AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/29/2013 9:10:08 AM EDT
|
I find the sight radius on AR's dissapointingly short. As a rule, they're 6" farther back than I want them to be. I have always been puzzled why Stoner designed them that way. It dawned on me that the reason might be so that it would better accomodate a bayonet. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I would guess that the majority of us here don't have bayonets mounted on our AR's. 
Older shooters like me need all the help we can get with iron sights. In addition to the sight radius, the shape of the guards is confusing to my eyes. In a brushy background I sometimes find myself looking at one of the guards and thinking it's a sight pin, slowing sight acquisition another half-second. The AK front sight is perfect by comparison. the guards are rounded inwards instead of out and never get mistaken for a pin. Also the pin is thinner. It's a shame that the AK has such a poor rear sight and the AR such a poor (in my lowly opinion) front sight. So my question is this: Does any aftermarket supplier sell an AK style front sight that could be gunsmith-mounted to an AR? Sure I could buy a 20" upper or a middie, but for crying out loud, one of the main reasons to get a longer barrel on an iron sighted rifle is sight radius. I'm not getting my money's worth. |
The front sight is where it is because the sight base also acts as a gas block... ...Get it set up with a really long rail and mount a sight on it. See below, and yes the carbine sight radius is short.
13.5" rail on a 14.5" barrel 
15" rail on a 16" barrel 
16.7" rail on 18" barrel 
|
|
I'm sorry you feel that way but let's look at why things are the way they are:
Going back the M1 Garand to name just one rifle, we see that great success can be had when you combine the front sight and gas cylinder/gas block assembly in one unit. On the AR15, the front sight post doubles as gas block, and the idea was to make a battlefield rifle that could withstand intense abuse. Four years in the Army has shown me personally that the front sight post is one hell of a robust part and I've never seen one break (at least in person). Another thing to consider is that putting more stuff on the farther end of the barrel means you're hurting an otherwise good balance and you're putting weight and parts on the far end of the rifle, making it especially front-heavy. Saying the front sight isn't far out enough is like, to me, arguing that you should be able to put the rear sight on the very end of the butt stock. Sure you could physically do it but that wouldn't make any sense and it wouldn't be practical. At some point, you can keep adding inches and inches to your sight radius and it won't make a different at all -going from a hypothetical 40" sight radius to a 45" radius isn't going to change anything. I believe that the sight radius on a carbine-length AR is good enough, and even better with a rifle-length gas system -either way, it doesn't seem to make that much difference with a seasoned shooter, you can still hit accurately. Another issue is the fact that somehow you're seeing the hand guard and confusing that in some way with the front sight 
For that I have no advice or thoughts other than practice holding the rifle with a point of aim that can naturally acquire the target via the front sight. Of course if the iron sights (which are excellent by the way) are not working out for you, then you could always get a scope or a red dot, or even a holographic -either way there are other aiming methods to work with on the AR15 and because Stoner's design is far better at adapting to the modern needs of rails and whatnot, you can actually mount a receiver-mounted scope rather than having to dig up a com bloc mount that's stamped or riveted onto the side of a stamped steel receiver. I will not initiate the AK/AR debate here, but what I will say is that all over the world, if armies can afford them, they ditch the AKs and purchase M16s/M4s for a reason. |
|
I didn't read the OP as if he was casting disparaging remarks on Eugene, rather it was a tongue in cheek comment on
old tired eyes and a desire to shoot an AR with better results... Yes, increase rail length and put irons as far our as you can over a longer barrel. Or add magnification optics (scopes/magnifiers etc) to you weapon. As I get older, I rely on optics more than irons, but I do have an use BUIS' as far our on the rails as they will fit. |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;'] the idea was to make a battlefield rifle that could withstand intense abuse. I agree it's stronger, but the AK's don't have that much trouble with them getting bumped around.. Another thing to consider is that putting more stuff on the farther end of the barrel means you're hurting an otherwise good balance and you're putting weight and parts on the far end of the rifle, making it especially front-heavy. I don't think it would be that heavy on a 16" lightweight barrel. I would shave the original FSB, too.
I believe that the sight radius on a carbine-length AR is good enough, and even better with a rifle-length gas system -either way, it doesn't seem to make that much difference with a seasoned shooter, you can still hit accurately. We know the AR is potentially more accurate than an AK. I know this to be true on mine as I've had scopes on both. Then I put Tech-Sites on my AK, (which is basically designed after an A1 rear sight) and I can very consistently shoot tighter groups with the sloppy old Romanian AK than I can with the AR.Another issue is the fact that somehow you're seeing the hand guard and confusing that in some way with the front sight . |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
I don't like rails. Just old-fashioned I guess. I think a long free float tube of any kind strong enough to support a front sight will add more weight out front than an AK style sight.
Yes, increase rail length and put irons as far our as you can over a longer barrel. I want lightweight, rugged and fast. I thought I was "too old for irons" until I put Tech Sights on my Marlin 60 .22 LR, which increased the sight radius to around 26". With that Marlin I can shoot 2" MOA tighter than I can with the AR. Yeah...military rifles weren't designed for old geezers. Except maybe flatop AR's with optics. But I still want one with irons that I can shoot well. |
|
Quoted:
[span style='font-weight: bold;']
I don't like rails. Just old-fashioned I guess. I think a long free float tube of any kind strong enough to support a front sight will add more weight out front than an AK style sight.
Yes, increase rail length and put irons as far our as you can over a longer barrel. I want lightweight, rugged and fast. I thought I was "too old for irons" until I put Tech Sights on my Marlin 60 .22 LR, which increased the sight radius to around 26". With that Marlin I can shoot 2" MOA tighter than I can with the AR. Yeah...military rifles weren't designed for old geezers. Except maybe flatop AR's with optics. But I still want one with irons that I can shoot well. I used to feel that way too OP. I only wanted an A2 rifle, no scopes, no optics, and certainly no rails. And that is what I got for my first AR, a Colt A2 HBAR. After lugging that heavy fucker in the field for a year, I have since went to railed M4 variant styled carbine's and mid length's. A light weight railed carbine is 2 to 3+ pounds lighter than that original HBAR I loved so much. You owe it to yourself to try an AR with a light weight rail. Ditch the carry handle for a Troy rear BUIS and light weight 12 inch rail, on a 16 inch standard (pencil) profile barrel, with a Troy front sight at the end of the rail. You will be surprised how much more distance you can get the sight radius apart from a standard M4 set-up. Hell, I don't use optics much if at all. If I ever do decide to use my optic on a regular basis my rifle is already set up that way. My rifle's are Recce rifles without the optics. YMMV... |
|
Quoted:
I find the sight radius on AR's dissapointingly short. As a rule, they're 6" farther back than I want them to be. I have always been puzzled why Stoner designed them that way. It dawned on me that the reason might be so that it would better accomodate a bayonet. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would guess that the majority of us here don't have bayonets mounted on our AR's.
Older shooters like me need all the help we can get with iron sights. In addition to the sight radius, the shape of the guards is confusing to my eyes. In a brushy background I sometimes find myself looking at one of the guards and thinking it's a sight pin, slowing sight acquisition another half-second. The AK front sight is perfect by comparison. the guards are rounded inwards instead of out and never get mistaken for a pin. Also the pin is thinner. It's a shame that the AK has such a poor rear sight and the AR such a poor (in my lowly opinion) front sight. So my question is this: Does any aftermarket supplier sell an AK style front sight that could be gunsmith-mounted to an AR? Sure I could buy a 20" upper or a middie, but for crying out loud, one of the main reasons to get a longer barrel on an iron sighted rifle is sight radius. I'm not getting my money's worth. Edit: i re-read your OP. have you considered going with a dissipator style upper? it's a 16" barrel with the same sight radius as a 20" upper. OR If you really felt the need to I suppose you could always retrofit an adjustable front sight base like one member did for his dissipator. Look on this linked page and the member shows how he moved his front sight forward. It may work for what you want but no guarantees just a suggestion... http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/509821_Dissipator_Picture___Discussion_Thread.html&page=88 |
|
Quoted:
I find the sight radius on AR's dissapointingly short. As a rule, they're 6" farther back than I want them to be. I have always been puzzled why Stoner designed them that way. It dawned on me that the reason might be so that it would better accomodate a bayonet. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would guess that the majority of us here don't have bayonets mounted on our AR's.
Older shooters like me need all the help we can get with iron sights. In addition to the sight radius, the shape of the guards is confusing to my eyes. In a brushy background I sometimes find myself looking at one of the guards and thinking it's a sight pin, slowing sight acquisition another half-second. The AK front sight is perfect by comparison. the guards are rounded inwards instead of out and never get mistaken for a pin. Also the pin is thinner. It's a shame that the AK has such a poor rear sight and the AR such a poor (in my lowly opinion) front sight. So my question is this: Does any aftermarket supplier sell an AK style front sight that could be gunsmith-mounted to an AR? Sure I could buy a 20" upper or a middie, but for crying out loud, one of the main reasons to get a longer barrel on an iron sighted rifle is sight radius. I'm not getting my money's worth. You can either swap out your front sight post with a tritium tipped one or (like i've done) use a drop of white out for use in a pinch.... |
|
Y'all're making this more complicated than it needs to be.
OP, a couple things - I would recommend a) an optic, b) a full length handguard with a top rail. However, I understand, you want to do it the old fashioned way, despite the benefits of a) and b) above, both separately and in combination. Find a clamping gas block that you like, and mount a dummy gas block to the front of your barrel. I don't know which ones would work 100% off the top of my head because I've never tried it, but I'm sure you could find something. If clamping a .750 gas block won't fit, you can always shim it or get a .625 gas block and have it reamed. Cut down the existing front sight base and use it as a gas block only. If you use a dummy railed gas block, there are a couple options for a hooded front sight that will prevent confusion in the form of flip up irons. Or, you can use a PRI folding front sight base - again, a hooded design. If you're worried about aesthetics or feeling squirrelly, you can even cut the rear half of the dummy gas block off, and mount only the front "leg." Or you can have a .625 reamed and taper pin it. Cut things right, and you could even retain bayonet mounting ability. More than likely, it'll be ugly, but it will accomplish what you're looking for. A full length sight radius with the front sight right behind the muzzle. Talk to hardcore 3-gunners as well - this is/was done relatively frequently for iron sighted only rifles. They probably have some ready made solutions that I am not as familiar with. ~Augee |
|
OP, get a full length hand guard. It doesnt have to be a quad rail, just needs a top rail.
Then get the troy "HK style" fixed front sight, different than the regular M4 sight picture. I love it. Troy HK fixed front |
|
Quoted:
Thanks. I looked at their site.The longest one they currently show is a 14" at 11 ounces. That's still 3.4 ounces more than standard CAR, but pretty light considering the length.
The rails I posted are one of the lightest...the fortis rev even moreso I think, even lighter than standardd handguards. If I went that route, I'd want a 15" on a 16" barrel. I don't know the weight on Troy front sights, but one like this: http://www.skdtac.com/Troy-Folding-Battle-Sight-Front-HK-p/tro.103.htm?1=1&CartID=0 would be preferable to the standard M4, I think. They call it HK style, but it's just like the AK. Target acquisition is faster...for me anyway. Edit: thanks garrett for suggesting the same! |
I got a dissapator for the exact reason the OP talks about. I'm a huge fan of the iron sights and find it a little more fun to shoot with them. Because of that I got the PSA "mock" dissy that they offer, which is essentially rifle length sights with a mid length gas system on a 16'' barrel. Gives you nice long hand guards, and iron sights, without losing the functionality and size of a 16'' barrel. Might be something you want to look into. Looks basically like this (my current build)
|
|
Thanks for the replies, guys! The clamp on FSB is a good idea, although I would want it drilled and pinned for durability. I assume this is for M4 barrels.
The top rail free float with Troy fixed front sight is good, too if such a handguard becomes available, but I think it would add $250- 300 to the cost of the rifle. It might be worth it since I'd have the accuracy of free float and the the benefit of the HK style sight. I thought about a dissipator but I read that the gas system has reliability issues in extreme temperatures. A mock dissy might solve that. I would want one with a light barrel. |
|
Quoted: thats why the mock dissy's became popular, the real gas block is in the standard location of a carbine, but the "mock" gas block you use as your front sight is out front.Thanks for the replies, guys! The clamp on FSB is a good idea, although I would want it drilled and pinned for durability. I assume this is for M4 barrels. The top rail free float with Troy fixed front sight is good, too if such a handguard becomes available, but I think it would add $250- 300 to the cost of the rifle. It might be worth it since I'd have the accuracy of free float and the the benefit of the HK style sight. I thought about a dissipator but I read that the gas system has reliability issues in extreme temperatures. A mock dissy might solve that |
|
Quoted: The problem is not your money or the platform, but your eyes. Older shooters like me need all the help we can get with iron sights..... get a scope I'm not getting my money's worth. You acknowledge the answer is in a longer upper, but you want a short carbine, guess what the only option is a add on FSB or get a longer upper. |
|
Quoted:
Thanks for the replies, guys! The clamp on FSB is a good idea, although I would want it drilled and pinned for durability. I assume this is for M4 barrels. The top rail free float with Troy fixed front sight is good, too if such a handguard becomes available, but I think it would add $250- 300 to the cost of the rifle. It might be worth it since I'd have the accuracy of free float and the the benefit of the HK style sight. I thought about a dissipator but I read that the gas system has reliability issues in extreme temperatures. A mock dissy might solve that From what I have heard, the "reliability issues" in the real dissipators can be fixed by messing with the buffer weights and really aren't as big of a problem as you hear. However, the mock dissipator is really the best of both worlds with the mid length gas system. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like! But can I afford?
Noveske makes a barrel that can be purchased w/ the FSB pinned. But it's only 18". http://noveskerifleworks.com/cgi-bin/imcart/display.cgi?item_id=b-18i-556&cat=158&page=1&search=&since=&status=&title= Most people start off with 2 kidneys....ymmv 
Other OEM's may not be as fine as a Noveske, but function just as well for less $. Nowadays it is finding stuff in-stock rather than at below budget :) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks. I looked at their site.The longest one they currently show is a 14" at 11 ounces. That's still 3.4 ounces more than standard CAR, but pretty light considering the length.
The rails I posted are one of the lightest...the fortis rev even moreso I think, even lighter than standardd handguards. If I went that route, I'd want a 15" on a 16" barrel. I don't know the weight on Troy front sights, but one like this: http://www.skdtac.com/Troy-Folding-Battle-Sight-Front-HK-p/tro.103.htm?1=1&CartID=0 would be preferable to the standard M4, I think. They call it HK style, but it's just like the AK. Target acquisition is faster...for me anyway. Edit: thanks garrett for suggesting the same! The rails I pictured are NOT the Fortis REV I mentioned. They are the Noveske brand. (I should have been more clear. )
There are many longer lighter rails/forearms coming out lately. |
AR Sponsor