If AK-47 sights are so bad, why don't they change them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jordan85

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
221
I was just wondering....

If any of you have been following my other posts, you know that I am currently at quagmire trying to decide whether to go AK or AR with my first rifle. One of the major arguments I keep reading about the AK vs AR debate is that the AR iron sites are better because the sight radius is longer and the ghost ring sites are more user friendly than the open sites.

At the risk of sounding stupid, why don't they just push the sites back further on the receiver and/or change the rear site? It seems like there should be a way to mount them on the receiver for extended site radius.

If there isn't a way, why don't they at least change out the rear site for something better? Surely some aftermarket parts producer would like to cash in on the idk how many thousands/millions of AKs around the world.

I could understand from a traditionalist standpoint wanting that classical look or whatever...but from a functional standpoint it seems like something can be done to improve this: http://www.ak-47.us/223_vs_762x39.php I don't need to shoot rifles for years to tell you which one of those sight pictures is more attractive

Maybe its just b/c I don't have the AK in front of me to look at closer

I know I'm not the first person to think about this, so what gives?
 
why don't they just push the sites back further on the receiver and/or change the rear site? It seems like there should be a way to mount them on the receiver for extended site radius
Click to expand...

The dust/top-cover-mounted rear sights are terrible at keeping zero, that's why nobody uses them.

how many thousands/millions of AKs around the world
Click to expand...

70-100 million. :)


I've been looking at replacement rear sights as well, and it seems that the most effective option would be the Mojo (or Tech Sights, I can't remember who makes them) aperture sight that replaces the rear sight. I'm thinking of putting one on my WASR-10, as the rifle itself seems to be plenty accurate, but the open sights are unforgiving.
 
Because an AK is "rude, crude and functional"

But mostly because it's cheaper to by a mount and a red dot, than to have some new iron sights fitted.
 
You can hit man sized targets with the stock AK sights at 300 yards. Well, the rifle should be capable of that, anyway. These sights weren't designed for target shooting at 600 yards but rapid engagement of humans at ranges from touching to 300 yards. For that purpose they work just fine.

The AK's sight design made transitioning from the Mosin-Nagant and SKS easier when the AK was introduced. The sights are simple and robust, which fit with Kalashnikov's design philosophy.

Peep sights require that they be close to the eye in order to work correctly. Tangent sights actually work better when they are some distance away from your eye. Try aiming with your UNLOADED pistol with the rear sight 2" away from your eye. Not going to work very good, is it? Push the sight a couple of feet away and it works.

I'm not arguing that a longer sight radius is a bad thing, just that the AK performs it's designed task adequately as designed.

The AK versions with longer sight radius like the Galil, R4, Gig 551 use peep sights. Those rifles were designed with peeps in mind.

BSW
 
At the risk of sounding stupid, why don't they just push the sites back further on the receiver and/or change the rear site? It seems like there should be a way to mount them on the receiver for extended site radius.
Click to expand...

That's the approach the Israelis and (if I'm not mistaken) the Finns took with their AK clones/derivatives. Can't speak for the Finnish rifles, but Galils are combat accurate with the sights at the rear of the cover, and somewhat quicker on making hits at ranges where you actually need to get on the sights to make hits. (AK sights will work, as previous posters noted, but my personal experience is that their limitations translate into fewer hits and slower engagement times at the same range compared to iron sights on an AR or other rifle with peep sights.)

The other solution is the Russian style side mount for optics, which let you put a red dot, magnified optic, or whatever on an AK, eliminating any deficiencies in the iron sights.
 
I like the sights since the crossman/daisy BB guns of my youth had them and it was an easy switch when I got my SKS and AK's :)

make the sight flush across and aim center of mass!
 
There are some good options for improving the AK sights. I installed a Mojo MicroClick ghost ring in the rear, and a tritium night sight post in the front. I can now place shots on a 7" steel plate at 300 meters consistently. I also recently installed a fore end quad rail and mounted a scout scope on it. That makes the 300 meter hits even easier to achieve.

Yes, it is true that the stock AK sights pretty much suck. But there are many options out there, and its worth it to me to have the durability and reliability of the AK... even if I have to fork out a few extra bucks to upgrade the sights.
 
Last edited:
I've spent some time with the Finnish Valmet 76 model and can report that the iron sights on the receiver cover are just fine. Excellent, in fact, with only one exception.

The peep is just the right size to optically clear up your target. My nearsighted eyes tend to tire and lose some long-distance acuity regardless of what correction the lenses or contacts is in play.

The flipover night sight design is EXCELLENT and designed for Tritium. I've added long-duration rare earth glow in the dark stuff and it glows super-bright for more than an hour, and more than bright enough for night-acclimated eyes for at least 12 hours (perhaps a bit iffy under a full moon, though).

The only problem I see is that the design does not try to automatically center for windage in the daylight position. The contact surface should be V-shaped on the bottom, but is flat. The intent to use only the hinge to stop the lateral flop is a dud. I tried peening it a bit to more tightly grip the "ladder", but that worked for only about 3 sight adjustment.

You don't have easy click-windage (no clicks at all from the shooter position-it's opposing screws on the front sight) like the Marines prefer. But the fat front sight subtends to about 12 inches or more at 100 yards, and you can train yourself for Kentucky Windage rather easily.

Oh, and the receiver cover fitting more than adequately positions the sight assembly in the same place every time.
 
The AK sight made by Krebs is a very good in-between, when aligned the front sight wings on the AK are completely covered by the rear sight, so the front sight is only for where the bullets go, sort of a like the HK drum sights. I've done some pretty good shooting on moving targets with Krebs sight and highly recommend it.
 
Mojo sights are awesome. It is sort of like an iron red dot. It is out front "scout style" so you just look at the sight blade as you acquire your target and the aperature naturally lines up-fast. I can blow away an empty 12 pack like nobody's business. A 12 pack of diet coke of course.
 
Why bother with the iron sights when you can upgrade to the superior UltiMAK gas tube / Aimpoint Micro optic combo?
 
It is popular to nag about AK sights for some reason, but they are in essense no different from open rifle sights dating back to flintlock days, and still used today on most any rifle that has iron sights. Winchester lever guns, bolt guns, Marlin, you name it. '03 Springfields, the lot. The AR's aperture is more of an anomoly than a standard. It is preceded by the Garand and M-14. Prior to that nearly all battle rifles had open sights with the rear sight on the barrel, forward of the receiver.

When you're bitching about AK sights, you're bitching about the vast majority of rifle sights.

Personally I like the aperture, and I believe the M-16A2 sights to be superior in many ways (sight radius being only part of the equasion) but in reality I have in fact fired my smallest iron sighted groups to date using a Vepr AK with standard AK sights. Now quit yer bitchin' and get out to the range for some practice! :)
 
One of the major arguments I keep reading about the AK vs AR debate is that the AR iron sites are better because the sight radius is longer and the ghost ring sites are more user friendly than the open sites.
Click to expand...

Longer? Since when? The AK's rear sight is farther forward, but so is the front sight. I believe the radiuses are just about even, if you compare a midlength AR to a standard AK.
 
Why bother with the iron sights when you can upgrade to the superior UltiMAK gas tube / Aimpoint Micro optic combo?
Click to expand...

I agree it is a superior approach than iron sights (AK or otherwise, really) . . . but for the price tag it had better be. I'd think there's a market there of people who'd like to tweak sight performance on the weapon but aren't ready to go in for a $500+ solution just yet.
 
Quote:
Why bother with the iron sights when you can upgrade to the superior UltiMAK gas tube / Aimpoint Micro optic combo?

HorseSoldier

I agree it is a superior approach than iron sights (AK or otherwise, really) . . . but for the price tag it had better be.
I'd think there's a market there of people who'd like to tweak sight performance on the weapon but aren't ready to go in for a $500+ solution just yet.
Click to expand...

Price is a factor... I'm currently liquidating un-wanted/un-needed gun stuff to fund superior upgrades and solutions on my AKs and M14s :)

T56SHTF-PKG.jpg
 
Last edited:
It is quicker to get on target with AK sights than a peep sight. I have used them so much that I now prefer them. I can easily break 4" clay pidgeons at 100 yards with the lousy AK sights. I guess practice makes....errrr.......not perfect but........:D........competent..........;)
 
Now quit yer bitchin' and get out to the range for some practice!
Click to expand...

Not bitchin', just wondering. I'm not saying they are good or bad, just wondering if so many ppl think the AK sights are inferior, why haven't they come up with some better site designs over the past 60 years?
 
They do not suck.

They are just different.

I grew up on the russian iron sights. They work fine for me because I've had practice. Same with just about anything else in life.
 
Why bother with the iron sights when you can upgrade to the superior UltiMAK gas tube / Aimpoint Micro optic combo?
Click to expand...
The Ultimak with any of the Aimpoints is really about the bet set up going right now. You also get a red dot that will cowitness with your irons. I've had this set up since the M2/ML2's were state of the art, and still have them, and its been a great, long lived combo. Nothing is faster or easier to shoot well with.

When you're bitching about AK sights, you're bitching about the vast majority of rifle sights.
Click to expand...
This has always amazed me too. There are more rifles floating around with the AK style sights than those with peeps.

It is quicker to get on target with AK sights than a peep sight.
Click to expand...
For a combat sight, especially when used at realistic ranges, the AK's sights are fine and I also find them easier to use quickly.

Going in a direction most would consider backwards, I've actually replaced the stock sights on my rifles with Meprolight three dot night sights. They are a larger square post and notch, which actually reduces their range a little, but whats lost at the lower percentile shots is gained at the higher.
 
I'm with Deer Hunter on this one. Maybe they're just different from what some people are used to.

Prior to this thread I wasn't aware that AK sights sucked...:rolleyes:



Jeffrey
 
They do when your eyesight starts going and you can't see the notch properly anymore
Click to expand...

If you're looking at the notch you're doing it wrong.

If you can't see the front sight, that's another matter. BSW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Decisions
Replies
3
Views
415
Reloadron
Reloadron
BobTheTomato
  • Locked
Question about AK-47
Replies
2
Views
563
Chipperman
C
M
  • Locked
AK ?????????
Replies
4
Views
760
Duke of Doubt
D
E
  • Locked
AR-15 + AK-47 = Sig 556?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
happygeek
H
G
  • Locked
AK sights faster than AR sights?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
FlyinBryan
F
Back
Top