And here is why:

You simply adjust the front sight for elevation and the rear sight for windage with a bullet tip.  It is basically impossible for the sights to get bumped out of zero or loosen.  No special tools are needed, the sights are well-protected by the sight ears, etc.  The rear sight is an aperture sight, which is better than an open sight.  

Let's talk about sights on other military rifles:

*Mosin Nagant:  You have no rear zeroing adjustment.  Zeroing is done by moving the front sight left or right in a dovetail for windage with tools.  For elevation you can use a file or replace the sight.  

*Lee Enfield:  Similar to the Mosin except they manufactured a number of different front sights of different heights so there would be no need for the filing.  

*M1 Garand and M14:  Rear sight aperture not well protected by the sight ears.  When zeroing front sight requires an allen wrench and guess & check method on dovetail position (assuming you are zeroing it properly and keeping the rear windage centered).

*M16A2:  Not bad, but no way to set the rear sight so the rear windage is centered and the rifle is zeroed.  Your windage zero might make it so the tick marks are not centered.  It's a good idea to paint the windage knob to mark where it's zeroed in case somebody plays with it when you're not looking.  

AK:  Requires tools to adjust and you have to guess & check when zeroing (there are no finite clicks).  

Thoughts?

The m14 has it beat slightly, for finer elevation/ windage adjustments quickly . I've got both/shot both.

420 yards all day long with boring accuracy.


If it had a way to zero front sight better, it would destroy all, and no rock in magazines.

No doubt the M16A1 sights are an excellent design.
The M14 has the best-performing standard issue sights, but the M16A1 sights are indeed better protected. They were designed to be soldier-proof.
M16A2 sights are not known for having problems with damage, and neither were the M14's as far as I know.

Those earlier bolt-action battle rifles you mentioned were zeroed at the factory. Soldiers were not expected to zero them.
Once zeroed, sight screws can be left alone, so they're usually not a problem in the field. The hex screw securing the M14 front sight should be very tight. I use blue LocTite on mine.

I'm with you. Fantastic for practical purposes.

I agree with you OP.
I also like the HK design once they are zeroed for windage all you have to do is adjusting the elevation drum according to the target distance.

I disagree.  I use the ghostring a lot.

Plus you lost me on this one:

Not bad, but no way to set the rear sight so the rear windage is centered and the rifle is zeroed.  Your windage zero might make it so the tick marks are not centered.

Most of the guns you are talking about don't have front sight windage adjustment.  So I don't get the complaint.   Yeah, some pistols do, my lever guns do.  But not any of my military rifles do.   An A1 doesn't so how is it different in that respect?  I must be missing something. (I was missing something, although with the mosin and enfield it's not something you do in the field, along with lever guns or pistols.  Unless you plan on carrying a brass punch and hammer with you)

Plus, you never know when you might need to dial in some elevation for a super long shot.  An M14 and A2 are just superior for longer range shooting.  Maybe not as practical for combat but if you're shooting at 600, an A1 would definitely not be my first choice.  Not saying you couldn't adjust the front, but.....


ETA:  crap, I'm just remembering.  I guess maybe the Garand / M14 does......  LOL..  Just shows how much I shoot them (well I have shot the M1A recently but didn't need to adjust the front sight. ).  I don't think the M-1 Carbine does.  My 03A3 doesn't.....   And the A1 doesn't, so I don't understand how that's a bad thing on an A2 but not on an A1.......

Field sights are the best ever issued but there is room for improvement in the size of the aperture.

A2 windage knobs have a tendency to spin inadvertently.

On an M16A2 your "no wind" zero might put the windage indicator hashes off-center.  On an M14 you can center the indicator because you move only your front sight for the no wind zero.  Just a minor complaint I have.

I like the m16a1 irons. However, I feel the SIG StG90/550 has the best irons sights of any military rifle. Very elegant design, very easy to use, calibrated to the Swiss GP90 round for 100, 200, 300, and 400m , bullet proof, and easy to adjust. Maintaining a consistent sight picture is so very easy with diopters. All adjustments by the end user to zero the rifle are done at the rear sight. The windage adjustment of the front sight is there to establish mechanical center at the factory or armorer level.

But how is that any different than A1 sights?

On A1 sights you don't need to worry about it getting bumped.  On an A2 I like to paint the windage drum to mark where its "no wind" zero is.  I don't think the "on the fly" windage adjustment is useful for combat.  

To me you're lumping two different things into 1, but who am I to judge?  I totally understand the desire to not want it to get bumped and go out of whack when you don't want it to.  But I don't see how being able to zero the front sight is somehow a knock against the A2 and not the A1.  They're zero'd the same way.  

I think an A1 with an A2 ap is a really good idea.  But no way am I giving up that ghostring.  It makes a very useful sighting system for close up and lower light and at ranges 50 yards and under, I don't see a whole heck of a lot of difference in accuracy.

I don't have any huge complaints with the A2 rear sight, just some little subjective ones.  Technically it provides a little bit more capability than an A1 but I think it was poorly engineered.

-Aforementioned "no wind" zero might be off-center on the windage indicator markings issue
-Small allen head screw for setting the elevation knob that is easily stripped
-Different zeros for large and small aperture
-You might want to mark the windage knob with paint in case it gets moved out of place

Basically I think the A1 has an advantage in its simplicity. 

Americans have always preferred target rifle sights to fighting rifle sights, as evidenced by the M1/M14 and the M16A2.

The M16/M16A1 came in through the back door and the Army wasn't able to targetify the sights before issue.

The post WWII Germans with the G3 were onto something. Open notch for shooting way up close and night, diopter sights for daylight graduated out to 400m and very similar to the Swiss SIG550 sights.

AJ

I agree with using paint marker as a quick reference of zero.  But A2 windage knobs do not have a tendency to spin unless someone fucks with them.  The inadvertent movement of the A2 windage is internet lore/old wives tail, it just keeps getting repeated over and over.

And idle hands are the devil's playthings. Making somebody find a tool to adjust a sight makes it less likely someone will mess with them.

AJ

I agree. I really like the Daniel Defense fixed sight that uses an A1 adjustment system. 

I agree about the same plane between the 2 aps.  Just seems unnecessary to have them on a different plane when you already have an adjustment on the A2 for elevation.  Now on the A1, it makes perfect sense.

I don't get too worried about them going out of whack.  I've hunted with mine and it didn't happen.  That's probably not saying much but I do go through some stuff.  Plus there have been BTDT people that say it's not really a thing.     But some people say it is a thing.  So...  it makes sense.  Especially if a gun is super old and maybe they've loosened up with time and use.

A few thoughts...

From a battle rifle perspective:

The standard M1 and M14 sights also work well with their respective ball ammunition and between the adjustable plate on the elevation adjustment knob, and the front sight that can be windage adjusted to center the rear sight windage adjustments, it's an excellent system.  But it was also serious overkill on a battle rifle where nearly all the engagements occurred at 300 meters or less.   In practice, on the M1 or the M14, the sight was going to get left on a battle sight zero most of the time anyway, and windage adjustments, while handy on the target range were again not something that was normally made in combat.  To be honest, the sights on the late production M1 Carbine had a lot more practical utility.

The M16A1 sights are near perfect for the job.  They are simple to use, easy to adjust and once properly zeroed, they let you engage from 25m to 300m with the short range leaf of the sight and from 250m-350m with the long range leaf of the sight.  Once properly zeroed, it's a near idiot proof system when using M193 ball.  The downside is the lack of any ability to adjust the front sight ignored to mechanically center the rear sight when the rifle was zeroed, and windage adjustment in the field was difficult at best.  But then again, that wasn't something you needed or did in combat any way, given the normal 0-300 meter (and usually under 200 meter) engagement ranges.   The rear sight leaves came in three versions:
- a version with two small apertures meaning you shot short and long distances with the same small aperture;
- a version with a small hole on the ling range leave and a large ghost ring aperture on the short range leaf; and
- a version with tritium inserts in the short range ghost ring aperture.

I preferred the small aperture version.  It was fine unless the range was really short, and in that case you used the carry handle as a gutter sight anyway.  At night you similarly shot while looking over the carry handle in close range engagements. The tritium sights were nice, but the trade off was in reduced short range accuracy when that "short" range was 50-250 meters.    

The M16A2 sight seemed to reflect a desire to go back to a sight with more precise elevation adjustment - but without any real purpose.   Thus, once again it nearly always got left on an established battle sight zero.  Plus, the FSB still incorporated a front sight, so you could not use the front sight to mechanically center the windage on the rear sight when the rifle was zeroed. How much that was a problem depended on how precisely clocked the FSB was, and then whether the barrel subsequently got bent out of line with the receiver.


From a service rifle perspective:  

I shot an M14 and an M1A in service rifle competition and I've worked on a number of M1A and M1 Garands to bring them up to NM standard.

The M1 / M14 sights are good by battle rifle standards, but they have excessive slop in them, particularly when they are cranked out for long range shooting, and the standard variety lack fine enough windage and elevation adjustment for service rifle completion.   A NM hood has an offset hole so that rotating the hood 180 degrees gives you the 1/2 minute change needed between the 1 MOA clicks. The windage is more involved as you need to add a detent ball and spring in the receiver's sight ear and then use a NM windage knob with 8 grooves in it.  And you'll need to work those grooves so they are all even in depth and profile.

Then you still need to deal with the slop.  The hysteresis in the windage adjustment requires turning the sight axle to remove some metal to make room for a spring that will keep the sight pressed against the same screw face.  You then need to bed the rear sight riser in the sight base to take out the extra play and then re-tension the spring steel cover to ensure adequate and constant pressure on the sight base.  It's the better part of a day's work to get into match ready condition.


The standard A2 sight has similar match ready issues, and in particular the side to side rotation of the sight on the carry handle.  But fortunately you can just buy an NM ready sight for it.  It is then hand fitted to the carry handle to eliminate any side to side rotation.    The A2's square front sight post is a blessing and a curse.  On the one hand, the square post potentially gives a better sight picture, but on the other hand adjusting the width is much more difficult and you've got only 4 clicks per turn rather than 5 so it is less precise in allowing you to precisely zero the rear sight. And of course the FSB still prevents using the front sight to mechanically center the windage on the rear sight.  The work around for that is drill the FSB for hex head scores in place of the sight base taper pins and then mill corresponding flats in the barrel, so that you can use the hex head screws to cant the sight as needed to zero the windage with the rear sight centered. (and then you lock tight and tighten all 4 screws to hold the FSB in place).  

The A1 sights don't really offer a match option, although you can also fit a NM hood into the rear sight. The front sight pin is easily turned to a diameter that will correspond with the bullseyes on the targets.  However the sight itself is capable of excellent accuracy - the adjustments are just a bit course and not quite as easy to make.

----

All that said, I preferred the M14 sight over the A2 sight for service rifle competition, but I'm still a huge fan of the A1 sight for practical shooting purposes.

Very well stated, DakotaFAL. I agree the M14 sights are better for an advanced user, but M16A1 sights are better for general issue to all users.

I agree with the poster who stated Swiss SG 550 series sights are the best combat irons ever. They even have tritium night inserts (3-dot config) on every weapon. They weren't a copy of the G3 though. G3 came first. They're an improvement on the G3 because the rear is easily adjustable for windage and elevation when zeroing. G3 is adjustable for both also, but elevation requires a special tool. I've also observed variation in the QC of G3 rear sight drums, whereas SAN / Swiss Arms sights are all precise like clockwork. Another nice feature is that when you flip the front night sight up, you get a thicker front sight post for aiming at close range.

Attached File




NM diopter apertures are also available.

Square post > Round post for my eyes

Agreed, OP.  Set 'em and forget 'em!

1903A3 has them all beat in a real caliber

Right... The best sights ever are 2700 yard notch sights.



AJ

I think he was referring to the A3 model which had the rear aperture sight.

hehehehheehehe......

You know how I feel about the A3.  Makes me want to go shoot it again.....

No shit, I have seen ancient MCRD A2's that nearly need channelocks to turn.  They don't get bumped.  And give me that nice square front sight post any day an an A2.

I believe the Swiss only shoot at 300 meters, they can get away without having easy and repeatable windage.  500 meters requires a windage knob, and nothing out there (as issued) can touch the A2 sight.

I agree, the M16A1 is idiot proof.  I think the A2 sights are almost as good and I've had no issues with them.  I also like the sights on the M1A and have never had any issues.

My 551 is marked up to 400m. The Swiss are realists. 

I saw a Colt AR-15A2 with SP1 Receivers and sights on an A2 barrel and the coltarded front pin.. Still had the factory muzzle cover and the feller that owned said he had the box at home. Wanted 1600

I like the sp-1 everywhere but the fore arm, the round ones are worth  while maybe.

Mosin & AK - Rifles are provided by the government.  The government is never wrong, so rifle is perfect as provided.  There is no need for adjustment of any kind.  What are you, a subversive or something?

Yep. How far away can you see men in drab clothing?

There is a reason 400m has been the outer limit for firefights for the last century or so.

AJ

Try not to take this the wrong way, but to me that is so much crap.  Especially if you're in the military one might find himself in a situation that he CAN see his target for a long ways off.   I mean the scenarios are endless.  Dudes in olive drab standing on concrete....  Snow....  on and on and on and on.

Anyone with enough skill to hit a man past 400m with a modern assault rifle will be wise enough to put a correct hold on his/her target. 5.56mm NATO has a very flat trajectory out to its max effective range, so this really isn't a problem.

I prefer the A2 over the A1 and think the M1s are equal, maybe a little better.

In terms of shooting out at mid-range I recently shot a 3 gun match with targets out to 425. I was using a 14.7 carbine with RDS. Unless I'm shooting paper, I don't really need to adjust for elevation untill past that.

With an SP-1 I could keep all my shots on a 20" gong at 500 using m193 it was warm and calm winded.

the sight radius and velocity gain of a 20" 1-12" barrel using  55 grain projectiles and peak  velocity of 3350-3400FPS  is more than enough for someone better than me to be frighteningly good at 600 yards with just Ky windage or tracers.

I have seen people shoot M-1s out to probably 800 yards and keep them on a B-27.

Yeah, they are two sight categories. Peep sights like on Garand, AR and the pistol type sights on AK and the Mauser / Moisin. I absolutely cannot hit anything with pistol type open sights. Beyond 50 meters.

HK/G3 is also very nice, I like the idea of rotating drum.  I don't like the 100m setting but the 200m is what I use for all situations and it's as accurate as a scope.   Years ahead of the AK.

About 25 years ago #2 son and I were shooting my new Colt AR15 Sporter II.

The first thing he did was ask me "what's this knob on the side for" and he started cranking on the windage knob.

After we got it sighted back in we marked it with nail polish.

M14 > M16A2 > M16A1

I thought we were doing combat sights, not target sights.

AJ

I will throw in with the A1 group. Very good combat sight.... Engaging stationary targets at 600 yds while slung up is fantasy.

Set em and they stay set.

This.  Square front sight post is best post.

I've had A2 sights and similar spin themselves on personal and issue weapons. A1 sights are simply the best you can get, only the Sig 550 comes close, although I'd favor the former for a large military like ours and the latter for a more skilled military.

I hear ya.  I don't discount your experience.  I wonder sometimes if some are stiffer than others.    Like we don't typically here the same complaints with the Garand or M14 or M-1 carbine with the adjustables.  You know?  I know not a lot of people aren't kicking around with them nowadays for serious work.  But whatever.  

I actually bought the DD rear 1.5 but I didn't like it at all.  It's further foward than a standard carry handle and the sight picture sucks, for me, with the small ap.  It's just too far forward.  My carbine seem to shoot well with the big ap at 25 meters but the small ap was a deal breaker for me.  An A1 carry handle would be a better choice.  

I'm going to get a set of Scalarworks sights.

Just looked it up.  Yeah, that rear seems to put the ap closer to your eyeball.  Well done.  

I don't see how you're OK with the front.  It's got a wheel to turn.........

If someone is intent on messing up someones zero, then it doesn't matter if its a A1 or A2.  A1 are lighter and come with a full auto sector where the A2 bit heavier but still balanced and burst.  A flat top upper beats them all as you can mount irons, optics and other aiming devices that doen't limit you to day shooting only.  All personal preference but whatever you choose, get as much range time and training as you can.  


CD