why do AK-style rifles has such a short sight radius ?
- Thread starter guns'ahoy
- Start date
- Status
cslinger
Member
I believe it has to do with their orignal design specifications to be used as a short range, fully automatic, assault weapon. The theory being that a bunch of BMP or BTRs would Blitz up to a position and a few thousand AK armed guys would burst forth at close range spraying lots of suppressive fire.
The Russians would use their designated marksman to take out specific targets at range.
Once the shock force closed to very close quarters, 75 yards or less sight radious doesn't really hinder very much IMO.
This is all just conjecture on my part though, nothing more.
Chris
The Russians would use their designated marksman to take out specific targets at range.
Once the shock force closed to very close quarters, 75 yards or less sight radious doesn't really hinder very much IMO.
This is all just conjecture on my part though, nothing more.
Chris
They have a short sight radius because the distance between the rear and front sight is not long.
No, seriously...the design (i.e. the removeable receiver cover) didn't provide a location for a solid-enough location to mount a rear sight. The location of the rear sight (directly above the chamber) was beefy enough to support that kind of ladder sight.
An RPK or a PRK has a better/longer sight radius because of the increased barrel length.
So, there you go.
(Maybe a tang sight , ala Winchester/Marlin/Creedmore could be a useful invention...let us know how it turns out for your AK.)
No, seriously...the design (i.e. the removeable receiver cover) didn't provide a location for a solid-enough location to mount a rear sight. The location of the rear sight (directly above the chamber) was beefy enough to support that kind of ladder sight.
An RPK or a PRK has a better/longer sight radius because of the increased barrel length.
So, there you go.
(Maybe a tang sight , ala Winchester/Marlin/Creedmore could be a useful invention...let us know how it turns out for your AK.)
The Scandinavian
Member
Finnish SAKO's have the sight on the receiver cover.
Take a look at http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Sakoseriespage1.html
Take a look at http://www.valmet-weapons.com/Sakoseriespage1.html
Hrmmmph. Leave it to the Finns to screw up a perfectly good blanket statement.Looks like they came up with a better way to skin a cat.
I'll recant my statement from above...
I should have said the "ORIGINAL" design...
But then again, what the hell do I know about this stuff?!
TallPine
Member
Well, with eyes like mine, having the rear sight a little farther from my eyes is actually a great help.
Then I can actually SEE the rear sight with some degree of clarity.
I doubt the AK was designed for middle-aged guys, though ...
Then I can actually SEE the rear sight with some degree of clarity.
I doubt the AK was designed for middle-aged guys, though ...
Dave Markowitz
Member
Keep in mind that the AK was not designed as a precision weapon. Soviet tactics emphasized a high volume of fire to overwhelm the enemy. Basically, the thought was that you'd throw so much lead in the general direction of the enemy that he'd have to keep his head down until you overran him.
In line with this, the Soviets/Russians refer to the AK as a submachinegun, rather than an assault rifle. (Not saying that you can't do aimed fire with a subgun, but I'll bet that with a conscript peasant army the primary method of use is as a bullet hose.)
In line with this, the Soviets/Russians refer to the AK as a submachinegun, rather than an assault rifle. (Not saying that you can't do aimed fire with a subgun, but I'll bet that with a conscript peasant army the primary method of use is as a bullet hose.)
bmwguy
Member
Not all AKs have short sight radius,
Check this ak out:
Check this ak out:
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
They have a short sight radius because the distance between the rear and front sight is not long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely right!
The Communist Bloc nations never really went for receiver-mounted aperture sights like the Western nations did. The AK 47 has a relatively short barrel, and there is a limit as to how far back an open sight can be mounted -- the farther back, the more difficult it is to get a sharp sight picture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
They have a short sight radius because the distance between the rear and front sight is not long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
That's absolutely right!
The Communist Bloc nations never really went for receiver-mounted aperture sights like the Western nations did. The AK 47 has a relatively short barrel, and there is a limit as to how far back an open sight can be mounted -- the farther back, the more difficult it is to get a sharp sight picture.
Nightcrawler
Member
Unfortunately, the AN-94 is too complicated and expensive for modern Russia; it's been used by Spetznaz types, but hasn't seen widespread production.
However, the newer AK-74Ms have the side bracket for mounting optics, and I've heard that the Kobra type sights and scopes are becoming increasingly widespread. If your primary sighting device is a scope or a dot sight, the iron sights become a little less important.
In any case I don't find AK notch sights at all difficult to use. Not quite as nice as a peep type setup, but not a huge detriment for me.
However, the newer AK-74Ms have the side bracket for mounting optics, and I've heard that the Kobra type sights and scopes are becoming increasingly widespread. If your primary sighting device is a scope or a dot sight, the iron sights become a little less important.
In any case I don't find AK notch sights at all difficult to use. Not quite as nice as a peep type setup, but not a huge detriment for me.
If any of you have read Bravo 2-0 it has a part in it which is exactly what cslinger is describing except on a smaller scale (a few BMPs and trucks full of infantry vs. 8 SAS operators w/ m16s, m203s, Minimis, and AT-4s). Kinda gives you an idea of why the Russian doctrine might be evolving to give a little more focus on red dot optics and aimed fire.
clubsoda22
member
Ok, i'm looking at getting a SAM7. What would it take to get reciever mounted rails and an A2 sight on it? I've seen cheap reciever covers with rails on them, but i'm not sure how good the fit and finish would be on them, especially if i'm placing them on a quality AK like a SAM7
You can order the A2 kit from Krebs. And they send parts and diagrams that allow you to modify the recoil spring holder/ receiver cover catch so that it snugs down the receiver cover so it does not move.
The only real downside I see is that when you remove the front sight you end up with the big metal ears on each side just sitting there, and you have an opening into your gas system. However I have had absolutely no problem with mine and it does hold zero just fine.
The only real downside I see is that when you remove the front sight you end up with the big metal ears on each side just sitting there, and you have an opening into your gas system. However I have had absolutely no problem with mine and it does hold zero just fine.
j.wise
Member
Hey Correia-
Why did you remove the front sight? Did you mount the front sight on the gas block like the KTR?
Why did you remove the front sight? Did you mount the front sight on the gas block like the KTR?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,555
Russian infantry theory was developed during WW II where infantry would advance with heavy suppressive fire. When organized into motorized corps or when cooperating with tanks, infantry provided protection against German infantry. The need for long sight radius and accurate long range shooting was secondary in light of their assault tactics.
grendelbane
Member
I have noticed a geographical difference in sight preferences. Somewhat modified by either language, or political preference.
In the 19th century, military arms all seemed to have open sights. Sometime around 1913, the Brits experimented with aperture sights. By the early '20s aperture sights were even used on the Thompson SubMachine Gun.
Along comes 1935, and the Garand. Much is made of the sights. Read Hatcher's Book of the Garand, and you will see what I mean. Aperture sights are also placed on the latest version of the Springfield, the 03-A3.
Now comes WW2, and also the M1 carbine. The latter with aperture, (peep) sights. Britain is now issuing Lee-Enfield rifles with very nice aperture sights, (pre dating Col. Cooper's ghost ring sights by several decades. Truly nothing is new under the Sun.)
Even Britain's Sten gun has aperture sights! Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, and Germany, continue to use open sights. After the war, many nations adopt the FN FAL, with aperture sights, others adopt the H&K-CETME type action, which has an aperture sight, and a totally (to me, anyway), useless open sight notch.
Eventually, Col. Cooper has his way, and "ghost ring" sights become the order of the day.
Can anyone point out anything wrong with the chronology I have presented? This has bothered me for some time. Who decided to make the change? I would buy one of those nice Lee-Enfield .308's if they came with the sights that the later British guns had, but not, they don't.
What exactly were the factors in changing to the aperture style sight?
In the 19th century, military arms all seemed to have open sights. Sometime around 1913, the Brits experimented with aperture sights. By the early '20s aperture sights were even used on the Thompson SubMachine Gun.
Along comes 1935, and the Garand. Much is made of the sights. Read Hatcher's Book of the Garand, and you will see what I mean. Aperture sights are also placed on the latest version of the Springfield, the 03-A3.
Now comes WW2, and also the M1 carbine. The latter with aperture, (peep) sights. Britain is now issuing Lee-Enfield rifles with very nice aperture sights, (pre dating Col. Cooper's ghost ring sights by several decades. Truly nothing is new under the Sun.)
Even Britain's Sten gun has aperture sights! Meanwhile, the Soviet Union, and Germany, continue to use open sights. After the war, many nations adopt the FN FAL, with aperture sights, others adopt the H&K-CETME type action, which has an aperture sight, and a totally (to me, anyway), useless open sight notch.
Eventually, Col. Cooper has his way, and "ghost ring" sights become the order of the day.
Can anyone point out anything wrong with the chronology I have presented? This has bothered me for some time. Who decided to make the change? I would buy one of those nice Lee-Enfield .308's if they came with the sights that the later British guns had, but not, they don't.
What exactly were the factors in changing to the aperture style sight?
j.wise
Member
If we think of gun designs as evolutionary, then it makes PERFECT sense that the sights are mounted where they are on the AK rifle. Look at all of the other Russian rifles predating the AK: M39, M38, M44, and heck- even the Mauser. They ALL had open/leaf rear sights mounted in front of the bolt. The SKS used the same sight system as these previous rifles, and the AK followed suit. Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't is the foward thinking and revolutionary idea to mount a peep sight behind the action. That was probably a hard sell at the time, but an incredible advance in small arms design.
Nightcrawler
Member
You could probably make a tang sight for an AK. A stock model intended for a Winchester or a Marlin lever rifle might be too tall, or too short, or whatever, but it'd be far from impossible.
- Status
