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
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/6/2006 5:48:36 AM EDT
The prior thread became ridiculous.

Why do you guys think an A2 rear sight is "simple", when compared to the "zero loss-proof" A1 style?

Why do you guys think a detachable carry handle, again with A2 sights, is KISS compatible?

Bolt on BUIS, again why consider it "simple" when bolts-ons are involved that can and will come apart at the worst possible time. The simple durability of A1 sights is evident, but what is "simple" about something intricate and fragile like folding BUIS?

Using a folding stock when you do NOT require adjustable length of pull to accomodate clothing or armour is not simple, it merely insures that when the weapon must be deployed, the un-needed decision about opening or closing the stock is present, instead of the "shoulder, point, and shoot" simplicity of a fixed stock.

"Geared up" rifles have a place, but calling them KISS makes me wonder if you guys really understand just how "optional and unneccessary" most Arf mods are when the goal is MOZ past 200 yards. I nominate the Colt 652 as the penultimate KISS carbine as it is the only version without "complexity adding features which do NOT increase the hit potential".

Here's a picture of my KISS carbine. Built by adhering to the following principles.

Simple: 1)uncomplicated 2)easy to do or understand 3)without additions 4) not ornate; plain 5) not showy, natural 6)ordinary

"Proned out" in the dirt with irons and ball ammo I was shooting mid-90's scores on SR-1 targets at 100 yards last week with essentially the same configuration, so "SIMPLE" is very effective IMO.

Paladin
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:08:24 AM EDT


Never had a problem with A2 sights and they are more likely to come in handy (adjustment-wise) than to become a problem.

With a tele stock you can set it and forget it... why limit yourself to fullsize?

KISS is about being practical... not being absolute in simplicity. You are dealing with absolutes when some mods are practical.

- BG
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:08:35 AM EDT
I have no idea what you're talking about..... but I do have something similar.



Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:14:24 AM EDT
You need a bolt action and some Prozac.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:40:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
You need a bolt action and some Prozac.




Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:06:51 AM EDT


J/K
I agree that by definition, "simple" excludes a bunch of extra junk hanging on the weapon...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:42:52 AM EDT
Nothing simple about that fancy new fangled rifle you posted. Magazine springs can and will fail at the worst possible time, as will buffer springs and extractors and rear sight of every sort. This is what you need if you really want to keep it simple. Everything else is just a fad.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:46:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:50:16 AM EDT by no_knock556]

Originally Posted By MrMojoRising:
Nothing simple about that fancy new fangled rifle you posted. Magazine springs can and will fail at the worst possible time, as will buffer springs and extractors and rear sight of every sort. This is what you need if you really want to keep it simple. Everything else is just a fad.

www.hr1871.com/firearms/large/Pard410.jpg



That was the very first firearm I had of my own. H&R Topper 12 gauge. Paid cash for it when I was thirteen years old. Come to think of it, that was my first trip into a gunshop, too. Wow, what events that set in motion...

ETA: To bring this post back to the premise of the thread, I used to hunt with a guy who swore by his old H&R. He wouldn't own a semi-auto shotgun and didn't care for pumps, since we had to plug them anyway. With that single shot and two extra rounds in his off hand, he could fire that damned thing just about as fast as a pump. How's THAT for KISS?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:49:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:54:11 AM EDT by Hokie]
KISS only applies to AK's

If I were you I'd saw off those swivels and bayonet lug....you'll eventually get those caught on something in the worst of times and subsequently die.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:55:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By no_knock556:

Originally Posted By MrMojoRising:
Nothing simple about that fancy new fangled rifle you posted. Magazine springs can and will fail at the worst possible time, as will buffer springs and extractors and rear sight of every sort. This is what you need if you really want to keep it simple. Everything else is just a fad.

www.hr1871.com/firearms/large/Pard410.jpg



That was the very first firearm I had of my own. H&R Topper 12 gauge. Paid cash for it when I was thirteen years old. Come to think of it, that was my first trip into a gunshop, too. Wow, what events that set in motion...

ETA: To bring this post back to the premise of the thread, I used to hunt with a guy who swore by his old H&R. He wouldn't own a semi-auto shotgun and didn't care for pumps, since we had to plug them anyway. With that single shot and two extra rounds in his off hand, he could fire that damned thing just about as fast as a pump. How's THAT for KISS?





I posted that as a joke but I have to admit, I have about 2k twelve gauge shells thru my H&R/NEF single shot with zero issues. It points naturally and fits me better than most high dollar autos. I really only use it for busting clays but it's a clay killer extraordinaire. Clay birds fear the single barrel!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:29:08 AM EDT
I knew it was intended as a joke, but I had to post up anyway...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:18:29 AM EDT
When you see video footage or pics of Israeli troops in action...don't their M16's wear A1 sights? I'm not dogging whatever you choose to hang off of your rifle, but KISS (in combat) is good. Now, I need to go order a A1 upper with 16" barrel from Bushmaster. Something simple, light and rugged.

dvo
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:23:53 AM EDT
Wow, this is a rough neighborhood!
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:28:28 AM EDT
If you really want simple, carry a rock.

All kidding aside, I think the KISS principle is really a balancing act. Everybody likes to have features on their gear, and the more the better. The trick is to add features while minimizing the risk of feature-related failure.

The OP mentioned BUIS as an example of an add-on that can break. That much is true. But the whole idea of a BUIS is that it is a BACK UP. The chance of both your primary optic and BUIS failing simultaneously is very small, probably smaller than just an A1 sight failing...they are not immune to failures either. A good knock can break off a front sight post or cause any number of other problems.

Add things that make the gun more functional, but don't trust they will always be there.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 10:39:24 AM EDT
I'm glad you found a rifle set up that you enjoy. I for one have no plans on hitting the "sandbox" and fighting with my rifle. Outside of a true SHTF/TEOTWAWKI situation I will do nothing with my rifle outside of taking it to the range or the occasional 3-gun match.

Granted, it's a "battle-rifle" but I don't forsee myself ever going into "battle" with it. For that matter if I was ever forced into a situation like that I would rather have my .308 with a good scope any day of the week and twice on Sunday's.

To each his own, but don't take it as a personal offense when someone wants to hang a light off of their rifle. As someone said, if you want simple take a rock, but even that might break if you have to hit someone too many times.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:01:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 11:02:30 AM EDT by edwin247]

Originally Posted By MrMorden:
If you really want simple, carry a rock.



My vote is for a Club. If cavemen trusted them, I should too.

For a KISS AR, I am keeping my Colt LE6933 in the stock configuration. I trust the A2 sights more then I believe Zombies will attack me.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:10:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dvo:
When you see video footage or pics of Israeli troops in action...don't their M16's wear A1 sights? I'm not dogging whatever you choose to hang off of your rifle, but KISS (in combat) is good. Now, I need to go order a A1 upper with 16" barrel from Bushmaster. Something simple, light and rugged.

dvo




Have you seen the video footage of our troops with aimpoints, peq2's, buis's, etc? Simplicity is good, but using technology as a force multiplier is better...
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:14:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 11:16:30 AM EDT by -spooky-]
I have nothing against the KISS concept. But why not build according to your wants/needs? Here's what I ended up with...not too heavy, adjustable, and can accept a scope:
http://www.fotothing.com/photos/cc4/cc4a8016fbb638cd1692be356ff0e2b8.jpg
It's not simple as can be, but so what! It's all in what you plan to use it for, IMHO.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:26:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:31:07 AM EDT
I have seen an A2 lose it's zero simply from rubbing against the chest of the shooter. He zeroed it on TD1 and on TD5 he was missing the Silhouette at 300m.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:44:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I have seen an A2 lose it's zero simply from rubbing against the chest of the shooter. He zeroed it on TD1 and on TD5 he was missing the Silhouette at 300m.



Must have been a lefty, huh?
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 11:53:45 AM EDT
I guess I'm one of the guys in the prior thread who made the last thread ridiculous insofar as I posted a midlength carbine with BUIS, adj. stock and (gasp!), an Eotech.

I just wanted to thank you for pointing out that my carbine really isn't "simple."

Since I clearly posted it in the wrong thread, I can now post it again in another thread without feeling guilty about posting it twice.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:01:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 0612Devil:

Originally Posted By dvo:
When you see video footage or pics of Israeli troops in action...don't their M16's wear A1 sights? I'm not dogging whatever you choose to hang off of your rifle, but KISS (in combat) is good. Now, I need to go order a A1 upper with 16" barrel from Bushmaster. Something simple, light and rugged.

dvo




Have you seen the video footage of our troops with aimpoints, peq2's, buis's, etc? Simplicity is good, but using technology as a force multiplier is better...



Yes, and I have a flat top carbine with skinny barrel, ARMs 40, and Aimpoint. Also HBAR with 4X BDC scope, so it's not as if I have not been taken in by gadgets. Simple can be good though. A buddy is a USMC vet from the Vietnam era. He can find no fault with A1 sights and acquired an early SP1 some years ago. We talk about him getting a new upper with A2, etc., but he just doesn't feel that he needs it. He witnessed the effectiveness of the A1/ M193 combo in Vietnam and feels well protected.

Jeff
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:01:46 PM EDT
I agree with Paladin. I was expecting to see ultra simple rifles. When I saw a collapsing stock I thought "That's not as simple as it could be." I'm not saying an M4 stock or an A2 sight is fragile and likely to break. Just that that are less simple than an A2 stock and an A1 sight.

I guess the thread was Keep It Semi-Simple.

For some reason I'm remained of a thread on an African game hunting board. This kid asked why they spend so much money making every last detail of their dangerous game hunting rifles reliable. Then they top them off with variable power scopes that not only have more parts to go wrong but can be set at high power when low power is needed. He caught them on an obvious contradiction but they sure didn't want to hear it from someone who'd never been there.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:04:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I have seen an A2 lose it's zero simply from rubbing against the chest of the shooter. He zeroed it on TD1 and on TD5 he was missing the Silhouette at 300m.



Must have been a lefty, huh?



Nope, but you're thinking along the right track. He uses a KAC single point sling and rotates the right side of the rifle against his body so it will sit still.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:17:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 12:22:11 PM EDT by new-arguy]
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 12:29:52 PM EDT
I disagree with you on 2 points.

1) I love A2 uppers and have a general distaste for A1's. Personal preference, really.

2) It obviously doesn't get too cold in Texas if you can't understand the merits of an adjustable stock for use with heavy clothing. I typically love the A2 stock (I hate the A1 because of the rounded buttplate and shorter length) but with 3 or 4 layers of clothing on when it's 10 below outside, it's simply too long.

The rest seems pretty much on target, although I would take my EOTech, ARMS #40, collapsible stock, MIAD gripped, Midlength if I ever had to take only one rifle and get the hell out of Dodge.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 2:57:58 PM EDT
As I said, geared up rifles do have a place.

I was not trying to knock anyone in particulars pet project, merely pointing out that a KISS rifle can be much more murphy proof than the general trend of the prior thread. Comments about the usefullness of 800 meter sights on a 5.56 carbine again demonstrate something is just not being communicated here. Is it that hard to grasp the difference between something that is MORE COMPLICATED THAN NEEDED as opposed to something that does what needs done with a minimum of complexity?

"Personal preference" is not the determiner of whether an A1 sight is simpler than an A2 one. One is not better or worse than the other. Choose what works for YOU, just recognize that when you ARE picking complexity over completely adequate simplicity, and introducing the POTENTIAL for your zero to be inadvertantly shifted when an A2 is "chosen".

Does comparing a fixed stock with no moving parts against a folding stock still confuse anyone? The question is NOT which is needed, rather which is SIMPLE compared to complex. It is not a value judgement that one is superior to the other. My endorsement of a fixed stock as being more KISS is NOT a condemnation of your choice that is based on your needs. "Our" opinions don't matter, it is just applying logic about which is less complex.

Inferring that I am against modified weapons in general is an incorrect assumption, as I have built "special" guns as well as practical ones. KISS means simple. The beauty of Arfs is their modularity, which is why there is no reason to call something KISS when it's not. And a KISS build is only moments away from being as geared up as your wallet allows by pushing out the pivot pins and replacing the upper.

No offense was intended, I was just trying to stimulate thought along more practical, reliable and simple lines, which is what KISS is all about. So who amongst us thinks the Colt 652 is NOT the most KISS carbine possible?

Paladin
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 3:02:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WIZZO_ARAKM14:

2) It obviously doesn't get too cold in Texas if you can't understand the merits of an adjustable stock for use with heavy clothing.

WIZZO



Last week, it was about 85 and sunny the first day I shot, and about 95 and sunny the second. I can understand the merits of folders for those who actually use them for adjusting the length of pull. And I always loved how mine would pull beard hairs from my cheek. Stay warm.

Paladin
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:32:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 4:33:49 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Bradd_D:
You need a bolt action and some Prozac.




No shit - how is a complicated, gas-operated, rotating-bolt semi-auto even remotely related to "simplicity"?

If you want KISS, get a Mauser - but don't get one of those super-complicated Enfields, with a detachable mag



Just picking on ya - I understand you point, but think you are being a little nitpicky with the A1 vs A2 sights.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:50:54 PM EDT
As far as I can tell, the ONLY thing complicated about an A2 rear sight is the elevation system-and it would be hard to screw that up without trying. The windage system is very close to that of the A1 rear sight with the exception that you can adjust it without a tool of any kind (not counting your fingers, of course-but you CAN adjust it with gloves on). So yes, it is more complex than an A1 sight, but not so much that it's beyond the KISS principle. And it has a very KISS-centered advantage: it's easy to get fairly newly manufactured parts for an A2 sight (and an A2 upper, for that matter) while A1 sight parts are getting somewhat more scarce of late, and an A1 upper is pretty much a special order item.

I'm not at all arguing that you're wrong in stating the A2 sight is more complicated, but I don't see it being that easy to screw up unless the detent springs are goobered or it's been improperly assembled. Since parts and tech data (including employment data) are easily available, I think the A2 sight is still a "KISS-able" part.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 4:58:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WIZZO_ARAKM14:


2) It obviously doesn't get too cold in Texas if you can't understand the merits of an adjustable stock for use with heavy clothing. I typically love the A2 stock (I hate the A1 because of the rounded buttplate and shorter length) but with 3 or 4 layers of clothing on when it's 10 below outside, it's simply too long.


WIZZO



What about putting an A2 plate on an A1...or trying a Sully stock? Might suit your needs.

I used to shoot fixed stocks, but I can't stand them now. I barely extend my M4 or M93 stocks, if at all. Having the option to go long or short is tops for me. I need to try a Sully though.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:01:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 5:10:44 PM EDT by STG77]

Originally Posted By PALADIN-hgwt:
No offense was intended, I was just trying to stimulate thought along more practical, reliable and simple lines, which is what KISS is all about. So who amongst us thinks the Colt 652 is NOT the most KISS carbine possible?




I think not having a forward assist is dumb, and I don't understand why a collapsible stock can't be "KISS". If you don't want to collapse it, don't.

I nominate the Colt 653 or the Diemaco C8.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:21:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 5:30:10 PM EDT by RolandofGilead]

merely pointing out that a KISS rifle can be much more murphy proof


Well, not if that pesky thing that happens every 12-16 hours keeps happening.....night that is.

Seriously though, if you have thought out your gear choices wisely, and you purchase top tier gear, I would think that a KISS rifle may be more of a liability.

Also, I don't think anybody is arguing that your choice is the simplest of the simple (as far as ARs go) we're just discussing the whole principle.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:29:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 5:30:44 PM EDT by WIZZO_ARAKM14]

Originally Posted By Gimme_A_Carbine:

What about putting an A2 plate on an A1...or trying a Sully stock? Might suit your needs.

Having the option to go long or short is tops for me.



I usually run the 6 position stock in the 2nd or 3rd position when I'm layered up, so a modified A1 stock will still be too long.

But, when it's warmer than 40 degrees and I'm only wearing a t-shirt or sweatshirt (yes, 40 is warm enough for t-shirts up here) the A2 is just fine. It seems that sweatshirts are OK, but jackets and heavy coats add too much bulk for a fixed stock to work well.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 5:46:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PALADIN-hgwt:
The prior thread became ridiculous.

Why do you guys think an A2 rear sight is "simple", when compared to the "zero loss-proof" A1 style?

Why do you guys think a detachable carry handle, again with A2 sights, is KISS compatible?

Bolt on BUIS, again why consider it "simple" when bolts-ons are involved that can and will come apart at the worst possible time. The simple durability of A1 sights is evident, but what is "simple" about something intricate and fragile like folding BUIS?

How about a well designed BUIS, properly attached with thread lock.

Using a folding stock when you do NOT require adjustable length of pull to accomodate clothing or armour is not simple, it merely insures that when the weapon must be deployed, the un-needed decision about opening or closing the stock is present, instead of the "shoulder, point, and shoot" simplicity of a fixed stock.

If you think adjusting a stock is complicated, how do you tie your shoes? It only has a max of six settings. Mine never moves.

"Geared up" rifles have a place, but calling them KISS makes me wonder if you guys really understand just how "optional and unneccessary" most Arf mods are when the goal is MOZ past 200 yards. I nominate the Colt 652 as the penultimate KISS carbine as it is the only version without "complexity adding features which do NOT increase the hit potential".

ARs should be good to 300m plus in competent hands. Durable optics designed to be simple with BUIS are not "optional and unnecessary," they are "combat multipliers."

Here's a picture of my KISS carbine. Built by adhering to the following principles.

Simple: 1)uncomplicated 2)easy to do or understand 3)without additions 4) not ornate; plain 5) not showy, natural 6)ordinary CHEAP

My ARs are uncomplicated, easy to use, not ornate or showy (WTF IS A NATURAL AR?) (OR ORDINARY?), and the additions are all of the above.

"Proned out" in the dirt with irons and ball ammo I was shooting mid-90's scores on SR-1 targets at 100 yards last week with essentially the same configuration, so "SIMPLE" is very effective IMO.

BRAVO.




The real question is... do you have the tactical knowledge to use a rifle effectively... being able to shoot straight with a reliable rifle will get you nowhere unless you know when, where and how to engage any targets.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 9:19:32 PM EDT
The A2 sight is a less than ideal battle sight. IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" adjustment. I just don't see myself adjusting my sights to engage targets at 600 meters as opposed to using Kentucky Windage. I feel the same way about A2 sights as I do about the sights on the 03 Springfield. Great for Camp Perry, but too "national match" for combat. I have knocked by sights out of zero plenty of times, mostly getting snagged on my single point or chest rig. I

have it marked so I can reset it, but there are times where I don't notice it. If a guy jumps out with an RPG, this could cost you your life. There is something to be said about the simplicity of A1 sights and they are ideal battle sights. While I own/enjoy combat optics, they can and will break and always at the worst possible time. I am building a SHTF/KISS rifle right now. I am using a Bushmaster C7 upper on a Bushy lower. Its going to have a 1/7 chrome lined .gov profile with A1 flash hider. To top it off, its going to have A1 furniture for the awesome retro look/feel. I picked the rifle instead of the carbine for increase fragmentation and longer sight radius, plus I think there is nothing greater than a bone stock M16A1 or A2, just awesome weapons. The 1/7 barrel will also let me shoot any ammo I want, especially 75grn BH. I haven't decided which apeture I will use, I have considered a same-plane set up, or possibly a A2 night sight setup. I will use this as my go-to weapon in case of emergency. While I understand the benefits of accessories, there is definatly such a thing as too much. For defensive use, I think simpler is better and in a Hurrican Katrina type situation, all hell will be breaking loose. The last thing I want to worry about is my weapon working or its accessories failing.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:13:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 4:45:10 AM EDT by PALADIN-hgwt]

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
The A2 sight is a less than ideal battle sight. IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" adjustment. I just don't see myself adjusting my sights to engage targets at 600 meters as opposed to using Kentucky Windage. I feel the same way about A2 sights as I do about the sights on the 03 Springfield. Great for Camp Perry, but too "national match" for combat. I have knocked by sights out of zero plenty of times, mostly getting snagged on my single point or chest rig. I

have it marked so I can reset it, but there are times where I don't notice it. If a guy jumps out with an RPG, this could cost you your life. There is something to be said about the simplicity of A1 sights and they are ideal battle sights. While I own/enjoy combat optics, they can and will break and always at the worst possible time. I am building a SHTF/KISS rifle right now. I am using a Bushmaster C7 upper on a Bushy lower. Its going to have a 1/7 chrome lined .gov profile with A1 flash hider. To top it off, its going to have A1 furniture for the awesome retro look/feel. I picked the rifle instead of the carbine for increase fragmentation and longer sight radius, plus I think there is nothing greater than a bone stock M16A1 or A2, just awesome weapons. The 1/7 barrel will also let me shoot any ammo I want, especially 75grn BH. I haven't decided which apeture I will use, I have considered a same-plane set up, or possibly a A2 night sight setup. I will use this as my go-to weapon in case of emergency. While I understand the benefits of accessories, there is definatly such a thing as too much. For defensive use, I think simpler is better and in a Hurrican Katrina type situation, all hell will be breaking loose. The last thing I want to worry about is my weapon working or its accessories failing.



At least this poster states WHY he made his choices. And he did not use subjective terms like "dumb". The point that is still escaping some is that a basic weapon, WEILDED BY SOMEONE WHO IS CAPABLE, is not a disadvantage. Even at night! You guys must think that before mounted weapon sights every night-time encounter met with disaster.

The impression I get from the comments, correct me if I'm wrong, it that the "gear crowd" is saying THEY ARE NOT CAPABLE with a basic weapon? Sorry about that. And personally, if it takes you hundreds of dollars in modifications to "feel adequate about yourself" there is nothing wrong with that. Just be aware, and accept that SOME SHOOTERS DON'T NEED YOUR CRUTCHES TO PERFORM. If that bothers you on any level, I would suggest spending some time developing and refining basic marksmanship skills with your irons.

Paladin


ETA:dang, I just realized part of the confusion! "military and LEO" requirements can not really be met with a KISS carbine. and every last one of you with A2 sights and folders are "in uniform". just kidding.

seriously, I understand that certain users have mission specifc needs, even civilians. so a KISS carbine might not always be what one needs. I previously mentioned 200 yard MOZ, and that covers such a large segment of potential 5.56 carbine "needs" that for me I feel it suffices
.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:45:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ryno_the_wyno:
The A2 sight is a less than ideal battle sight. IMO, there is such a thing as "too much" adjustment. I just don't see myself adjusting my sights to engage targets at 600 meters as opposed to using Kentucky Windage. I feel the same way about A2 sights as I do about the sights on the 03 Springfield. Great for Camp Perry, but too "national match" for combat. I have knocked by sights out of zero plenty of times, mostly getting snagged on my single point or chest rig. I

have it marked so I can reset it, but there are times where I don't notice it. If a guy jumps out with an RPG, this could cost you your life. There is something to be said about the simplicity of A1 sights and they are ideal battle sights. While I own/enjoy combat optics, they can and will break and always at the worst possible time. I am building a SHTF/KISS rifle right now. I am using a Bushmaster C7 upper on a Bushy lower. Its going to have a 1/7 chrome lined .gov profile with A1 flash hider. To top it off, its going to have A1 furniture for the awesome retro look/feel. I picked the rifle instead of the carbine for increase fragmentation and longer sight radius, plus I think there is nothing greater than a bone stock M16A1 or A2, just awesome weapons. The 1/7 barrel will also let me shoot any ammo I want, especially 75grn BH. I haven't decided which apeture I will use, I have considered a same-plane set up, or possibly a A2 night sight setup. I will use this as my go-to weapon in case of emergency. While I understand the benefits of accessories, there is definatly such a thing as too much. For defensive use, I think simpler is better and in a Hurrican Katrina type situation, all hell will be breaking loose. The last thing I want to worry about is my weapon working or its accessories failing.



If you are planning for a SHTF bug out situation and long term 1/7 twist is less then ideal.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:00:53 AM EDT
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:11:49 AM EDT
The bottom line is KISS won't get you any attention at the range. The LOOK AT ME syndrome sufferers will never buy into KISS.

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 5:15:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Elevation. Windage.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:16:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Because they put the yellow glasses crowd in charge of weapon development.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:43:08 AM EDT
so you're saying that a rifle with a light has no advantage over a rifle with out at night?

If you have an aimpoint/eotech and it breaks and all you have to do is now use the iron sights that were there the whole time as back up, how is that a disadvatage? Wouldn't you like to have faster target aqcuisition while it lasts?
Ask anyone who has been to combat and I think they will tell you that they would like to have a light and an optic, maybe a VG but that is subjective.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:09:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Because they put the yellow glasses crowd in charge of weapon development.



Wrong.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:13:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Because they put the yellow glasses crowd in charge of weapon development.



Wrong.



Actually I am right, and 1/7 twist is a good thing. The only downside comes when using very light varmint bullets.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:40:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Because they put the yellow glasses crowd in charge of weapon development.



Wrong.



Actually I am right, and 1/7 twist is a good thing. The only downside comes when using very light varmint bullets.



And if its a SHTF bugging out situation, what gonna be on the Big 5 sporting goods shelfs. 77 grain match rounds or 45 grain varmint rounds?

And no actually you are wrong about the development of the A2 site. The A1 site had its limitations and is antiquated. Yes its simple. But thats it. You might as well argue the AK site is better because its so rugged. The simple leaf blade front site with a V notch back site. Why dont we go back to that?

The A2 sight isnt perfect, but its better then the A1 sight.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:43:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
And if its a SHTF bugging out situation, what gonna be on the Big 5 sporting goods shelfs. 77 grain match rounds or 45 grain varmint rounds?


If you're waiting to get ammo until the moment of 'bugging out' along with the 10 million other idiots who didn't have the sense to think ahead, then you might as well kiss your posterior good-by right now.


The A2 sight isnt perfect, but its better then the A1 sight.

Maybe for match shooting on the manicured lawns of the CMP ...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 7:45:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
If A1 sights are so great, why did the military get rid of them?



Because they put the yellow glasses crowd in charge of weapon development.



Wrong.



Actually I am right, and 1/7 twist is a good thing. The only downside comes when using very light varmint bullets.



And if its a SHTF bugging out situation, what gonna be on the Big 5 sporting goods shelfs. 77 grain match rounds or 45 grain varmint rounds?

And no actually you are wrong about the development of the A2 site. The A1 site had its limitations and is antiquated. Yes its simple. But thats it. You might as well argue the AK site is better because its so rugged. The simple leaf blade front site with a V notch back site. Why dont we go back to that?

The A2 sight isnt perfect, but its better then the A1 sight.



Considering how many A2 sights have been used in the military over the years....I'd venture to say that Joe Civilian would have to put that AR through some pretty rugged abuse to bust em apart.

All this hoopla trying to justify the benefits of an A1 sight over an A2....

If you won't be shooting over 200 yards, get an A1....or....get an A2.

Windage. Elevation. You like - you buy.

I wouldn't take the arguement much past that.

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:06:12 AM EDT
Funny. Look into who commissioned the A2 "upgrades." Look at the stock that is too long, the sights that are too complex, the barrel that is both too long and too heavy...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:08:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MrMojoRising:
Nothing simple about that fancy new fangled rifle you posted. Magazine springs can and will fail at the worst possible time, as will buffer springs and extractors and rear sight of every sort. This is what you need if you really want to keep it simple. Everything else is just a fad.

www.hr1871.com/firearms/large/Pard410.jpg



I wish I had a picture of a rock or a pointy stick to post here. KISS!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top