Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/8/2002 4:21:25 PM EDT
is there mutch diffrence in the a1 sights then in the a2 sights. if so wich one is better?
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 6:52:50 PM EDT
A BIG difference between A1 and A2 rear sights. The A1's require a tool for windage adjustment - and the only elevation adjustment is flipping from the Short range aperture to the Long range aperture. This type of sight is THE BEST for field work (i.e. combat, hunting, and plinking) as you can't accidentally knock it off, and its more durable.

The A2 sights can be adjusted for windage by a knob (in 1/2 the increments of the A1 model) and can be adjusted for elevation (dial in a range). This sight is the BEST for Known Distance target competitons (this is why the Marines demanded it in the first place). I don't think it has any real purpose on a combat rifle.

A1 FRONT sights are round and have 5 clicks per rotation (for a 1" adjustment per click at 100 yards).

A2 FRONT sights are square and have 4 clicks per rotatin (for a 1.25" adjustmer per click at 100 yards).

The A1 gives finer adjustments, the A2 offers a better sight profile. Personally I think the A2 front sight is superior.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 6:57:44 PM EDT
Forest just learnt me something!

Thanks Forest!
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 7:04:26 PM EDT
Yes, thanks also Forest. I knew what the rear was, but I didn't know about the front sight.
Link Posted: 4/8/2002 9:52:05 PM EDT
So in closing:

A1 sights = Ideal for careless grunts and those who are unable to keep their grubby mitts off wheels, knobs, and shiny objects.

A2 sights = The choice of riflemen and skilled operators who know how to use them.

That about sums it up.
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 6:56:11 AM EDT
Well you could say that Boomer but there is a bit more to it. One can also say:

A1 sight = sight for the real soldiers.

A2 sight = sight for target shooters and tinkerers attracted to gadgets.

It is my experience that there is no place in warfare for the A2 rear sight. I am not alone in that opinion, the Canadian army and the Israeli army both rejected the A2 rear sight.

Warfare is not target shooting. What is needed is a pre-set battle zero on the rifle sights and then have the confidence that the sights are going to stay set right there. On a flat-shooting 5.56mm this is even more obvious. There is virtually no bullet drop out to say 300 meters and a soldier will seldon take a shot at a longer range than that. The A1 sights can be adjusted with a bullet tip, don't need a "special tool" . When it comes to something like the M4, the simple, clean, unabtrusive and RELIABLE A1 sight is even more imperative. Unfortunately the US Army (in which I served in the infantry in a war) has about the worst record of providing our men the ideal infantry weapon.

The A2 rear sight is for benchrest shooting. period. I'll take an A1 sight on a combat rifle. I don't even care if it has the flip gizmo.
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 11:07:16 AM EDT
Keep in mind that theer WAS a winking smiley at the end of my post. It was meant to be tongue in cheek.

Saying that there is no place in warfare for the A2 sight is a little extreme. I think our boys have done just great with them for the last nearly 20 years.

The A1 works for most combat purposes. The A2 simply extends those capabilities with no degradation of the weapon's practical combat usefulness.

What we are missing here are the numerous reports of real world failures of the A2 sight system. "What ifs" don't count.
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 11:26:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/9/2002 11:27:53 AM EDT by ThunderStick]
I noticed in the news footage and newspaper photos that the Israelis are using A1's.

I think an advantage to the A1's is that you adjust the sights in at exactly where you want them, and then you can leave them that way forever. Since there are no knobs, the settings will not be accidentally changed by handling or passing your hands and fingers over the settings. Since a tool is required to change the settings on an A1 (at least mine are like this) the sights are always exactly where you want them to be.

Link Posted: 4/9/2002 12:05:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:
So in closing:

A1 sights = Ideal for careless grunts and those who are unable to keep their grubby mitts off wheels, knobs, and shiny objects.

A2 sights = The choice of riflemen and skilled operators who know how to use them.

That about sums it up.



No, A1 is a people killer sight, an A2 is a paper killer sight. I'm a rifleman and a skilled operator. Maybe you need to use 'em than hack 'em. But my weapon is a combat weapon and sends messages 400 yrds and beyond. You have to maintain oil on that A2 sight and keep it clean, easy at a range.
GG
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 1:00:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gun Guru:
You have to maintain oil on that A2 sight and keep it clean, easy at a range.



Once again, "what ifs" don't count. I've never oiled an A2 sight. Not once in 15 years of using them. Ever. Never had a problem as a result. Perhaps a little CLP worked it's way into them while cleaning, but I never directly applied any sort of lubricant or protectant to the sights or their adjusting mechanisms themselves.

Could you please provide a real world example of this having been a problem?
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 2:07:56 PM EDT
Whichever you're good with.

I prefer A2 sights.
I never had to adjust them other than to zero.

I've got over a hundred jumps, including one in combat. I've fast roped, rapelled, fallen ass over head off a moving 113, even beat a guy with one. Never once did it effect my zero.

I don't think it is a big deal either way. Use what you've got, and be good at it.

Link Posted: 4/9/2002 2:18:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:

A1 sights = Ideal for careless grunts and those who are unable to keep their grubby mitts off wheels, knobs, and shiny objects.




This would be great for my friend. He wanted to get an M4gery like mine. I have A2 sights on the carryhandle and that is the first thing he went for. Needless to say, I had to spend alittle time re-zeroing it after he got through adjusting things for me...idiot
Link Posted: 4/9/2002 3:16:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crumabn:
I don't think it is a big deal either way. Use what you've got, and be good at it.



Probably the wisest and most fitting comment thus far.

Bravo.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 2:53:36 AM EDT
The A2 large aperture is also much more conducive to rapid sight acquisition during CQB shooting. Look at the extremely large ghost ring on the 9mm Colts, which were designed for 50 meters in in. If you are doing accurate CQB shooting with irons only, the A2 sight is a much better choice.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 5:52:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By natez:
The A2 large aperture is also much more conducive to rapid sight acquisition during CQB shooting. Look at the extremely large ghost ring on the 9mm Colts, which were designed for 50 meters in in. If you are doing accurate CQB shooting with irons only, the A2 sight is a much better choice.



Or you do what some of us like to do and swap out the A1 aperture for the A2 aperture. Then you get the same QCB capability in a lighter more durable package.

Best done with the Ashely Same Plane A2 Aperture (about $30),both holes are centered on the same line, so you don't change the zero when you switch from the small hole to the large ghost ring.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 11:43:53 AM EDT



Or you do what some of us like to do and swap out the A1 aperture for the A2 aperture. Then you get the same QCB capability in a lighter more durable package.



You beat me to it !
I like the old A1 rifle with the A2 ghost-ring 0-200 meter arpeture and front sight post.

Simple and fast.
That's how My old Colt SP-1 is set up.
Link Posted: 4/10/2002 1:55:04 PM EDT
A2 sights are nicer for target shooting but don't have any tactical advantage over the A1 style.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 3:12:19 PM EDT
CQB is fo idiots and people that have to do it. Your chance for survival is lower than engaging your target in the 250 to 400 yard range. If people shoot regularly those ranges are easy. Thats why I dont like CQB friendly sights.
GG
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 5:59:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gun Guru:
CQB is fo idiots and people that have to do it.



That pretty much sums me up.

Seriously, your weapon needs to be configured for what you use it for. I don't wind up in situations where I need to engage at 250-400 meters, and if I did engage someone at those ranges, my chances of a "no-bill" from the Grand Jury would be slim. 100 yards is generally considered the maximum range at which a "reasonable" person should engage a deadly force threat when armed with a non-scoped long gun. I am not saying that shots on the battlefield don't frequently occur at longer ranges, and that there isn't some sound logic to engaging at longer ranges, but it isn't something that comes up too often off the battlefield.

Average range for a police gunfight is about 3-5 yards.

Average range for a police sniper engagement is about 80 yards.

Average range for US military small arms enagagements is a target exposed for 2-6 seconds at about 60 yards.

I have never even seen a deadly force threat at more than 50 yards, and most of the folks I have pointed weapons at were from 3 to 15 yards. My issued M16 is set-up for those ranges-large aperture rear sight and an EOTech. If I needed to shoot longer than 100 yards, and can always use the 1 MOA dot or flip to the small aperture on the irons. I also would need some major justification for flinging out a round at something that far out. If I worked in a more rural area, I might think differently.

Unfortunately, some of us are idiots and we have to do CQB. Our tools match our needs.
Top Top