AR-15 NM Sights vs. A2 Standard Sights


PDA






ArmedBear
March 25, 2008, 09:58 AM
Can anyone describe the difference between NM apertures and front sight posts, and standard A2 sights?

My only real point of reference is a gun with the A2's. They're okay, but I could certainly imagine improvements.

I'm thinking about ordering NM sights for a different build, but I don't know for sure whether I want them, since I don't know exactly how they're different.

Is there a ghost-ring aperture, or are they both really small?

How is the post different from an A2 post?

Are they as useful as the A2's for all-purpose use (plinking, shorter range torso targets, etc.), or are they really just good for longer-range target shooting?

Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15 NM Sights vs. A2 Standard Sights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
30Cal
March 25, 2008, 10:24 AM
Post is typically skinnier and the rear sight will be 1/2x1/2 or 1/4x1/4 MoA adjustments. The aperature is usually quite a bit smaller than the normal USGI one.

They're intended for full-daylight conditions, shooting at a big black circle.

Trebor
March 25, 2008, 11:38 AM
Unless you shoot NRA Service Rifle competition, you don't need the finer adjustments of the NM sights.

Like 30Cal said, they are designed for a specific purpose and aren't really "general purpose" sights.

30Cal
March 25, 2008, 11:59 AM
If I was going to put them on a plain A2 upper, I'd go with 1/2x1/2's and get one with a standard GI sized aperture.

ArmedBear
March 25, 2008, 12:00 PM
Thank you!

Sounds like I sure don't want them for this build, which I want to put together for indoor-range use (.22LR dedicated upper).

The only question remaining, then, is do I get an A2 upper, or spend more to have a flattop with a rear sight. It seems that there's always another way to spend more money on an AR, but it doesn't necessarily translate to added value... :)

taliv
March 25, 2008, 12:21 PM
AB, i'd take the NM sights any time I'm shooting from a bench or for any type of bullseye competition, even indoors or close range. I'd take the regular sights any time I need faster sight pictures (because it has a much larger aperture)

ArmedBear
March 25, 2008, 12:25 PM
Hmmm...

Any point in using a NM front sight post on a carbine, instead of the standard, just so it doesn't appear too large?

The standard post looks pretty big on my 20", though I was able to do well shooting casual offhand bullseye competition, using the small aperture at 30 yards.

taliv
March 25, 2008, 12:48 PM
dunno, but you can get front sight posts in varying widths from at least .050 to .100 (with .070 and .080 being a popular middle widths)

i'm not sure any of them are designated "NM", but i could be wrong on that. personally, i just went with the standard for lack of a compelling reason to do otherwise

Onmilo
March 25, 2008, 11:23 PM
For a dedicated .22LR upper, I would recommend a .050" round post 'National Match' front sight post.
Plenty of side clearance for shooting rimfire dedicated targets to 100 meters, indoors or out.

You could install a 1/4 MOA NM rear sight assembly for fine tuning to the targets.
NM rear sights are far less likely to wander than the standard A2 set-up.
Not too important on a combat rifle, very important on a .22LR target shooting rifle.
If the apetures are too small for your tastes, you can enlarge them using wire guage drills and a hand held chuck type pin holder.

Eightball
March 25, 2008, 11:45 PM
IIRC, NM sights are standardized around a 20" .223 for gradation and distance purposes. Not sure it would be worth it on the .22LR upper bit, and it would not be the best of ideas for a carbine, IMO. Don't quote me on things, though.

asknight
March 26, 2008, 02:24 AM
Any point in using a NM front sight post on a carbine, instead of the standard, just so it doesn't appear too large?

That's precisely what I did on a 20" A2. I believe it was a 0.040" post. It allowed my longer distance groups to noticeably decrease since the post obscured less of the bullseye.

ArmedBear
March 26, 2008, 01:25 PM
Aw hell, I just ordered the thing with standard A2 parts, because there are all sorts of neat-o options out there, but I will need to do some testing and measurement before I spend more money. It's hard to even decide what I want, just by guessing wildly.

Like asknight, my issue with the A2 sights is not so much that I can't center them reliably, especially in the standard small aperture. The big square post obscuring the bullseye, especially since I have a bit of astigmatism in my right eye, is a bigger deal.

So, I'm thinking about looking at sight posts from these guys: http://knsprecisioninc.com/

However, I can do that later anyway, since these are strictly aftermarket bits, and they have so damned many options, I'll have to shoot the gun before I can decide. :)

http://www.model1sales.com/images/frnsightkns.gif

Thanks, all!

If you enjoyed reading about "AR-15 NM Sights vs. A2 Standard Sights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!