying that M4s have more sight radius per length of the gun than AKs.

File: 66589EDD-2D23-48E6-8429-53CA1AB91159-278-00000050225992A8_tmp.jpg (29KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 590x350px

>>32153040
>>32153114

>>32153368
>30-06
>Nearly twice the speed of a 7.62

>7.62x39 around 2400 fps
>implying 30-06 moves at 4800 fps

File: IMG_7578.jpg (42KB, 379x379px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 379x379px

>>32153040
>anon get a load of this guy
It's like he's completely fucking retarded.
AKs can't hit a man sized target passed 300. It's not a durr gun. It's not a AR15 needing 30 different lubes. The boolet isn't accurate. I have a AKM with 20" cromeline barrel that shoots 2" groups at 100 meters. And I only hit the 300 about half the time. With my AR, no problem. If shitposting. Well done. My jimmies are roused. If not, fucking go shoot, or even read about shit. You have the whole fucking internet.

>>32153160
>Nobody's comparing the 1917 Enfield to AK's.
Except OP who is literally doing that

>>32153423
Uh huh, sure

>>32153040
maybe they didn't like the rear sight being so close to their eye?

>>32153272
>Only countries that won did this

>>32154667
He is right, the Soviet army that fought in the Winter War was not the same army that fought the Nazis. Much of the officer corps was purged by Stalin prior, leading to leadership vacuums filled by political cronies and inexperienced junior and mid level officers. The Russian soldier would fight hard, but in a manner that made him an easy target for anyone that was a half decent shot.

It doesn't help that the plan was to use tanks in an environment where they would be limited to the few poorly constructed roads in dense forests. The original idea was to use a deep battle kind of method of hitting the flanks, but in practice it didn't happen. The Soviets were restricted to travel on roads that were surrounded by dense cover. Perfect conditions for a ski patrol to harass and slip away. The Soviets also did not issue their troops the proper winter clothing, because they thought they would overrun Finland in a matter of days. Many casualties were due to frostbite and freezing to death.

TL;DR. Yes, some of it is propaganda, but for the most part the Soviet army wasn't that great during the winter war.

>>32153964
No you NIGGER he said the sight radius is somehow different based on the position of the stock, how does that make any fucking sense

>>32153114
But you're comparing Russias full sized rifle to Americas shorter carbine, ivan.

>>32153964
No you retard.
Keep up.
Sight radius doesn't change at all adjusting the stock.

>>32155042
>But you're comparing Russias full sized rifle to Americas shorter carbine, ivan.


so the fuck what? M4 pattern is the majority among US armed forces now. simply because the M4 with any modern optic is better than the M16 with irons. Yes, the M16 had a longer sigh radius and better sights. No in practise it doesn't really matter. the AK should ahve had a lot of easy upgrades done to it which would not have increased cost (dramatically).

>put rear sight on rear trunnion

File: 1473172929994.jpg (444KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 1024x768px

Because rifle sights that are good on the range are not necessarily good on the battlefeild.

During the project SALVO, SPIW and ACR trials the US Determined the most ideal iron combat sight was a Kalashnikov style sight with the addition of a sight rib.

The M1917 Enfeild/P14 rifle sights are a remnant of a bygone era in which individual marksmanship took precedent over volume of fire, as volume of fire was not generally possible with the existing manual of arms.

When the Soviet Union introduced the Kalashnikov they shattered the small arms norm by creating an infantry doctrine based around supressive fire. The best way to break a formation of troops who's training teaches them.to manuver, then engage with accurate rifle fire? Deny them the ability to ever fire.

Combat is hard. Its difficult to concentrate. Your hands shake. Your breath is uneven and rapid. Targets are not clear, static, and well illuminated like they are on a range. Troops rely on muscle memory, and shooting accurately is difficult.
Ergo, supressive fire is better. It simultaneously places a larger number of shots in a given area while also denying the enemy his ability to engage with properly aimed fire.

Thusly the Kalashnikovs sights were of acceptable design. There is no need for such narrow aperture that forces the eye to focus on such a precise point, sending the soldier to a smart and rigid position and searching desperately for the forward post when the reletivly simple and quick sights of the Kalashnikov allow the shooter to aim and fire a fast salvo of two or three rounds before the other could take up his irons.

In addition, the Kalashnikov was designed with the understanding that most Infantry combat takes place at distances of less than 400m, while the M1917/P14 comes from an era where volley sights graduated themselves to 2800 meters and irons to 1200-2000 in some instances.

They're just different sights for different purposes, doctrine and eras.

>>32155144

I should clarify the point of

>When the Soviet Union introduced the Kalashnikov they shattered the small arms norm by creating an infantry doctrine based around supressive fire.


By this, I mean to say that every Infantryman now had the ability to do so properly. Every Infantry doctrine in WWII was basically based around a base of fire coming from Machine Rifles or Machine Guns. But no one was able to make every man an effective supressive elements. Even the US, with the only standard issue self loading rifle of the war, was unable to create significant volumes of fire on an individual basis. The StG-44 and its earlier bretherine certainly could do this, but of course they never reached significant enough numbers per se. The Kalashnikov, being the worlds first standard issue modern "Assault Rifle", created a point of advantage for the Soviets they could exploit no one else could.

This also is to mention nothing of the already existing traditions of sights used by countries like the US, UK, Russia, Germany and France.

>>32153127
>notch sights being more accurate at long range

Then explain why all olympic and target sights are set up as diopter sights then you fucking sperg

>>32153040
Long radius aperture sights ARE better than short radius notch-and-post sights, but, short radius notch-and-post sights really aren't that much worse. It's like 7.92x33 vs 7.62x39 or .303 vs .308. With the same barrel length and bullet weight, the difference in velocity is perhaps 100 ft/s. Sure, x39 is better than x33 and .308 is better than .303, but it's hardily even worth talking about in terms of performance. I've heard that short radius notch-and-post is better in 'stressful' or 'battle' situations, but I'm dubious on this claim, though my uncle believes the same. Says on moving targets, having a circle obscuring all around your front sight can make things difficult.

>>32153136
400yd might only be about 360m, but that's still a respectable distance. It's not as accurate as an M4A1 or M16A4, but being 'limited' to about 350-400m is nothing to sneeze it. Then when you get the AK-74 however, well, it's on the same level as the M4A1 in terms of accuracy. Of course, AR fanboys would disagree.

>Inaccurate AK meme

File: bf3713cf8cc6418f1d0ddbd76a5c1257.jpg (2MB, 2000x889px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x889px

>>32154520
This.
>>32153486
>>32153296
This.
>>32153272
This also. Most nations in WWI and WWII had short radius notch-and-post sights. To be fair though, SMGs that were capable of having long radius sights seemed to generally have such. Not typically aperture, but still, they seemed to get the rear sight as far back as they could manage I think.

>>32154746
>Implying WWII was won thanks to sight radius

>>32155042
>But you're comparing Russias full sized rifle to Americas shorter carbine, ivan.
but AK are shorter than M4 Carbine
and Russian never called them full sized rifle

>>32153386
the term Avtomat can be translated into automatic carbine

>>32155379
Russia's full sized assault rifle LITERALLY only has about 2" more barrel than America's shorter carbine... but the fact that Russia generally sticks to 16.3" or whatever except for going shorter for carbines and longer for LMGs, seems to suggest that 16.3" is their 'full sized rifle' or at least 'full sized assault rifle'.

File: 12983445_1536974686607573_4857763194328680426_o.jpg (288KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 2048x1536px

>>32155395
>Russia's full sized assault rifle
read this >>32155394
a carbine is a short barrel rifle
AK are carbine, not a full size rifle

>>32153040
The AK was designed to be a more powerful submachine gun, not an automatic marksmans rifle. Soviets didn't care about accuracy as much as the west does, and it was just more convient to mount it above the barrel trunion

>>32155499
>. Soviets didn't care about accuracy as much as the west does
because small arms don't win war

>In Would War II, the United States and its allies expended 25,000 rounds of ammunition to kill a single enemy soldier. In the Korean War, the ammunition expenditure had increased four-fold to 100,000 rounds per soldier; in the Vietnam War, that figure had doubled to 200,000 rounds of ammunition for the death of a single enemy soldier.

>>32155415
Learn something new every day; I thought avtomat meant assault rifle or at least automatic.

>>32155587
http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html
Vintovka is rifle in Russia

>>32153385
asshurt slavaboo detected

cry some more you alcoholic snow-nigger

>>32155144
This point and those tests were all relying on the assumption that your soldiers are minimally trained conscripts. Professional soldiers will get more out of peep sights.

>>32153114
M4 would look pretty aesthetic with a shaved gas block and an AK style front sight post way up at the front.

>>32153062
>Never used iron sights before

>>32153114
Aperture sights shit on those ak tangent sight all day. That is also a carbine length gun with a front sight gas block which is going to be the shortest non-meme sight setup for an AR. It's as if someone compared a micro ak to an m16

>>32153171
A big rear aperture is still way better than shit tier tangent sights

>>32154746
Kek

>>32153342

I lol'd.