Why Are AK47 Sights Placed So Far Forward?

[Mike Irwin]

"Why would you mention WW2 weapons and not look at the Mosin-Nagant rifle that preceded the AK in service?"

Why would you look at only Moisin-Nagant rifles and not the Soviet PPSh, PPD, or the PPS, all of which had the sighs behind the action port?

As a member of Soviet armor, it's likely that Kalishnakov had far more experience with one of the three Soviet submachine guns during his time in active service than with any of the various rifles.

I think those who say the sight is mounted ahead of the action port are correct...

In the AK's I've examined, both Soviet (East German, actually) full auto and various semi-auto knockoffs, the receiver cover is VERY light. It's more akin to a dust cover, and simply isn't a suitable location for mounting sights.

 

[AK103K]

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

Not necessarily. Peeps are not perfect, and have their own issues, like low light, and bright light coming in low over the shoulder onto the back of the rear sight.

In some cases, the leaf type sights are easier and faster to use, especially when the are up close and happening fast. H&K understood this with the design of the G3's sights, although most Americans dont seem to get that, or understand their use. Most want use one of the apertures over the big "combat" notch and front globe.

 

[HorseSoldier]

As a member of Soviet armor, it's likely that Kalishnakov had far more experience with one of the three Soviet submachine guns during his time in active service than with any of the various rifles.

It's likely no one asked Kalashnikov where he thought the sights should go in the first place -- people tend to forget that the AK-47 in production form was not purely his creation by any stretch of the imagination.

Sights in the same place as the Mosin-Nagant was probably a requirement to speed transition training for troops already trained to operate rifles. The fact that the SKS has identical sight placement suggests it was a requirement for military service rifles built around 7.62x39 in the 40s and early 50s.

Edit to add -- Looking at pictures of the designs the AK competed against prior to it being adopted, and all of them using conventional layout have open sights at about the same place as on the AK. This again seems to indicate that while the Soviet authorities were keen on an intermediate power assault rifle design they weren't interested in sights that deviated from the pattern found on the Mosin-Nagant.

The only odd duck in the mix I've seen pictures of is the Prilutsky bullpup, where the sights may have been closer to the shooter's face, though the weapon has such a long LOP it's hard to tell without seeing someone holding the thing.

 

[bamaranger]

AKSU sights.....rearward

Just to muddy the water, its my understanding that the sights on the AKSU the Krinkov, are rearward and the front of the dust cover is hinged to create a more stable base.

The standard AK sights are precise enough to loose a burst at a man sized target, the intent of the design, I'd think.

Thought about an Ultimak, or a set of Big Dots, for on my AK variant.

 

[AK103K]

The standard AK sights are precise enough to loose a burst at a man sized target...

Theyre also precise enough to make good hits on demand, on man sized targets at 300M too, if you can shoot.

Its a wonderment to me that its always the guns fault when people cant shoot it. The usual result is, the sights suck, the stocks to short, the controls are wrong, etc, etc. It seems its never considered or possible, that it might be them.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Remington Model 8 influence+limited time factor+functionality

Kalashnikov was familiar with Soviet SMG, as well as US M1 Garand, and also, a host of whole other variety of weapons(he had designed/tested other weapons, such as unsuccessful SMG in other trials).

AK-47's dustpan cover/safety was supposedly influenced by Remington Model 8. Remington Model 8 also had forward sight.

Remington Model 8

When Kalashnikov was designing/prototyping his AK-47, he was under severe time constraint with his design team. I suspect that time constraint, along with Model 8 influence, and the fact that forward V-notch sight was functionally adequate, probably contributed to AK-47 V-notch rear sight being placed so far forward, instead of like on M1 Garand.

My understanding is that Mr. Kalashnikov was very familiar with receiver mounted peep sight in US design such as M1 Garand, besides familiarity with German StG-44 and other new entrants into the small arms market during that time.

Today, besides the examples found on enhanced AK derivatives such as Valmet, Galil, Beryl, etc., there are simple aftermarket solution to fix this, such as Tech-Sight, TWS rail system, etc.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Sights in the same place as the Mosin-Nagant was probably a requirement to speed transition training for troops already trained to operate rifles. The fact that the SKS has identical sight placement suggests it was a requirement for military service rifles built around 7.62x39 in the 40s and early 50s."

In the 1940s and early 1950s it seems that roughly half the Soviet army was still armed with PPSh submachine guns, which weren't fully withdrawn from Soviet service until the middle 1950s when enough AKs came online to rearm all elements of the Soviet military.

Placement of the sights could very well have been one of the basic design requirements laid out by the Soviet military hierarchy. It would really be fascinating if those documents were ever unclassified by the Russian government, but in reading C. J. Chiver's "The Gun," his experiences in trying to collect primary Soviet/Russian documentation makes it appear as if that is going to be very unlikely.

As someone else mentioned, Kalishnakov also was very familiar with foreign military designs, so he would have seen the placement of sights on the Garand, M1 Carbine, Lee-Enfield Mk. 4, and others (as would have the other designers in the competition).

I can't help but think that most of them were astute enough to recognize that pushing the sights as far back on the receiver as possible is, in virtually all cases, a good thing, and that not doing so was dictated more by the design of the gun than by top-level design requirements.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Mike Irwin, re: post SKS

I believe SKS was tested in an earlier, separate trial, different from the one in which AK-47 was tested on. Kalashnikov competed in that trial with a carbine that was strongly influenced by M1 Garand, but he lost.

Later, Kalashnikov apparently borrowed design elements from M1 Garand/M1 carbine(trigger/double locking lugs/unlocking raceway), Stg-44, Remington Model 8(dustpan cover/safety), etc. in designing AK-47 and this time, he, along with his design team, won.

FWIW, the Soviet's small arms selection process during that time period was:

1. very, very competitive
2. not limited by patent laws, like we are familiar with in the West
3. pragmatic: Soviets realized that AK-47 is not perfect, that better is the enemy of the good, and decided to go with what was then, at the time(1940s), was the best practical solution for them.

"Sights in the same place as the Mosin-Nagant was probably a requirement to speed transition training for troops already trained to operate rifles. The fact that the SKS has identical sight placement suggests it was a requirement for military service rifles built around 7.62x39 in the 40s and early 50s."

In the 1940s and early 1950s it seems that roughly half the Soviet army was still armed with PPSh submachine guns, which weren't fully withdrawn from Soviet service until the middle 1950s when enough AKs came online to rearm all elements of the Soviet military.

Placement of the sights could very well have been one of the basic design requirements laid out by the Soviet military hierarchy. It would really be fascinating if those documents were ever unclassified by the Russian government, but in reading C. J. Chiver's "The Gun," his experiences in trying to collect primary Soviet/Russian documentation makes it appear as if that is going to be very unlikely.

As someone else mentioned, Kalishnakov also was very familiar with foreign military designs, so he would have seen the placement of sights on the Garand, M1 Carbine, Lee-Enfield Mk. 4, and others (as would have the other designers in the competition).

I can't help but think that most of them were astute enough to recognize that pushing the sights as far back on the receiver as possible is, in virtually all cases, a good thing, and that not doing so was dictated more by the design of the gun than by top-level design requirements.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

by the way, Russians at the time

was WAY AHEAD of the West.

Lot of the people back then, like today, doesn't under Pareto Principle(80/20) rule, and focused on long range shooting, when most engagements were at 200 yards and under.

That's why, during post-WWII, when West adopted FNFAL/M-14/etc. in 7.62 NATO, the Russians correctly went with intermediate round which allowed controllability at expense of reduced range.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

BTW, back then, like today

there was very strong bias from target shooting crowd.

It's part of the reason why StG-44 and AK-47 was so revolutionary(at the time), and why US adopted 7.62 NATO/M-14 due to strong bias for target shooting/long range shooting within US military.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

AK103K, re: post

I believe original AK-47 design is outdated and when people/nations can afford to, they go to flattop picatinny type design with optic, preferably, RDO, such as Beryl.

Check military budget of China, Russia, and US. US spends something like next 20 nations combined or MORE (50% of ENTIRE WORLD'S MILITARY SPENDING, dwarfing China/Russia/etc.'s military spending).

Russia is facing severe economic crunching, and their military budget is less than that of China.

But if you think China spends a lot, it's nothing, compared to US, but even China didn't stay with AK-47 or go to gas impingement system like M16/M4. Instead, they developed QBZ gas piston bullpup platform with option for optic.

FWIW, DOD pays lot of money for M4. If you check the price gov. pays for M4, most people would be surprised.

Quote:
The standard AK sights are precise enough to loose a burst at a man sized target...
Theyre also precise enough to make good hits on demand, on man sized targets at 300M too, if you can shoot.

Its a wonderment to me that its always the guns fault when people cant shoot it. The usual result is, the sights suck, the stocks to short, the controls are wrong, etc, etc. It seems its never considered or possible, that it might be them.

 

[AK103K]

there was very strong bias from target shooting crowd.

I think thats always carried over to this day.

Most people who argue "accuracy" in these type threads, are "target" shooters, and seem to have a very different idea as to what accuracy is and should be and how you achieve it.

Most of it is apples to oranges, and those who claim to shoot one holers or sub MOA groups with their favorite gun, rarely ever do it on demand when you ask them to show you at the range while there telling you about it. I wont even try to describe the look you get, when you tell them, NO, you have to do it from a field position too, not off the bench.

 

[AK103K]

I believe original AK-47 design is outdated and when people/nations can afford to, they go to flattop picatinny type design with optic, preferably, RDO, such as Beryl.

Theres no doubt there are better choices, but the discussion here is, the AK's sights, and whether or not they are viable, which I believe they are. They work fine, if you are capable. They are not "target" guns or sights, nor are they trying to be, but you need to know whats reasonably acceptable accuracy, and whats unrealistic too. A good "hit" is a good hit, even if its not part of a tight little group.

I have a number of AK's, and a couple of them have an Aimpoint/Ultimak on them. These guns will keep up with my AR's so equipped with no troubles at all, and the hits on target, and most ranges, are very similar with both.

 

[gyvel]

Barrel mounted sights are generally quicker for target acquisition under very high stress situations such as heated battle.

 

[Webleymkv]

I have a feeling that the open-notch rear sight is probably cheaper to make than an apeture rear sight. The Soviets being the Soviets, the design that is cheaper to make and still good enough is the one that will get picked.

 

[HiBC]

Long ago I worked with a machinist who was also a buckskinner /rendevous type.If you have ever been to one of those events,you know some of those guys can really shoot.
This gentleman inspired me to build a rifle,and here is how he taught me to place the open sights.
You can place or double stick tape the front sight on,and then mount the rifle to your shoulder.
(Right hander) Hold the rear sight between the thumb and middle finger of the left hand as you hold the forend.
Sight on a target and move the rear sight forward and backward till you find the spot where your eye gets a good sharp focus on the sight picture.
Long sight radius is good,but so is a sharp view of sight picture.
A set of older eyes might shoot better with open sights mouted so far down the bbl he has a 14 in sight radius with a sharp sight picture than he will with the rear sight moved back to a 22 in sight radius,but a blurred open sight.
This does not apply to peep sights,as we look through them.
Those handgun steel ram pig and chicken shooters do real well with 10 in to 14 in bbls with open sights.

 

[David the Gnome]

... but the discussion here is, the AK's sights, and whether or not they are viable ...

The question isn't whether or not they're viable, they've obviously worked for a lot of people for a lot of years and no one can really argue otherwise. My original question was simply why did the designers of the AK47 put the rear sight where they did? All these other discussions are just tangents. We are not disputing their effectiveness or how long the actual sight radius is, we are just discussing why they chose the location that they did for the rear sight. That's it.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"All these other discussions are just tangents."

Nice pun!

 

[David the Gnome]

Lol

 

[HorseSoldier]

there was very strong bias from target shooting crowd.

It's part of the reason why StG-44 and AK-47 was so revolutionary(at the time), and why US adopted 7.62 NATO/M-14 due to strong bias for target shooting/long range shooting within US military.

The target shooting crowd didn't exist in the Soviet Union, so their input isn't relevant to a discussion about the AK.

I do agree as far as the US goes that they've been a huge problem. I'll annoy a lot of people and go so far as to say that NRA service rifle competition shooting has been sufficiently influential here that it's probably gotten some US servicemen killed along the way by dictating what peacetime military authorities think a service rifle should do. The M16A2, for instance, didn't bring anything to the table better optimizing it for combat shooting compared to the M16A1, but it was sure what a lot of Marines who shot Service Rifle competition wanted at Camp Perry. The sights on the M1 Garand and M14 were similarly not developed for combat efficiency, but were great for competition shooting.

But none of that has anything to do with the AK and sight placement on it.