AR and AK sight radius
- Thread starter RT
- Start date
TargetTerror
New member
AR has a peep sight MUCH closer to your face, while the AK has a notch sight halfway to your target. The AR sight picture is hands down the winner (at least for me) - easier to see and more accurate to boot.
It seems to me the distance between is very similar, but the AR is much closer to your eye. Plus the peep is very easy to use, that being said...I havn't done a long shoot with either. Only shoots within 100-150 yds or so. I have to say the AK suprised me on not being as inaccurate as I've been told. however, I enjoyed the AR sights more just because it seemed more user friendly
That's one reason I don't like M4/CAR gas systems on my AR15s.
OTOH, throw a set of Tech Sights on an AK and you have a sight radius that's longer than a rifle length AR15. Add an Ultimak with an Aimpoint and you got something goin' on.
OTOH, throw a set of Tech Sights on an AK and you have a sight radius that's longer than a rifle length AR15. Add an Ultimak with an Aimpoint and you got something goin' on.
I have always disliked that sight setup. On a 16" AR like that you have a ton of barrel hanging out there that could be adding to your sight-radius, but it's not because they went with the short gas system, and the front sight/gas doodad is a part of that.
For me it's more about looks, though. It looks weird, like the semiauto 16" barrel Sterling the guy robbed the liquor store with in Robocop.
But are both ok for their intended purpose of short to medium range shooting, and both can be used at longer ranges if the shooter is up to it. I just prefer my ARs in rifle configuration; I don't clear rooms, I shoot at paper.
For me it's more about looks, though. It looks weird, like the semiauto 16" barrel Sterling the guy robbed the liquor store with in Robocop.
But are both ok for their intended purpose of short to medium range shooting, and both can be used at longer ranges if the shooter is up to it. I just prefer my ARs in rifle configuration; I don't clear rooms, I shoot at paper.
bamaranger
New member
Well now........
The side x side pic is most interesting. I did not realize that the radius's were so similar. Usually, when irons v. peeps are discussed, the peep gets a mechanical/geometric advantage because the radius (length) of the sight radius is increased. Not so in the pic comparison. Still, the aperture on the AR/M4 wins hands down on ease of use.
When understood, and used correctly, any aperture/peep is superior to the std leaf and blade iron sights, given equal visibility of each, because one of the focal planes ( or elements) involved in the sight picture is eliminated.
To correctly use a std leaf/blade, the eye (and shooter) must juggle images of the target, the front post, and the rear aperature. Correctly of course, one's focus is on the front sight, and the target and rear blur, BUT...all three elements must be kept in relation to one another.
With a peep, one of these elements is eliminated. The peep is looked "through" not "at", the eye naturally centers the front post, which is kept in focus, and the post is "applied" against the target. Two sight elements instead of three.
In my heady youth, I had no trouble shooting well with peep or irons. Now, I have run smack into "fifty something" and cannot easily juggle the three item sight picture of irons, and actually prefer a peep for that reason. The bad news is, it's only going to get worse.
With a handgun, I can hyper extend my arms and get a usable sight picture, or I can get longer barreled handguns. (or glasses, I suppose). Optics, as in scopes are another option.
On a short carbine, I'm stuck, particularly the mid sighted AK and AR's.
The side x side pic is most interesting. I did not realize that the radius's were so similar. Usually, when irons v. peeps are discussed, the peep gets a mechanical/geometric advantage because the radius (length) of the sight radius is increased. Not so in the pic comparison. Still, the aperture on the AR/M4 wins hands down on ease of use.
When understood, and used correctly, any aperture/peep is superior to the std leaf and blade iron sights, given equal visibility of each, because one of the focal planes ( or elements) involved in the sight picture is eliminated.
To correctly use a std leaf/blade, the eye (and shooter) must juggle images of the target, the front post, and the rear aperature. Correctly of course, one's focus is on the front sight, and the target and rear blur, BUT...all three elements must be kept in relation to one another.
With a peep, one of these elements is eliminated. The peep is looked "through" not "at", the eye naturally centers the front post, which is kept in focus, and the post is "applied" against the target. Two sight elements instead of three.
In my heady youth, I had no trouble shooting well with peep or irons. Now, I have run smack into "fifty something" and cannot easily juggle the three item sight picture of irons, and actually prefer a peep for that reason. The bad news is, it's only going to get worse.
With a handgun, I can hyper extend my arms and get a usable sight picture, or I can get longer barreled handguns. (or glasses, I suppose). Optics, as in scopes are another option.
On a short carbine, I'm stuck, particularly the mid sighted AK and AR's.