Why Are AK47 Sights Placed So Far Forward?

[David the Gnome]

I just want to start off by saying that I am not questioning the genius of Mikhail Kalashnikov, I have just always wondered about the sight placement on AK47's.

All of the reference images below are public domain images from Wikipedia.

What I have always wondered is, why is the rear sight mounted so far forward on the receiver? In handguns we always talk about getting the longest sight radius possible to shoot more accurately and when we look at the other rifles of the WWII-era we see a similar philosophy used in them. The US Garand and the British Lee-Enfield have the rear sight mounted as far from the front sight as they can comfortably place them:

So what was the logic in the forward mounted rear sight? Was it just the only cost effective place to put it? Did it serve some other function I don't know about it? Please educate me.

 

[smince]

Because the rear cover isn't stable enough (in most cases) to mount a sight (or scope) on and still maintain a good zero.

If the cover was fastened down in some way other than spring pressure, then it is perhaps doable, but you loose quick field-strip capability. And there is the possibility of having to re-zero every time it is cleaned.

FWIW, they work fine for the 'minute-of-man' they are designed for. With a good rifle and good ammo the AK is till capable of pretty good accruacy despite the naysayers on the 'net.

 

[jhenry]

Because that is as far back as the rear sight can be mounted on that rifle and maintain a zero. The portion of the AK that is to the rear of the rear sight is a receiver cover, or dust cover, which is a stamped piece of steel. It is removed every time you take down the rifle for cleaning. It is not suitable for the mounting of sights. You will notice that the Mauser you show also has the rear sight mounted just as far, if not farther, forward than the AK. The receiver on the Mauser is good and solid, but the design of the bridge does not allow a rear sight to be mounted in the same fashion as the M1 or the Lee Enfield. You do have a greater sight radius with the Mauser than with the AK due to the longer barrel.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

intended usage+design

I believe it's due to intended usage(hitting man sized target at 200 yards or under) coupled with design/implementation(easy to clean/open dustpan/receiver cover).

For that purpose(not hitting bullseye on paper at 100/200/300/etc. yards), it's more than adequate.

However, modern design trend is to incorporate a full length flattop picatinny rail so desired optics/steel sight can be mounted as desired.

E.g., Polish Beryl

 

[SR420]

As mentioned, the flimsy top cover is not suitable for iron sights or optics.
The original AK iron sights are in the best location available.

The original iron sights become B.U.I.S. once you install an UltiMAK gas tube rail and an Aimpoint.

 

[Willie Lowman]

So what is done differently in the design of the Galil?

Isn't it's sight mounted on the top cover and held in place by the tail of the recoil spring guide rod.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Galil

on Beryl/Galil/etc., dust pan cover/rail is latched on front end.

 

[AK103K]

E.g., Polish Beryl

Ouch! That thing looks like it would be painful to lug around and shoot.


I never could figure out all the complaints about the AK's sights. They work fine for their intended use. I just figured it was from people who for the most part, just shoot bullseye targets off a bench down at the club, and think that type shooting is what its all about, and how everyone shoots.

When you shoot the gun in a more realistic manner, they work very well, and in some cases, like up close and fast shooting, I think they are actually the better choice over in your face rear mounted peeps.

These days, as with most other things, a good red dot basically puts the iron sights into the back up/reserve position anyway, so the whole point is pretty much moot.

Keeping the gun as close as possible to "issue" is usually the best bet too, and things like shown in that pic above usually arent as "cool" once you try to actually run around and use it.

 

[tirod]

The length of the sight radius makes for a more accurate weapon. If you could put the front sight on a 100 yard stick, it would be great. Almost impossible to miss, which is what a projected laser does. Even with trajectory and windage, it does better.

Since the designer simply didn't use a long sight radius, it won't be that accurate, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Add a red dot, or a long eye relief pistol scope, it should tighten up.

The long arm pics are nice, but the reality is many older bolt guns had a sight mounted forward on the chamber, too. With 24"+ barrels, the overall length worked. I think Kalashnikov accepted the compromise considering the rear cover and reduced power of the 7.62x39.

Sometimes genius is picking the right assortment of what is important. A long sight radius on the AK doesn't jive with the ballistics on a minute of soldier shooter.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I just want to start off by saying that I am not questioning the genius of Mikhail Kalashnikov, I have just always wondered about the sight placement on AK47's.

You should question the genius of Kalashnikov, since this aspect of the design is workable but by no means inspired brilliance.

What I have always wondered is, why is the rear sight mounted so far forward on the receiver? In handguns we always talk about getting the longest sight radius possible to shoot more accurately and when we look at the other rifles of the WWII-era we see a similar philosophy used in them. The US Garand, the British Lee-Enfield, and even the German K98 all have the rear sight mounted as far from the front sight as they can comfortably place them:

Why would you mention WW2 weapons and not look at the Mosin-Nagant rifle that preceded the AK in service? The sight placement on the AK is identical to that of the M-N service rifles. Mystery solved -- the sights are where they are because that's where they'd been on Russian service rifles for 60 years.

 

[JohnKSa]

There's another factor at work here. If the designer chooses to go with open rear sights as opposed to an aperture rear sight, the rear sight can't be close to the eye.

In an aperture rear sight, the rear sight can be very close to the eye because there's no need for the eye to be able to see the rear sight. You just have to be able to look through the aperture. In open sights, the eye needs to be able to see the rear sight in at least some detail to line it up with the front sight properly and for that to happen, it needs to be several inches from the eye.

 

[HorseSoldier]

on Beryl/Galil/etc., dust pan cover/rail is latched on front end.

No it's not. The Galil top cover comes off same as any other AK. It's a bit more of a pain to rehang it, because the button holding it in place is much longer than other AK designs but that's about the only difference.

On the Beryl the rail is latched, but the rail and the dust cover are two separate units.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post

thanks for the correction regarding Galil.

BTW, besides longer button holding it in place, I believe the top cover on Galil is reinforced for much tighter fit.

Quote:
on Beryl/Galil/etc., dust pan cover/rail is latched on front end.
No it's not. The Galil top cover comes off same as any other AK. It's a bit more of a pain to rehang it, because the button holding it in place is much longer than other AK designs but that's about the only difference.

On the Beryl the rail is latched, but the rail and the dust cover are two separate units.

 

[David the Gnome]

There's another factor at work here. If the designer chooses to go with open rear sights as opposed to an aperture rear sight, the rear sight can't be close to the eye.

In an aperture rear sight, the rear sight can be very close to the eye because there's no need for the eye to be able to see the rear sight. You just have to be able to look through the aperture. In open sights, the eye needs to be able to see the rear sight in at least some detail to line it up with the front sight properly and for that to happen, it needs to be several inches from the eye.

Thank you John, that makes the most sense I think. Looking at the Mosin and the K98 both of them have the same aperture rear sight. It makes a lot of sense to do it that way with that sight.

 

[Willie D]

Because the Russians were cheap and looking to save a few Kopecs at the expense of a few soldiers.

Galil

Vektor R4

Valmet

Maybe the Russians figured it would be easier to stick with sights their soldiers had already used.

Anyway it's just another one of those things could be easily remedied that makes people poo poo the AK.

 

[RT]

 

[AK103K]

Now dont go start throwing "facts" into the argument!

 

[Dfariswheel]

The reason the AK rear sight is there is because that's were European and most other countries rifles had the rear sights since they started putting sights on guns.

America used the same barrel mounted sights up until the M1 Rifle, with the only exception being the American Model 1917 rifle which was just the British P14 as made and chambered for us. The Springfield 1903 used a barrel mounted open sight.
As late as WWII almost all foreign rifles still used the barrel mounted open sight. Among others was the first assault rifle, the German MP/Stg 44.

The receiver aperture type rear sight didn't really start to become common on military rifles until the post-war days, and most civilian sporting rifles that have iron sights STILL use barrel mounted open sights.

 

[GM1967]

RT,

That's a good comparison and eye-opener, but I think your comparing apples and oranges. Show a full length M-16 rather than a carbine, and see how the sight radius compares

 

[HorseSoldier]

Also peep sights are faster and easier to use than open sights, so it's further an apples and oranges thing.