Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/14/2002 5:46:41 PM EDT
What's difference between the two?
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 6:46:52 PM EDT
A2 rear sights are more "user friendly" as they have dials that make adjustments very easy. They are adjustable for both elevation and windage. Also, the A2 rear sights have larger apertures. I believe the large A1 aperture is the same as the small A2 aperture.

The original A1 aperture could only be adjusted for windage. This required a sight tool or the tip of a bullet to turn the dial (there were small holes where the bullet tip coult fit). Both apertures are only good for medium-long ranges. They are not good for close rangfes because there is literally no peripheral view. Most people don't like them because hardly any light passes through the apertures. Some people say that the A1 is more reliable because the adjustments can't be accidently changed. If the aperture bothers you on the A1 sights, i think some companies like DPMS have replacement sights with larger apertures, just make sure they are made to replace A!1 sights.

As far as the front sights are concerned, they are essentially the same. Over the years I think the shape (rounded tip to square tip) and size might have gone through some evolution. Both front sights are adjusted with a sight tool.

On the A2 I believe it is recommended to adjust the front sight when sighting in (not sure of what deistance this should be done off the top of my head, 100meters?) and making all field adjustments with the dials on the rear sight.

I have had both types on my AR's. The A2 is easier to use and the larger aperture is nice, but it all depends on your personal taste.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 7:11:13 PM EDT
A1 has a tapered post, A2 has a square ost, which is better.

There are two different apertures on the A2, and that is more versatile.

There is really no difference in ruggedness.

A2 is sighted in for 300 yards, and both adjust using their respective sight tools.

On a .223 it is a handicap to use A1 sights for field shooting, as they are not adjustable in the field. On the A2 you sight in for 300, and dial the rear with the range out to 800.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 11:39:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
A1 has a tapered post, A2 has a square post


A2 produces a better sight picture, but the A1 has finer adjustments. I've got the A2 on my rifle (20") and currently sport a tritium A1 for my carbine. The A2 front sight is superior, but the A1 is fine - especially on a carbine.



There is really no difference in ruggedness.


Not true. With the addition of parts and the sight supported by a screw post it most definately is not as rugged.



On a .223 it is a handicap to use A1 sights for field shooting, as they are not adjustable in the field.


Why would you ever need to adjust the sights? In the real world it is Rarely done. The A1's are far superior for field use - they cant be twiddled with when your bored or accidentally knocked out of position. For quite a while Colt refered to these as 'Field Sights'.



On the A2 you sight in for 300, and dial the rear with the range out to 800.


Assuming you are using the right zero (and the 8/3+1 at 25M isn't it).

The A2 sights were designed by the USMC as they still qualify on a KD (Known Distance) range. They are for all purposes ruggedized 'match sights', and were designed to make it easier for the Marines to adjust their sights for that 500M target.

In the real world there is rarely the time to adjust the sights, nor does the enemy stand up and stay still at the longer ranges. The Elevation adjustment really isn't needed. As such I prefer the windage only 'Field Sights' especially on my carbines.
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 2:16:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/15/2002 2:21:22 PM EDT by scottfn308]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
A1 has a tapered post, A2 has a square post


A2 produces a better sight picture, but the A1 has finer adjustments. I've got the A2 on my rifle (20") and currently sport a tritium A1 for my carbine. The A2 front sight is superior, but the A1 is fine - especially on a carbine.

The A-2 sight is far too wide. It looks like a
telephone pole in the way at 100yds.



There is really no difference in ruggedness.


Not true. With the addition of parts and the sight supported by a screw post it most definately is not as rugged.

The A-1 has less parts to tear up and break=more rugged.


On a .223 it is a handicap to use A1 sights for field shooting, as they are not adjustable in the field.


Why would you ever need to adjust the sights? In the real world it is Rarely done. The A1's are far superior for field use - they cant be twiddled with when your bored or accidentally knocked out of position. For quite a while Colt refered to these as 'Field Sights'.

The A-1 sights are readily adj. in the field, just use a bullet tip.


On the A2 you sight in for 300, and dial the rear with the range out to 800.


Assuming you are using the right zero (and the 8/3+1 at 25M isn't it).

The A2 sights were designed by the USMC as they still qualify on a KD (Known Distance) range. They are for all purposes ruggedized 'match sights', and were designed to make it easier for the Marines to adjust their sights for that 500M target.

In the real world there is rarely the time to adjust the sights, nor does the enemy stand up and stay still at the longer ranges. The Elevation adjustment really isn't needed. As such I prefer the windage only 'Field Sights' especially on my carbines.



The A-2 sights might look cool but in the field they are far too complex to be used effectively.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 2:51:27 PM EDT
"There is no real difference in ruggedness"

"Not true. With the addition of parts and the sight supported by a screw post it is most definately not as rugged. The
A-1 has less parts to tear up and break=more rugged."

Uh--no, that's not true.
The A2 rear sight base and elevation screw post are made of hardened steel because the protective ears of the A1's carrying handle weren't stout enough to hold up to some of the rough handling some of these rifles were often subject to by Infantrymen and LEOs. After seeing some of these parts turn up at gunshows and the like (before Klinton outlawed the practice) it was easy to see why such an upgrade was deemed necessary in the 1980's. Don't get me wrong-A1 sights are still good-just don't bump them hard against concrete should you find yourself rappelling down a building or something. Also, in order to convert A2 rear sights to 1/2 MOA adjustments it is necessary to take the temper out of the with a torch so they will be soft enough to rethread. The steel they are made of is plenty hard.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 4:43:41 PM EDT
Best I can tell at under 300 yards about $100.
Link Posted: 10/19/2002 9:23:12 PM EDT
Top Top