AK vs AR sight radius

File: akmpso.jpg (37KB, 650x421px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 650x421px

>>32368253

this is almost a troll-bad post we've covered this.

the best sight for combat is the ak the best sight for target shooting is a big sight radius the best rifle for combat is not the best one for target shooting. Also there probably is a human physical limitation on the most practical sight radius if you were to survey rifle's made in the 20th and 21st century with iron sights.

totally derpypost. let me edit this


the best sight for combat is the ak but the best sight for target shooting often gauged with a big sight radius.
The best rifle for combat is not the best one for target shooting-look into that separately. Also there probably is a human physical limitation on the most practical sight radius if you were to survey rifle's made in the 20th and 21st century with iron sights.

File: red-light-against-the-tide.jpg (208KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1000x1500px

>>32368813
Lemme guess, english isnt your first language?

>>32368869
He's probably american

>>32368238
You can crush the AK sight radius with a dissipator style sight setup or simply using a rail and rail mounted front sight

Also aperture sights are better

>>32368779
>>32368813
No fucking stop with this meme, tangent sights are trash
You can do better with aperture sights this is literally why there are different aperture sizes

>>32368238
OP here. I was simply pointing out that the difference in sight radius between AK and AR isn't all that big. It DOES favour the AR design a LITTLE, but unless you have rails so as to get the most radius possible, there's not much difference. In my mind, I always thought there was a big difference, but with the standard AR/M4/M16 front sight there's just not a whole lot of advantage in terms of radius.

As for aperture vs notch-and-post, I personally prefer aperture sights typically, however it's obvious that good ol' tangent sights won't steer you wrong. Sure, not QUITE as 'precise', but people have taken notch-and-post/tangent style sights out to 900-1000m before, so there's not THAT much advantage gained in having aperture vs tangent, or in having a few inches longer radius. SOME advantage, but not necessarily worth writing home about. All in all, both sights have proven themselves time and time again over the decades/centuries. I'm just surprised that the difference in sight radius between a typical AK and a stanard M4/M4A1/14.5" AR-15, is minimal to none. In my mind, it's always been quite long-radius sights, and am surprised to only just now be finding out that it's just about the same. Of course, the M16 design, or an AR with a 20"+ barrel, will have a CLEAR advantage in sight radius as well as in quality of irons (in my opinion).

Still, some people prefer tangent, so to each their own. Even my uncle who has been hunting for decades finds that he prefers tangent sights rather than aperture, unless it's on a stationary target. He has a tendency to try and shoot the animal, even if it's trying to run away. I don't think that's very smart, but again, to each their own.

>>32368238
A longer sight radius isn't necessarily better.

Kyle Defoor had a pretty interesting blog piece he put together over a year on shooting just irons and finding the sweet spot for quickness of picking the irons up and accuracy.
Interesting read if you want to dig a couple years back through his blog.
Also showed that irons can be as quick as red dots and have other benefits if you really train.

>>32370545
I don't know who Kyle Defoor is, but I think I'd probably like him. For years I've not had any belief in red dots having any real advantage over irons. Not unless you don't train at all. Mall ninjas will disagree, and be all "muh target shooters!" In the end however, it all comes down to training or lack there-of. It's just like the issue of optics vs irons. If you can see the target with the naked eye just fine, then you should be able to hit it just as well with irons as you can with optics. There's no 'magic' in optics that makes the action stronger, the rifling sharper, or any bullshit like that. It magnifies the target and gives 'two things to look at instead of three'. Anyone who relies on technology rather than their own skill are looking to get caught with their pants down.

>>32370659
>I don't know who Kyle Defoor
He's an ex DEVGRU guy who was lead instructor for blackwater, now he teaches carbine/pistol/etc. classes. He's pretty legit, always advocating what works and what he tests, not a big geardo.
> red dots having any real advantage over irons.
He taught his classes for a year just irons and his conclusion was that the red dot really is most useful in low light where irons don't pick up or when shooting from awkward positions that prevent a proper cheekweld. Aside from that, if you really do train, there wasn't much difference at all and in fact at distance irons seemed to be more accurate.
He seems to think the king of optics are 1-4x scopes as that's what he almost always uses and advocates though.

>>32368869
Give him a break, that means he knows at least one other language.

...regardless of what he was trying to say,

>>32368238
Basically every American gets an optic, irons are almost vestigial except for the guys who like to pretend it's still 1980 and ACOGs/Aimpoints aren't reliable enough to be a primary sighting system.

Basically, who cares?

And just to make sure everyone gets pissy:
There isn't that much practical difference between the AR and the AK. They're both adequate rifles for virtually everything anyone will ever need a rifle to do.

>>32370713
Sounds about right to me. 3-4x is a great amount of magnification. 5x and stronger is getting pretty excessive in my opinion unless the target is out at around 200m+ and even then you really can't have any trouble knowing precisely WHERE that target is. Once you're getting to 8x magnification and higher, surely that's either for just stationary target shooting or engaging at 300m or more. For something extreme like 14x magnification, I can only imagine. Surely that's meant for use on anti-tank/anti-material/.338 LapMag rifles so you can reach out to something like 600m+ with high degrees of accuracy. With 14x magnification, fuck aiming for the eye; within 200m you could probably aim for the fucking pupil! I genuinely can't imagine what 14x magnification looks like. Must be almost impossible to see anything through unless you have the rifle rested.