AK sights faster than AR sights?

[jehicks87]

Buddy, you're really reaching for straws to try to make your original comments valid. Anyone who read the actual post rather than JUST the thread title would know that it was a rhetorical question. You need to read the actual post rather than just the title. It was a rhetorical question. If you read my actual post you would see that.

Quote:
AK sights faster than AR sights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A member here (Shawn Dodson) recently commented that AK sights are faster than AR sights. I just don't see it.

I have found AR sights to not only be faster but MUCH easier to aim at speed. Really I don't even try to align the front sight with the rear, it happens naturally as I bring the rifle up to my shoulder. The auntique sights on the AK are another matter....

In fact, I can't stand AK sights after using an AR.
Note how in the actual post I stated that a member here stated that AK sights are faster than AR sights and I said that I just don't see it. I wasn't asking for an opinion in any way shape or form. Really dude, read the WHOLE post before you comment. It helps.

Here is what a rhetorical question is since you don't know.

No, not reaching for straws, just walking you through (logically) the thought process that I, and I would venture to say many others in this thread, use when faced with a topic like this, with a title such as yours.

I did read your OP. Remember? I even quoted some of it in my second post. Go back, if you want. I'll wait.











See? Good.

The very thing about this argument is it will never have any end, nor will there ever be a consensus reached because it is purely opinion-based, and is unable to be proven one way or another. Unless you're going off of the definition of truth that states, "Something known to exist or have happened," in which case that FACT of the matter is, for some people AR sights are faster. For others, AK sights are faster. But that doesn't provide proof of the quality that is required to say something is actually this way or that. Why? Because you have to prove it to be consistent in a controlled environ where the ONLY variable is the subject in question.

And thanks for the link, but I'm well acquainted with the English language. I still haven't perfected it, but I get by.

At this point, it's splitting hairs. They are both very usable and quick-to-target sights, that's why we still have both types. Get over it.

:::Edited for accuracy. In my original response, I said I quoted you in my original post. That was wrong, it was the second.:::

 

[ritepath]

I'll stick with my 4-12x50 on the hunting ar, and the red dot on my plinking AR.





I do have my BUS cowitness with my red dot.

 

[jehicks87]

Nonsense. This tells me you're shooting with one eye closed which is a no-no. When one uses an aperture sight they shouldn't even be aware of the rear sight. It's just a fuzzy orb that bscures nothing...except of course in the case of extremely small spertures such as those used in competitive shooting. That's why it's fact, not an opinion, that aperture sights are faster.
I'll say it again, shooting with an open or tangent sight requires one to mentally deal with three objects; the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. To shoot accurately eith open sights, the shooter must align the front sight in the notch of the rear sight, then maintain that sight picture while placing the front sight on the target.
With aperture sights, the shooter should not even be aware of the aperture. Correctly utilized, the shooter looks through the the aperture and places the front sight on the target. It's that simple.
In my experience, the only advantage open sights have over aperture sights is that it's much more easy to "hold over" when shooting at targets that are further than the range at which the rifle is sighted in.

Whelen, while I respect you opinions, you just can't state them as fact. You can say that your logic is sound, and it is. The problem comes with implementation. In reality, one must still "deal" with the rear aperture in order to get a consistent sight picture. That's why there's a rear sight in the first place. Three points will always be on a plane. When dealing with the sights of a firearm, you have to ensure the the three "points" you want are on the same plane (rear sight, front sight, target.) Though, really, you're third point is your eye. The only purpose a rear sight serves is to ensure your eye is in the same position each and every time.

To say that pulling the rifle up and simply looking through the rear aperture without ensuring the sight picture is the same, is the same as simply saying you have to line up the end of the barrel with your target. Coincidentally, that is what you are supposed to do for close-range targets, and that is why I give the nod to the AR-style sight system for closer work for the average shooter. Past that though, and I still feel leaf sights are more comfortable and faster... for me. I also think that is why we still have them around.

Just because the military adopted a certain sight does not make it superior. It just happens to be the style of sight on a weapon the military judged best suited its needs. Trust me, procurement of gear for GI's sucks. One only has to look at our current ACU's to know that the whole mantra of "if the military uses it, it's got to be the best" is severely flawed.

And not because of you, but this is going to be my last post in this thread.

 

[35 Whelen]

Whelen, while I respect you opinions, you just can't state them as fact.

I can, and do state them as fact. Not my facts, but facts. You see, I shoot High Power competitively and I learned long ago, as does any competitor with a reasonable success, that the shooter should not be aware of the aperture. There's nothing to line up. Period. Your brain does it without you even knowing it. In fact one of my mentors instructed me to focus on the front sight which made me totally unaware of the aperture and made the 6" bullseye (at 100 yds.) look like a piece of lint, but it worked.
My father once related to me that when he was in basic training back in the '50's, he was having a difficult time shooting accurately with any consistency with his issue Garand. His instructor told him to ignore the rear sight. He did so and his problem went away.

To say that pulling the rifle up and simply looking through the rear aperture without ensuring the sight picture is the same, is the same as simply saying you have to line up the end of the barrel with your target.

Consistent sight picture is of the utmost importance but is not achieved by "lining up" with an aperture. Consistent sight picture is achieved with consistent cheek weld. In other words, having your cheek at the exact same place on the stock every shot. Another one of those little tidbits I learned in competition.

Lest ye don't believe me, ask the guys at this site:
http://www.usrifleteams.com/forums/index.php?act=idx

They're all High Power competitors and they use aperture sights to shoot teeny groups. Maybe you'll believe them.

35W

 

[FlyinBryan]

he's right. aperture sight are pretty much superior in every way.

shawn dodson's suggestion is pretty much just an echo of what the best riflemen on the planet, (and women, sherri gallagher) have known for literally decades.