|
Post by Hawkeye on Feb 11, 2012 11:39:56 GMT -5
Diz and I were having this discussion recently, and thought we'd throw it out there for further input. We were talking about our personal AK's, and how we want them set up, etc.., and what he optimal balance is of sighting options and cost. Currently, the standard line of thought is, that a good RDO (red dot optic) is absolutely the way to go for a fighting rifle. It gives faster target aquisition, etc.. over iron sights. We are both believers in this, having ran Aimpoints and a few other things on our AR's for years. However, a few things have started us questioning this, specifically when it comes to the prepared citizen running an AK varient rifle. Now, the argument is made, that it is even more important to run an optic on an AK that is to be used as a life protecting weapon, due to the iron sights of an AK not lending themselves to the same level of accuracy as say those on an AR. It is true, that AK sights generally will not lend themselves to shooting nice tight accurate groups, especially once ranges start getting out to past 100 yards, than say an AR will. This is by design though. AR sights, and peep sights in general, are designed for accurate shooting, with a sacrifice in speed. AK sights, are designed just the opposite. They are for fast target aquisition and hits, with a sacrifice in "accuracy". Our thoughts are, that this is why we saw such a hard shift towards RDO's on AR weapons. They do give a significant improvement on combat speed and hitting the target. However, most people will agree, they usually do that with a bit of a loss of precision accuracy over iron sights. But what about an AK? Its iron sights were specifically designed to accomplish exactly what the RDO does on an AR based weapon. Most of you probably know about or have heard of Paul Howe. If you havent, look him up. I dare say there arent many who would say that Mr. Howe is not extremely well versed in both being shot at, and shooting back at people, especially in short - mid range distance fighting. Mr. Howe is a big advocate of running iron sights on his AR, but with one exception. Using his rear sight design. Here is a video about it.
Notice the large square notch......Looks alot like the rear sight on an AK. This is for fast close-mid range fighting, not precision. Notice, the peep sight kept below the notch, for precision work at further distances. Diz and I are thinking there is a clue in here somewhere..... For the average prepared/armed citizen, realistic engagements for us are most likely going to be from approx 150 yrds and closer in our opinion. Since we are discussion fighting here, and not sniping, or gun games where precision shot placement is the goal, we are thinking that the iron sights on an AK greatly offset the need for a RDO to get fast combat hits on a mansize target within that range. When I shot the carbine shoot that I did a few weeks ago, it was my first time running a match like that with something other than an AR. I used to run it all the time with iron sights on my AR's, ad back in 2002 when RDO's were really coming into their own, I did notice a significant increase in speed and hits when I started running an Aimpoint vs. just the stock AR iron sights. This recent shoot, I ran the first stage with my Aimpoint sighted AK, and the second, with my iron sighted one. What I noticed was that, for me, there was little to no difference in how quickly and accurately I engaged the targets. In fact, if anything, I was maybe a tad faster with the iron sighted rifle. So I guess the point of this discussion is, for an AK, does a RDO really offer enough tangible gains, in real fighting situations, to justify the cost etc. of adding them over just the stock iron sights? I think its all about getting down to what really and truly works, for the intended purpose. Modern RDO's are very high quality and extremely durable. However, Iron sights will always be there, and always work. The one thing Diz and I also discussed, in a thought to really optimize the AK irons, is the simple addition of tritium sights. This still gives you simple iron sights, but also some ability to acquire the sights in low light. The crux of this, is to cut all the BS, and examine things from a clear and directional point. So, all that said.... what do you think?
|
|
matt
New Member
Trigger Jerk
Posts: 244
|
Post by matt on Feb 11, 2012 12:50:53 GMT -5
I suppose that I agree on some items but disagree on others.
AK and AR irons can be very fast - nearly as fast as an Aimpoint (or other RDS) if you use the right techniques and put in the time on the range. This is especially true up close but the Aimpoint starts to stretch its speed advantage at intermediate ranges where certain iron sight speed techniques are no longer applicable.
However, I find that I am noticeably more accurate with an Aimpoint than I am with iron sights. Many people see marked improvement in accuracy when they install an Ultimak or similar. This may be in small part due to a change in barrel harmonics or something like that but for the most part it is due to the addition of the RDS. Iron sights require the shooter to align objects in three planes (rear sight, front sight, target) but the human eye can only focus on one plane at a time (front sight). Using an RDS allows the shooter to focus through the optic on the target only and the dot is superimposed. This can increase accuracy (and speed).
The two really start to separate in low light. Filing open the AK's rear sight notch can help get more light through the rear notch but in low light the RDS will outperform it handily.
Tritium night sights on rifles sound good in theory, but in practice they leave a lot to be desired. The most obvious disadvantage is the over sized front sight that is required to house the tritium element. Also, because the tritium is visible on only one side of the front sight, you essentially loose the ability to fine tune your elevation adjustment. Additionally, tritium elements in the rear sight are far closer to the eye and appear far brighter which is the exact opposite of what you want. I suppose that tritium sights like those from XS Sights may solve this and be a bit faster than regular sights in theory but I would not want to give up as much long range "precision" as I would have to in order to use those sights. I have yet to find night sights for a rifle that I felt were worth a darn.
I have basically arrived at the conclusion that today's RDS are as reliable or perhaps even more reliable than iron sights. If an Aimpoint goes down for some reason it can serve as a rear sight itself or the sights can be used through it. In rain, I have come to prefer my Aimpoint over irons sights since the dot remains visible but a drop of water in a rear sight notch can obscure your view. The Aimpoint is usable across more conditions (lighting, weather, etc). Iron sights do excel in extreme cold but that isn't really a consideration for my AO.
So, yes, iron sights are viable. They should be learned and mastered because you may need to rely on them someday. They can, in the absence of better options, be used VERY effectively. However, the RDS is a force multiplier. It is a better mouse trap. My experience has lead me to mount them on every serious rifle that I own. To me, KISS means rifle plus sling, light, and RDS. These reliable items are worth their weight and cost in terms of the functionality that they add.
Iron sights are viable but I can't go so far as to say they are better.
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Feb 11, 2012 14:34:16 GMT -5
I'm planning to take the simple route on my 5.45 AK and leave the red dot off for now. I was sufficiently impressed by the guy in my first carbine class who ran his irons as fast at close range as we beginners were with red dots.
It's about balance. Not physical balance, balance in the effectiveness and durability of the rifle in different conditions. I may well swing back to red dots. I have them on other rifles and will keep them there, just planning to experiment on this one.
|
|
|
Post by Diz on Feb 11, 2012 15:31:46 GMT -5
I agree with Hawkeye on this one. I have configured my rifles several different ways this year but keep coming back to the simplicity, light weight, and low cost of iron sight rifles.
I guess it all boils down to the context within which the rifle will be used. My estimate of my situation is that my most likely combat engagements with a rifle will be close range, from 0 to maybe 50m. The rolling, forrested terrain here is such that a shot much past 50m is unlikely. This is not very much different from my pistol ranges. So if iron sights, with tritium, work well for my pistol, I don't see why they wouldn't work for my rifle as well.
In fact the sight pictures are so similar, that transitions are seamless. Within the context of your total weapons load-out, I would submit that it is a good idea to use the same sights on both your primary and secondary weapons. I don't necessarily view my rifle as my long range weapon, and my pistol as my short range. I see them overlapping quite a bit in my case, and therefore plan to employ them together at virtually the same ranges. Therefore having very similar sight set-ups makes a lot of sense.
Another point to consider: is shooting your opponent always the objective, or not being shot yourself? By that I mean if you can lay down effective counter-fire to break contact without being shot, is that sometimes good enough, or do you always see yourself as having to neutralize your opponent in order to walk away? The military and police mindset is hits on target. Their mission is usually to neutralize a target. My mission may be very different from that. I may be just trying to get away from a bad situation. In that case just returning fire may have the desired effect of getting me out of harm's way without being shot. I would submit to you that sometimes mobility might be more important than the accuracy of your weapons. I think this concept of pin-point accuracy comes from a mil-LEO direct-action mission perspective, which might not always be applicable to us.
|
|
matt
New Member
Trigger Jerk
Posts: 244
|
Post by matt on Feb 11, 2012 16:22:12 GMT -5
Diz, you might want to see if you can pick up a set of used night sights on the secondary market so you can try them out. In my experience they really just don't work the same way that they do on a handgun. The proportions are all different. Handgun sights have a wider rear notch and are generally more forgiving of thick front sight posts since you don't really expect rifle accuracy at 50 yards. I also really didn't care for the fact that I had to zero them higher than I would prefer because you essentially loose 3/4 of your ability to zero them since the front sight must be oriented a certain way for the tritium to be visible. I think, given your perimeters, you might want to look at the XS Sights AK Big Dot sights. They wouldn't be my choice but it seems that they would work well for the specific situations that you are talking about.
Regarding range, an Aimpoint allows me to engage targets from 0-300 yards (300 yards has a very generous hold-over) and everywhere in between. In my area (flat farm country), I have 50+ meter shots in nearly every direction. It wouldn't be wise for me to set up my rifles with such a heavy emphasis on 0-50 yards. I think I would be crazy to think that I could dictate the terms of the fight when I have such wide open spaces all around me. I try to set my rifles up for maximum versatility. RDSs allow me to deal with most realistic ranges that I might encounter and work in a broad spectrum of conditions. In my case, I can show that I am faster and more accurate with the RDS with hard data (measurements and shot timers) across a variety of drills and distances not just on a static range.
Just a word of caution... I trust that this isn't the case with you guys but we all know that people grab onto the "KISS" concept and take it too far - often for the sake of being cheap. They talk about simplicity and convince themselves that it is the end all and be all goal when in reality they are justifying their unwillingness to spend money. Of course this cuts the other way too - increased cost doesn't always mean increased performance. The important thing is that you are honest in how you intemperate the data and experience that you use to make your decisions. If your experience says irons are best, run with them and hone your ability to use them efficiently. If you don't want to spend on an RDS - run with the irons and hone your ability to use them efficiently but be honest with about your reasons for using them.
|
|
|
Post by Diz on Feb 11, 2012 18:52:34 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more Matt. Take a good look at your AO and plan accordingly. If I still lived in Kali, on the edge of the high desert, I would be thinking in terms of several hundred meter shots. Nowadays that distance is all but forgotten.
Good point about being cheap, for cheap's sake. There are guys who will buy a WASR, cheap metal mags, surplus ammo, and a cheaper than dirt chest rig, and tell you they will shoot the shit out of your "fancy" rig. I like to take a more middle of the road/ price range approach. I don't buy cheap junk, nor high-end custom.
In keeping with our motif here, I am a big fan of going light and mobile, like our forefathers running through the forrests with flintlock and tomahawk. For me, unless I can get a huge advantage out of it, I am all for keeping my weapons and equipment as light as possible. I believe mobility can be just as important as firepower.
So it all comes down to you and your situation, as always. However, I believe there is a lot of tactical propaganda out there about the RDS being absolutely required. I think Paul Howe is the perfect example of someone with extensive combat expereince, yet bucks the trend, and prefers a simple, light-weight rifle without optics.
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Feb 11, 2012 23:36:42 GMT -5
In light of this thread rambling around in the back of my head since I read it earlier, I have an honest question: Does the ultimate AK optic exist yet?
Don't laugh, I know there are tons of options out there. And some are excellent. I'm thinking along the lines of the Iron Dot that LaRue came out with but discontinued.
What would you like to see in an optic like this? I am thinking of a very small red dot, like the Trijicon RMR or the like. Price is a consideration of course so Trijicon is out.
My want list:
Compact Built in BUIS notch Installs into existing rear sight base Cowitnesses with front sight Ideally has 300m dot calibrated for long range (optional, caliber specific) Adjustable dot intensity Long battery life
Now... This is doable. It may come down to a simple mount even. My point in typing all this on my phone is to get a sub-$200 red dot that is rugged and doesn't require a handguard or more expensive change to do.
Please add to the list or critique it. I'd love to hand this list to a company like Primary Arms and see what they come up with.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Feb 12, 2012 9:08:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Feb 12, 2012 10:27:52 GMT -5
I'm thinking along those lines but ruggedized. I think there is an opportunity here.
|
|
|
Post by Patriotic Sheepdog on Feb 12, 2012 18:28:21 GMT -5
I may not have much to add to the comments already posted as there are good points already made, but I have something else to consider. I tried to get good shots with the irons on my AK and to be honest, I sucked with them...especially with low light like dusk/early dawn. After talking with others that had watched my techniques and examining my shortfalls, I came to the realization that it was my eyes. I may (probably are) older than some on here and wear progressive bifocals. This really does a number when trying to focus on rear/front sights and the target. Things are very blurry at one place a little blurry at another and in focus at the third area. I had to decide on what I wanted in focus and what needed to be blurry. When I focused on the front sight, the target and rear sight would be blurry. If I focused on the target, the front and rear would be blurry. One of the two would always be VERY blurry. I went on an exploration of what would work for me and after trying various set-ups on friends AK's and doing a lot of reading on the web and talking to my Optometrist (that was fun), the set up I decided on was the TWS Dogleg and the rear peep sight they sell. I also got a RDS that cowitnesses. I found that by bringing the rear sight closer to my eye I was able to acquisition better and get more accurate shots. It had something to do with looking through a peep closer to my eye instead of the open rear sight further away. I used this set up at the range and loved it. At a class the guys I usually shoot with commented how much better and accurate I shot. The whole point to this is the eyes play a big role with what works for each individual. As everyone here knows, listen to what works for others but just remember it may not be what works for you. I found it sucks getting older, but the alternative sucks worse.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Feb 14, 2012 8:34:42 GMT -5
Looks like MI now has them for the RMR, Fastfire, etc.. now. I really like the light weight low profile design of these, and also the incorporation of a rear iron sight. Just unsure about the durability aspect..... Makes me wonder how durable is durable. It physically appears (from pictures) that short of hitting it with a large ball peen hammer, it should be plenty strong. A Trijicon adjustable LED RMR on one of these would be a very good setup in my mind, if the strength is there....
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Feb 14, 2012 9:39:10 GMT -5
You know what Hawk, that is pretty much the exact setup I am talking about. The complete setup with a PA microdot is under $175, and that is perfect.
MI should look at making that mount a bit more rugged and hopefully it can fill that niche.
|
|
|
Post by UnforseenWeather on Feb 14, 2012 10:10:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Feb 14, 2012 10:22:52 GMT -5
Hmmm...Just watched the instal video on that. It does look interesting for sure.
|
|
matt
New Member
Trigger Jerk
Posts: 244
|
Post by matt on Feb 14, 2012 15:27:13 GMT -5
I have no bone to pick with Attero Arms nor do I have any experience with their product, but you may want to look into some of the drama that has been surrounding them before spending your hard earned cash.
|
|