Why Are AK47 Sights Placed So Far Forward?

[Mike Irwin]

I'm not exactly sure what you're copying material from Wikipedia for -- it agrees with what I've said.

Moisin-Nagant production never ceased (I lumped rifles and carbines into that statement, as the SVT-40 was supposed to replace them both).

It was largely a failure in the hands of troops. It wasn't durable, it was difficult for many to maintain properly, and it was eventually withdrawn and given to specialists and NCOs.




"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."


Once gain, I'm going to have to disagree with that, Horse.

The SVT-40, the SKS and the AK-series of rifles have one thing in common...

A rather loosely fitting action cover. To place the sights on this action cover would have diminished the accuracy capabilities of all three of these weapons .

No designer would consider a floating receiver cover (and in the case of the AK-47, one made of extremely thin sheet metal) as a proper place for a set of sights.

Repeatable accuracy would have been impossible, and these cases, form DICTATES function.

Photographs of just about every prototype I've seen that was developed as a competitor of the Soviet post-war rifle trials (Sudayev, Tokarev, Bulkin) has the same feature -- a floating receiver cover that is removed to allow access to the internal parts.

Placing the sights on the receiver cover would have been a disaster for a rifle with an already spotty reputation for accuracy.

As I've also noted above, Soviet designers, including Sudayev and Shpagin, didn't hesitate to relocate the sights on their submachine gun designs, pushing the sight farther to the rear and closer to the firer's eye.

While it's certainly possible that the Soviet specifications were restrictive enough to dictate both type and placement of the sight, I'm not sure that I buy it.

The Soviets actually had a pretty solid history of forward looking innovation when it came to firearms design.

I really don't think that Soviet process would have been so incredibly short sighted as to hamstring possible designs by mandating something as silly as the location of a sight when the overall goal was something so incredibly forward looking.

I think it's a LOT more likely that the design specifications mandated very easy and quick access to the bolt, carrier, return spring and chamber in much the same manner as the Stg-44, and the easiest way of doing that while providing a solid-frame rifle (as opposed to the Stg-44) was with a removable receiver cover.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

Mike Irwin, re: post Mosin-Nagant

Mike Irwin,

my reading of the Wiki entry on SVT was that production of Moisin-Nagant 91/30 was temporary suspended. I suspect that is why early war Moisin-Nagant are so rare.

Production of this improved weapon(SVT-40) 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.
...
By the time the German invasion began in June 1941, the SVT-40 was already in widespread use by the Red Army.
...
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 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.

I'm not exactly sure what you're copying material from Wikipedia for -- it agrees with what I've said.

Moisin-Nagant production never ceased (I lumped rifles and carbines into that statement, as the SVT-40 was supposed to replace them both).

It was largely a failure in the hands of troops. It wasn't durable, it was difficult for many to maintain properly, and it was eventually withdrawn and given to specialists and NCOs.




"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."


Once gain, I'm going to have to disagree with that, Horse.

The SVT-40, the SKS and the AK-series of rifles have one thing in common...

A rather loosely fitting action cover. To place the sights on this action cover would have diminished the accuracy capabilities of all three of these weapons .

No designer would consider a floating receiver cover (and in the case of the AK-47, one made of extremely thin sheet metal) as a proper place for a set of sights.

Repeatable accuracy would have been impossible, and these cases, form DICTATES function.

Photographs of just about every prototype I've seen that was developed as a competitor of the Soviet post-war rifle trials (Sudayev, Tokarev, Bulkin) has the same feature -- a floating receiver cover that is removed to allow access to the internal parts.

Placing the sights on the receiver cover would have been a disaster for a rifle with an already spotty reputation for accuracy.

As I've also noted above, Soviet designers, including Sudayev and Shpagin, didn't hesitate to relocate the sights on their submachine gun designs, pushing the sight farther to the rear and closer to the firer's eye.

While it's certainly possible that the Soviet specifications were restrictive enough to dictate both type and placement of the sight, I'm not sure that I buy it.

The Soviets actually had a pretty solid history of forward looking innovation when it came to firearms design.

I really don't think that Soviet process would have been so incredibly short sighted as to hamstring possible designs by mandating something as silly as the location of a sight when the overall goal was something so incredibly forward looking.

I think it's a LOT more likely that the design specifications mandated very easy and quick access to the bolt, carrier, return spring and chamber in much the same manner as the Stg-44, and the easiest way of doing that while providing a solid-frame rifle (as opposed to the Stg-44) was with a removable receiver cover.
__________________

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post

I don't ever recall reading anywhere about Soviet design requirement including specific type and placement of sight. Soviet small arms requirement did include specific accuracy requirement, but not something so specific as placement and design of rear sight.

However, when AK-47 was designed, previous design(AVS-36, SVT-38, SVT-40) suffered from lack of durability, reliability, and ease of maintenance. Kalashnikov copied the dustpan cover/safety from Remington Model 8 to make AK-47 easy to maintain so as not to be plagued by the same problem(difficulty of maintenance) that plagued previous unsuccessful design.

There was also weight requirement because competing Sudayev's design at the time was considered too heavy despite being accurate and reliable in the field.

In addition, there was also accuracy requirement and other competing design did better on accuracy requirement than AK-47. In fact, during 1950s, Soviets almost switched over to Korobov TKB-517 because it was lighter/cheaper/more accurate than AK-47/AKM.

Soviet design requirement, like that of German, evolved through their experiences in Winter War of Finland and WWII.

Initially, during 1930s, Soviets wanted an autoloader in full powered battle cartridge 7.62x54R. Sort of like our Garand. AVS-36 was the result. However, after being fielded, AVS-36 proved to be failure because:
- uncontrollable in full automatic fire(to this day, there is no controllable, easily carried, shoulder mounted battle rifle in full powered cartridge in full auto)
- lack of durability and reliability, esp. in full auto and design was overly complex; also, there was tendency for dirt to get into action

AVS-36 was eventually withdrawn from service and replaced by SVT-38. SVT-38 had problem with ease of maintenance. It required frequent cleaning to be reliable and some part, such as gas cylinder cup, was not easily accessible.

Stalin actually wanted to completely replace SVT with a different design, but due to difficulty of switching over to new design, went ahead with SVT-40. SVT-40 still had same kind of problem(tendency for gas system to clog up, firing pin to break, etc.) and was overly too complex to manufacture in large quantities.

During Winter War of Finland, Russians realized that during close in encounters with Finns, SMG were more effective than Moisin-Nagant/SVT combo. So they switched to producing very large no. of PP series of SMG.

Later, during war with Germans/Wehrmacht, MKb42(H) and MKb42(W) (precursor to StG-44) were used extensively on Russian front by Wehrmacht.

This led to development of M1943 intermediate cartridge and first successful autoloader for it in form of SKS. Kalashnikov competed in this trial with Garand based design and lost.

When Russians encountered StG-44, they decided on a new requirement for a new assault rifles: select fire capability and box magazines which SKS didn't have. The advantages that StG-44 had over SMG/Moisin-Nagant armed Russians were extended range and select fire capability. Both German and Russian SMG of the period had maximum range of around 100 yards.

With intermediate cartridge, they could extend that range to 200-300 yards. Remember the Wehrmacht studies which found out that most engagements took place at less than 300 yards with majority of it under 200 yards? SMG's range was too short and full powered battle rifle cartridge was too much.

If you look at AK-47 and compare it against StG-44, externally, they look very similar:
- free standing pistol grip
- curved magazine
- gas operated
- closed bolt
- short sight radius

As for the short sight radius/sight design on German small arms, sight radius, along with barrel length, changed based on intended range.

StG-44

According to this link at http://www.mouseguns.com/ak47info/ak47info.htm,

"Mikhail Kalashnikov says his rifle was not based on the German StG44 assault rifle."

"But the AK-47 represents a combination of previous rifle innovations: the double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine; the trigger and safety mechanism of the Browning Remington Model 8 rifle; and the gas system and layout of the German StG44. The main advantages of the Kalashnikov rifle are simple design and adaptation to mass production."

"It is a melding of the best the Garand, Browning, and StG44 features."

"Kalashnikov had ready access to the StG44, and he experimented with similar concepts, but he threw out many details of the StG44: The two-part receiver (something that the M16 has), the clumsy return mechanism (, another something the M16 shares with the StG44), the tilting bolt, the gas piston, the left-side safety lever and charging handle, the tight part fittings. The StG44 had the right concept, but Kalashnikov found out in his development that many of the details were wrong."

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

 

[bamaranger]

agreed

"precise enough for a burst" v. "man sized target at 300M"

AK103K, duly noted and you are correct sir. I am not an AK basher and am actually a fan of the rifle, even if employed by a variety of our enemies.

But much AK use seems to be w/o sights don't you think? Witness the over the car roof and around the corner stances so often seen of late.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"But much AK use seems to be w/o sights don't you think? Witness the over the car roof and around the corner stances so often seen of late."

And that's really not much different from how a lot of American troops fired their M16s in combat in Vietnam. Suppressing fire from cover positions.

 

[AK103K]

It is amazing how even "the best" guns do poorly when the range becomes "two way", isnt it?

 

[HorseSoldier]

"Kalashnikov had ready access to the StG44, and he experimented with similar concepts, but he threw out many details of the StG44: The two-part receiver (something that the M16 has), the clumsy return mechanism (, another something the M16 shares with the StG44), the tilting bolt, the gas piston, the left-side safety lever and charging handle, the tight part fittings. The StG44 had the right concept, but Kalashnikov found out in his development that many of the details were wrong."

So Kalashnikov gets direct and personal credit for <<messing>> up the AK in terms of being an optimized gun fighting gun? Interesting.

"But much AK use seems to be w/o sights don't you think? Witness the over the car roof and around the corner stances so often seen of late."

And that's really not much different from how a lot of American troops fired their M16s in combat in Vietnam. Suppressing fire from cover positions.

+1. Just because there are photos floating around of guys in Sierra Leone wearing rainbow afro wigs and life preservers and shooting AKs with both eyes closed and one handed around a corner doesn't mean that's what the weapon was designed for.

 

[Crosshair]

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.

I suppose you're also perplexed as to why the triggers for all shoulder fired firearms manufactured for the last several centuries were designed to be fired with the shooters index finger. Or why virtually all revolvers have their cylinders open to the left and not the right.

 

[bamaranger]

w/o sights

I thought it was funny and a stab at our current enemies.

C'mon guys, gimmie a break.

 

[theinvisibleheart]

HorseSoldier, re: post Kalashnikov messing up

So Kalashnikov gets direct and personal credit for <<messing>> up the AK in terms of being an optimized gun fighting gun? Interesting.

I don't think Kalashnikov messed up the AK, at least for that time period(original AK's design is out of date today).

StG-44 was not perfect and probably would not have being accepted by the Soviet service at the time, since it was around the weight of Sudayev's AS-44.

The reason that Sudayev's AS-44 was not accepted was because it was too heavy.

FWIW, AK-46(prototype, precursor to AK-47) was very similiar to StG-44 with 2 piece receiver, like StG-44.

However, if you look at pictures of StG-44, AK-46, and AK-47 being field stripped, AK-47 is much easier to maintain and field strip.

StG-44:

AK-46:

AK-47:

 

[theinvisibleheart]

JohnKSa, re: post

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.

I've taken long range pistol shot by squatting and resting the back of my upper arm on my knee(it's hard to do this if your stomach protrude or if you have bad knee), but when you do this, rear sight of the handgun is relatively close to your face, compared to conventional pistol shooting stance.

Whether the steel sight is far or close, rear sight focus should be "fuzzy" since the focus is on front sight(top tip of front sight for precision shot).

 

[JohnKSa]

First of all, even the shooting position you describe puts the rear sight a good bit farther from the eye than it would be positioned if it were a typically placed rear aperture sight on a rifle.

While you can make work, you can't get the necessary precise alignment between front and rear sight if the open rear sight is so close to your eye that it's too fuzzy.