Why Are AK47 Sights Placed So Far Forward?

[theinvisibleheart]

David the Gnome, re: post

the sight on AK is forward due to design of dust cover/safety(copied from Remington Model 8) for ease of maintenance and the range/usage requirement(300 yard max with most engagements being 200 yards or under).


While it's possible to place the sight on rear of the receiver, like done on M1 Garand/M1 carbine/etc., for the intended usage(most engagements under 200 yards, 300 yard max....Soviet counterpart to StG-44), it wasn't necessary due to Soviet requirement for StG-44 counterpart using new M1943 7.62x39 cartridge.


However, the ease of easy maintenance was crucial. Russians at the time, had fielded Simonov AVS-36, then SVT-38, and then SVT-40. One of the complaints that all of these weapons had from field usage/testing was that they were overly complex and difficult to maintain in the field. Which is why they were eventually all phased out.


Much of the posts on this thread, whether tangential or not, goes contrary to actual history of Soviet small arms development at the time.


Russians were actually going away from Moisin-Nagant during WWII. They resumed the production ONLY because of small arms shortage because they couldn't initially field the replacement (SVT/others) FAST ENOUGH. They had actually stopped and then, resumed the production of Moisin-Nagant only due to small arms shortage.


Russians weren't really attached to their Moisin-Nagant(full powered battle bolt gun). They had fielded entire units with PPSh-41 and had faced StG-44 during waning days of WWII, and regarded Moisin-Nagant as obsolete...something not to be copied or retained.


Why would some posters think that Russians copy features of a weapon that they considered obsolete is beyond my comprehension.


As for Kalashnikov/Russian designers' lack of familiarity with foreign small arms/small arms development, during interview, Kalashnikov stated that as a starting point, it's important for a budding small arms designer to have an understanding of existing small arms. Soviet small arms designer at that time had studied designs of M1 Garand, M1 carbine, MKb.42(H)(precursor to StG-44), Remington Model 8, etc.


Kalashnikov before his success with AK-47 design, had competed with a SMG design. It was rejected on the grounds that it was overly complex. Later, Kalashnikov competed in a carbine contest against Simonov's SKS using a design heavily influenced by M1 Garand. He lost again.


AK-47 competed with at least 10 other automatic assault rifles during Soviet small arms competition for assault rifle. Besides controllability, reliability, and ease of maintenance, it had to be lighter than Sudaev's AS-44(generally liked in the field testing, except for weight) that was already tested. It doesn't make sense to add unnecessary feature such as Garand type target grade sight on rear of the receiver.


Also, they didn't place V-notch sight where it is because they were attached to notched sight and notched sight couldn't be placed on rear of receiver. Russians designers had studied peep sight placed on rear of the receiver as stated before.


Cost of the sight also wasn't a major factor. It's very easy to mass produce a very simple peep sight attached to elevation lever or just a basic peep sight, such as used on Grease Gun(the peep sight we see on M1 Garand/M-14 is closer to target grade sight with adjustment knobs).


When Germans/Wehrmacht designed/fielded StG-44, they realized that most engagements were 300 yards or less, with majority of usage being UNDER 200 yards. For this purpose, full powered battle cartridge was an overkill and target grade peep sight wasn't really necessary.


Russians reached the same conclusion, which is why they designed M1943 7.62x39 cartridge very quickly and went from SKS to AK-47. BTW, when Patton said/wrote that M1 Garand was the greatest battlefield implement, he was already behind the curve at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK103K
... 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.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post

Russian/Soviet small arms designers were affected by designs from West, which incorporated impact of long range/target shooting crowd.

I believe Moisin-Nagant/WWI bolt guns were influenced by long range/target shooting crowd.

Ditto for calibers like 30-06/308/7.62x54R.

Quote:
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.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Russians weren't really attached to their Moisin-Nagant(full powered battle bolt gun). They had fielded entire units with PPSh-41 and had faced StG-44 during waning days of WWII, and regarded Moisin-Nagant as obsolete...something not to be copied or retained.


Why would some posters think that Russians copy features of a weapon that they considered obsolete is beyond my comprehension.

A) What proof do you have that they considered the sights on the M-N obsolete? Not the whole package, but the specific issue of the sights?

B) As for why one would assume they copied it -- because they used that pattern on every rifle they adopted between 1938 and 1994. The SVT-38/40 -- M-N style sights. The SKS -- ditto. The AK -- ditto. All the AK's competitors to adoption -- ditto. The AK-74 (ten years after the Finns fielded the Rk-62 with sights on the rear of the dust cover) -- no change again.

They don't move away from the Mosin-Nagant pattern until the aborted adoption of the AN-94 -- and then they ditched that and went right on using the same pattern first debuted in 1891 on the 100 and 200 series AKs. The AK-200 even features an improved iron sight sitting in the same damn spot it's been since 1891.

It is beyond my comprehension that someone looking at the data set would think that those sights just randomly turned up where they did for over 100 years, on an assortment of different weapon designs, without some sort of deliberate decision by someone to keep them right where they were. It's about on par with looking at US built cars and concluding that the driver's seat on the left side is just some statistical fluke that keeps happening for no special reason year after year.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"They resumed the production ONLY because of small arms shortage because they couldn't initially field the replacement (SVT/others)."

Production of the Moisin-Nagant never ceased, either before or during the war. In fact, at least two new factories producing nothing but Moisin-Nagant rifles were constructed from scratch in the new Urals industrial zone.

After the war, one of those factories was dismantled and sent to China where its machinery was used to manufacture the Type 50 rifle.

The PPSh was never seen to be the MN's replacement. While it gave units tremendous firepower, it was short range firepower.

The Tokarev SVT was largely a failure as a main battle rifle, and it was recognized as that during the war; it simply couldn't stand up to the rigors of regular combat usage. Production slowed dramatically during the war as Soviet forces became better armed and the SVT was issued primarily to specialist troops (snipers) and non-commissioned officers.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The Tokarev SVT was largely a failure as a main battle rifle, and it was recognized as that during the war; it simply couldn't stand up to the rigors of regular combat usage. Production slowed dramatically during the war as Soviet forces became better armed and the SVT was issued primarily to specialist troops (snipers) and non-commissioned officers.

My understanding is that the Germans really like the things also, though finicky and complicated weren't really considered negative terms in the Wehrmacht, I suppose.

 

[SPEMack618]

In regards to the SVT-43

Wasn't the Gewehr 43 a rip off of the SVT?

 

[10mmAuto]

There are multiple different iterations of the SVT, the later ones are considered to be pretty decent weapons for the time period. This is one of those issues like the M16's problems getting lumped onto the M16A1, A2, A4, etc... incomplete research creating misleading conclusions.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Even the final iterations of the SVT-40, which had numerous small changes made to it over its production run, and especially the fully auto AVT-40, were not suitable for mass distribution. They were too fragile and didn't hold up well in the hands of the common soldier. It's certainly not analogous to the situation with the M-16.

Chivers, in his book The Gun, says that Feydor Tokarev was one of Stalin's personal favorites among Russian gun designers and that had a large part to play in the adoption of the SVT over several other designs.

 

[10mmAuto]

Maybe it depends on who you consider an authoritative source. Everything I've ever read indicates the problem was cost of production. It was too long ago, too distant and too few examples exist for me to verify for myself.

 

[Bart B.]

JohnKSa mentions:

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.

I disagree.

Although it's been long believed one doesn't need to center the front sight in a rear aperture for accuracy, it's really just another myth.

Any competition rifle shooter holding the highest classification knows better. You gotta center the front sight in the rear sight. And to do that, you have to see the aperture ring. Yes, it'll be fuzzy 'cause it way out of focus. But so is the target to a much lesser degree because one has to focus their aiming eye on the front sight for best accuracy.

 

[KurtC]

In order to understand why the AK was designed with barrel sights, you have to stop looking at it from the view of the shooter and look at it from the logistical standpoint.

Barrel mounted leaf sights came into being just before the turn of the century, when linear warfare was the primary tactic and long range volley fire was necessary. Note that most of these sights are adjustable to 2000 meters. This was standard for pretty much the entire world.

Britain was the first country to realize the benefits of a close mounted aperature sight, just prior to WWI. They did not have time to manufacture their new rifle, and asked the US to do so. It became the P14 and 1917 Enfield.

The aperature was a success. The M1 Garand and all future allied rifles would have it. Springfields and SMLE's would be modified with it. The problem is logistics. It took two decades to weed out everyone trained with barrel sights. As WWII began, the new generation of allied troops would be trained with aperatures.

Continental Europe and the East were a different matter. Despite all of his efforts to develope super weapons, Hitler was still an infantryman at heart and believed the M98 to be the epitome of German craftsmanship. The master race, with their young eyes, was taught from an early age to use the V notch with great precision. 3 generations of German soldiers were accustomed to it. It was even used an machine guns. The Germans saw no reason to change to an aperature, even though the tactics were changed from trenches to assaults.

The Russians did the same thing, but for differnt reasons. By the time the AK47 was developed, there were millions of soldiers accross the empire that grew of age using barrel mounted sights. In the 1940's, distance and lack of formal training meant that Russian troops often had to "go with what you know." Changing the way one aims a rifle was probably not even a consideration for a new rifle. They did not have the marksmanship based military infrastructure that the West had. They were more concerned with getting as many high-firepower weapons into the hands of expendable troops. The Soviets were adapting infantry tactics that involved rapid mobility and and unaimed, suppressive fire. That is why the AK47 goes to full auto first, when you disengage the safety. The barrel sights works fine for this, and still allows decent accuracy to 300 meters (that is furthest I've ever qualified with one).

So, I'm sure Kalishnikov and other designers were well aware of the benefits of an aperature, the logistics of the time did warrant changing to one. If the AK-47 were designed today, I am sure it would have one.

 

[AK103K]

Im starting to think Mikhail Kalashnikov was actually a brilliant prophet, and knew that he could extend his fame forever, with all this silliness about every aspect of his baby, its children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, being argued over by "experts" across the world wide web, forever. Or 2012, whichever goes longer.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Mike Irwin, re: post

QUOTE: They resumed the production ONLY because of small arms shortage because they couldn't initially field the replacement (SVT/others).

Production of the Moisin-Nagant never ceased, either before or during the war. In fact, at least two new factories producing nothing but Moisin-Nagant rifles were constructed from scratch in the new Urals industrial zone.

After the war, one of those factories was dismantled and sent to China where its machinery was used to manufacture the Type 50 rifle.

The PPSh was never seen to be the MN's replacement. While it gave units tremendous firepower, it was short range firepower.

The Tokarev SVT was largely a failure as a main battle rifle, and it was recognized as that during the war; it simply couldn't stand up to the rigors of regular combat usage. Production slowed dramatically during the war as Soviet forces became better armed and the SVT was issued primarily to specialist troops (snipers) and non-commissioned officers.

QUOTE from Wiki entry on SVT at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40

"The SVT-38 saw its combat debut in the 1939-1940 Winter War with Finland."

"Production of the SVT-38 was terminated in April 1940 after some 150,000 examples were manufactured. "

"Subsequently, an improved design, designated the SVT-40, entered production. "

"Production of this improved weapon began in July 1940 at Tula, and later at factories in Izhevsk and Kovrov."

"At the same time, production of the Mosin–Nagant M1891/30 bolt-action rifle was discontinued. "

"Since these factories already had experience manufacturing the SVT-38, production geared up quickly and an estimated 70,000 SVT-40s were produced in 1940."

"By the time the German invasion began in June 1941, the SVT-40 was already in widespread use by the Red Army. In a Soviet infantry division's table of organization and equipment, one-third of rifles were supposed to be SVTs, although in practice this ratio was seldom achieved. "

"The first months of the war were disastrous for the Soviet Union, and hundreds of thousands of SVT-40s were lost. To make up for this, production of the Mosin-Nagant rifles was reintroduced. "

"In contrast, the SVT was more difficult to manufacture, and troops with only rudimentary training had difficulty maintaining it. In addition, submachine guns like the PPSh-41 had proven their value as simple, cheap, and effective weapons to supplement infantry firepower. This led to a gradual decline in SVT production. "

"In 1941, over a million SVTs were produced, but in 1942 Ishevsk arsenal was ordered to cease SVT production and switch back to the Mosin-Nagant 91/30. "

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post

The reason why I don't think Kalashnikov copied design elements from Moisin-Nagant, including the sight, is due to what is known(written) about development history, including context, and also due to what is known about development of AK-47 when Kalashnikov was interviewed.

If you check web articles/books on AK-47/small arms development, it was developed as a functional Soviet counterpart to German Sturmgewehr StG-44. In fact, it's written that Kalashnikov copied design elements from Garand, M1 carbine, Remington Model 8, Sudaev's AS-44, etc. It doesn't state anywhere (AFAIK) that Kalashnikov copied any design elements from Moisin-Nagant.

Russians initially wanted a semiautomatic autoloader(much like our M1 Garand) firing full powered battle rifle cartridge in 7.62x54R and in fact, attempted to do that with AVS-36, then SVT-38, and finally SVT-40.

AVS-36 can be fired in full automatic mode. Unfortunately, whether it's 30-06 or 308 NATO or 7.62x54R, select fire in full powered battle rifle cartridge in a portable shoulder fired weapon didn't work well(weapon and the shooter took a beating).

The next step was SVT-38 and then, SVT-40.

However, during 1939-1940 Winter War with Finland, Russians found out that during close range encounters with Finns armed with SMG, full auto fire from controllable SMG was superior to controlled fire from semiautomatic SVT-38 and bolt action Moisin-Nagant.

The result was that Russians produced millions of SMG(PP series).

Then, later, Russians encountered Germans firing intermediate cartridge in full auto MKb4X/StG44 series. BTW, Hitler was initially opposed to the idea of assault rifles firing intermediate cartridge until he fired StG44 and then, became a strong proponent of assault rifle concept.

In 1942, Russians captured several MKb.42(H) assault rifle and 7.92 Kurz ammunition for it. This provided the impetus for development of M43 7.62x39 intermediate powered cartridge.

At this time, Simonov developed the first successful semiautomatic autoloader (SKS) that utilized the M43 cartridge. BTW, Kalashnikov competed in the same trial with M1 Garand based design and lost.

Towards the end of the war(1944), Germans perfected the assault rifle in form of StG-44 and number of them fell into Russian hands.

Sudaev's AS-44 was manufactured in 1945 as initial select fire assault rifle counterpart to German StG-44 and these were tested by troops in the field. AS-44 was generally liked because it provided longer range than PPSh-41 SMG and was more accurate, but it was considered too heavy.

So the Soviet commission ordered the next round of development and trials, which started in 1946. This was the trial in which Kalashnikov/design team finally came up with a successful design(his earlier designs were all rejected).

Depending on which model of Moisin-Nagant you are talking about, rear sight implementation was either leaf or tangent.

When Russians went to SVT(goes from M1936 to M1940), rear sight design was tangent.

When they went to SMG(PPD 1934/38, PPD 1940, PPSh 1941, and 1943), the rear sights were either tangent leaf or L-type.

When they went to SKS, it was tangent sight, graduated at 1000 meters.

When they went to AK-47, it was tangent sight graduated to 800 meters. On AKM(what we call AK-47 today), it went back to 1000 meters.

On German side(MKb42(W), MKb42(H), StG44, StG45(M)), it was all tangent with U notch. In their studies, WWII Wehrmacht correctly concluded that most engagements were at 300 yards or less, with majority of engagements under 200 yards. What that meant was that long sight radius and target style peep sight didn't really matter.

If you look at sight radius on German assault rifles, it was short, like that on original AK-47.

FWIW, if you look at modern HK rotary drum sight, sight setting for 100 meters is not peep sight but V-notch.

Quote:
Russians weren't really attached to their Moisin-Nagant(full powered battle bolt gun). They had fielded entire units with PPSh-41 and had faced StG-44 during waning days of WWII, and regarded Moisin-Nagant as obsolete...something not to be copied or retained.


Why would some posters think that Russians copy features of a weapon that they considered obsolete is beyond my comprehension.
A) What proof do you have that they considered the sights on the M-N obsolete? Not the whole package, but the specific issue of the sights?

B) As for why one would assume they copied it -- because they used that pattern on every rifle they adopted between 1938 and 1994. The SVT-38/40 -- M-N style sights. The SKS -- ditto. The AK -- ditto. All the AK's competitors to adoption -- ditto. The AK-74 (ten years after the Finns fielded the Rk-62 with sights on the rear of the dust cover) -- no change again.

They don't move away from the Mosin-Nagant pattern until the aborted adoption of the AN-94 -- and then they ditched that and went right on using the same pattern first debuted in 1891 on the 100 and 200 series AKs. The AK-200 even features an improved iron sight sitting in the same damn spot it's been since 1891.

It is beyond my comprehension that someone looking at the data set would think that those sights just randomly turned up where they did for over 100 years, on an assortment of different weapon designs, without some sort of deliberate decision by someone to keep them right where they were. It's about on par with looking at US built cars and concluding that the driver's seat on the left side is just some statistical fluke that keeps happening for no special reason year after year.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post SVT/Germans

according to Wiki and other sources, both Finns and Germans used captured SVTs because they were short on self-loading rifles.

SVTs outside of the Soviet Union

The first country outside the Soviet Union to employ the SVT was Finland, which captured some 4,000 SVT-38s during the Winter War, and over 15,000 SVTs during the Continuation War.

The SVT saw extensive use in Finnish hands, though malfunctions and breakages were common due to different Finnish ammunition and often an incorrectly-adjusted gas recoil system.

Germany and other Axis countries captured hundreds of thousands of SVTs during the Eastern Front (World War II).

As the Germans were short of self-loading rifles themselves, the SVT (designated as SIG.259(r) by the Wehrmacht) saw widespread use in German hands against their former owners.

The Germans issued their own operating manual for the SVT. Study of the SVT's gas-operated action also aided in the development of the German Gewehr 43 rifle.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

KurtC, re: post

AFAIK, Russians didn't design AK-47 from logistical POV. They did it for Moisin-Nagant during WWII because of failure to come up with successful autoloaders(with the exception of SKS which came too late) in WWII.

According to the book "The SKS Type 45 Carbines" by Duncan Long, at one point, Stalin got so fed up with problem with SVT-38, he wanted to completely revamp the factory production with another design until he was told that retooling would cost EVEN MORE TIME, and finally, decided to settle for SVT-40 production.

When SVT-40 wasn't successful, they went back to producing Moisin-Nagant again and PP series of SMG(after disasterous winter war with Finland).

The point is that Russians, during WWII, weren't exactly shy about changing their thinking or manufacturing after being on the receiving end of Finnish/German SMG/assault rifles.

As for easier training with same sight setup, Russian weapons of the period used leaf, tangent, and L-type sights with variations of each. When Russians went to using SVT and PP series of SMG, manual of operation for gun itself was much more different than any difference b/w receiver mounted peep aperture and barrel mounted leaf/tangent/L-type sights.

I believe short barreled, quicker handling Mauser with a simple V notch(express type sight) and no bayonet would have served UK/Canadians/US troops better than Lee-Enfield or 1903 Springfield in WWI/II, esp. in trench warfare. H. W. McBride in his book "A Rifleman Went To War" mentions how much handier the Mauser rifle/carbine that he captured from a German Jaegers were, compared to his own issued weapons.

Receiver mounted peep sight on 1903 Springfield or Lee-Enfield are great sight, but I'm not sure how relevant the target shooting ability is for close range shooting. Peep sight technology is not exactly new. If peep sight is really the way to go even for short range shooting, then safari rifles would be using it instead of V-notch express sight.

In both WWI and WWII, most engagement distance wasn't exactly 500 yards or longer. It was more like 200 yards or less, and the target was pretty big(most people's center mass is big, not small, esp. nowadays, due to obesity epidemic, even in military).

In trenches and close quarter, faster handling weapon would provide a more decisive advantage.

Also, Hitler eventually came to support assault rifle concept when he got to firing StG-44.

In order to understand why the AK was designed with barrel sights, you have to stop looking at it from the view of the shooter and look at it from the logistical standpoint.

Barrel mounted leaf sights came into being just before the turn of the century, when linear warfare was the primary tactic and long range volley fire was necessary. Note that most of these sights are adjustable to 2000 meters. This was standard for pretty much the entire world.

Britain was the first country to realize the benefits of a close mounted aperature sight, just prior to WWI. They did not have time to manufacture their new rifle, and asked the US to do so. It became the P14 and 1917 Enfield.

The aperature was a success. The M1 Garand and all future allied rifles would have it. Springfields and SMLE's would be modified with it. The problem is logistics. It took two decades to weed out everyone trained with barrel sights. As WWII began, the new generation of allied troops would be trained with aperatures.

Continental Europe and the East were a different matter. Despite all of his efforts to develope super weapons, Hitler was still an infantryman at heart and believed the M98 to be the epitome of German craftsmanship. The master race, with their young eyes, was taught from an early age to use the V notch with great precision. 3 generations of German soldiers were accustomed to it. It was even used an machine guns. The Germans saw no reason to change to an aperature, even though the tactics were changed from trenches to assaults.

The Russians did the same thing, but for differnt reasons. By the time the AK47 was developed, there were millions of soldiers accross the empire that grew of age using barrel mounted sights. In the 1940's, distance and lack of formal training meant that Russian troops often had to "go with what you know." Changing the way one aims a rifle was probably not even a consideration for a new rifle. They did not have the marksmanship based military infrastructure that the West had. They were more concerned with getting as many high-firepower weapons into the hands of expendable troops. The Soviets were adapting infantry tactics that involved rapid mobility and and unaimed, suppressive fire. That is why the AK47 goes to full auto first, when you disengage the safety. The barrel sights works fine for this, and still allows decent accuracy to 300 meters (that is furthest I've ever qualified with one).

So, I'm sure Kalishnikov and other designers were well aware of the benefits of an aperature, the logistics of the time did warrant changing to one. If the AK-47 were designed today, I am sure it would have one.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

AK103K, re: post

I don't consider myself an expert by any means.

You can read about Soviet small arms history online and in various books. Much of the posts on this thread is contrary to what is known about Soviet small arms history/development.

BTW, I agree for intended purpose, AK-47 sight is more than adequate.

Im starting to think Mikhail Kalashnikov was actually a brilliant prophet, and knew that he could extend his fame forever, with all this silliness about every aspect of his baby, its children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, being argued over by "experts" across the world wide web, forever. Or 2012, whichever goes longer.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

KurtC, re: post/?

The aperature was a success. The M1 Garand and all future allied rifles would have it. Springfields and SMLE's would be modified with it. The problem is logistics. It took two decades to weed out everyone trained with barrel sights. As WWII began, the new generation of allied troops would be trained with aperatures.

McBride who wrote the book "A Rifleman Went To War" and fought in WWI on Allied side, thought that shorter German Mausers with V-notch tangent sight that he captured from German Jaegers were much more handier and cooler rifles for trench fighting than his own issued weapons. McBride was also a competitive shooter before WWI.

I've used both aperture sight and non-aperture sights. I'm partial to aperture sight due to early training/experience, but I didn't find it exactly difficult to switch from one sight system to other.

Continental Europe and the East were a different matter. Despite all of his efforts to develope super weapons, Hitler was still an infantryman at heart and believed the M98 to be the epitome of German craftsmanship. The master race, with their young eyes, was taught from an early age to use the V notch with great precision. 3 generations of German soldiers were accustomed to it. It was even used an machine guns. The Germans saw no reason to change to an aperature, even though the tactics were changed from trenches to assaults.

Even our own GPMG like Colt M1917, Browning M1917A1, and M1919A4 did not use aperture sight. They used leaf sight.

As for Hitler believing that M98 to be ultimate battlefield rifle, he eventually endorsed StG-44 when he fired one(even he wasn't that stubborn).

If you get copies of the book "Small Arms of the World" by Ezell and "Small Arms of the World" by Smith/Smith(2 different books), you can get a very quick overview of historical progression of different weapons in various countries, including the sight system.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The reason why I don't think Kalashnikov copied design elements from Moisin-Nagant, including the sight, is due to what is known(written) about development history, including context, and also due to what is known about development of AK-47 when Kalashnikov was interviewed.

You're missing the point. I'm saying Kalashnikov did not borrow from anyone when it came to the placement of the sights on the AK design because it wasn't up to him, it was a design parameter required by Soviet authorities. No other explanation makes sense in explaining why the AK and all its competitors put the sights in the same place, as well as the SKS, SVT-38/40, etc.

People have a tendency to overestimate exactly how much input gun "inventors" had when working for military projects. Kalashnikov didn't invent his weapon out of thin air, he was working to meet a set of design specs. And those specs included the same style and placement of sights as found on the Mosin-Nagant.

If you look at sight radius on German assault rifles, it was short, like that on original AK-47.

No, the sights on a StG-44 are short because they match those used on German bolt guns. It's another case of the sights not being an innovative part of an innovative weapon. The German preference for the forward notch sights is not as well attested after the war (being featured on neither the G1 or G3), but was continued after WW2 with some of the M1 carbines issued to the pre-Bundeswehr German security forces having the standard peep sight removed and replaced by a forward notch.

 

[JohnKSa]

I disagree.

Although it's been long believed one doesn't need to center the front sight in a rear aperture for accuracy, it's really just another myth.

Any competition rifle shooter holding the highest classification knows better. You gotta center the front sight in the rear sight. And to do that, you have to see the aperture ring. Yes, it'll be fuzzy 'cause it way out of focus. But so is the target to a much lesser degree because one has to focus their aiming eye on the front sight for best accuracy.

First of all, I didn't say it's not important to center the front sight in the aperture, I said it was possible to use an aperture sight even if the aperture was so close to the eye that it was impossible to focus on it clearly. You don't need to see it clearly to get the front sight centered. As you say, the rear aperture will be fuzzy but still useful. If an open sight were placed that close to the eye, using it effectively would be impossible because to line up open sights the shooter needs to be able to see the rear sight reasonably clearly.

Second, while consciously centering the front sight in an aperture can improve accuracy, it is not critical to accuracy in the same way that precisely lining up a front and rear open sight is. The nature of an aperture sight tends to cause the brain and eye to work together to "automatically" center the front sight.

Finally, it's not difficult to focus on the front sight and on the target when using an aperture sight because a properly small aperture will help increase the depth of field so that both the target and the front sight can be in pretty decent focus at the same time--at least to a much greater degree than is possible with open sights.

The point is that you can effectively use an aperture sight when the rear sight is very close to your eye--even when it's so close you can't focus on it clearly. Trying to use an open sight rear sight with the rear sight very close to the eye is not effective at all.